Transcript of Pamela's earthquake story
Articles, UC QuakeStudies
A pdf transcript of Pamela's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Joshua Black. Transcriber: Maggie Blackwood.
A pdf transcript of Pamela's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Joshua Black. Transcriber: Maggie Blackwood.
A pdf transcript of Gabrielle Moore's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Samuel Hope. Transcriber: Maggie Blackwood.
A pdf transcript of Marnie Kent's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Joshua Black. Transcriber: Caleb Middendorf.
A pdf transcript of John's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Samuel Hope. Transcriber: Natalie Looyer.
A pdf transcript of Liz Kivi's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Joshua Black. Transcriber: Josie Hepburn.
A pdf transcript of Alvin Wade's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Joshua Black. Transcriber: Josie Hepburn.
A pdf transcript of Max Lucas's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Laura Moir. Transcriber: Sarah Woodfield.
A pdf transcript of Betty and Michael's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Samuel Hope. Transcriber: Sarah Woodfield.
A pdf transcript of {participant name/ID}'s second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Joshua Black. Transcriber: Josie Hepburn.
A pdf transcript of Tere Lowe's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Samuel Hope. Transcriber: Lucy Denham.
A pdf transcript of Vic Bartley's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Samuel Hope. Transcriber: Sarah Woodfield.
Christchurch is still struggling 10 years on from the earthquake with vacant spaces and little development. In the surrounding areas of Christchurch in Selwyn, inland and in the Waimakariri District to the north it's boom times, with the councils unable to keep up with building consents. The regions have continued to grow over the last 10 years after people initially moved there after the earthquake to escape the bumpy roads, red zones and EQC battles. RNZ's Sally Murphy reports.
A pdf transcript of Rae Hughes's second earthquake story, captured by the UC QuakeBox Take 2 project. Interviewer: Samuel Hope. Transcriber: Lauren Millar.
As Christchurch prepares to mark 10 years since its deadly earthquake, the impact of that day continues to be felt differently. The less affluent eastern suburbs, which bore the brunt of the damage, continue to lag behind the rest of the city in their recovery. The former dean of Christchurch and fellow east sider, Peter Beck, told Conan Young that while government agencies such as EQC often failed people in their hour of need, what did not fail was the willingness of people to help out their neighbours.
In this thesis, focus is given to develop methodologies for rapidly estimating specific components of loss and downtime functions. The thesis proposes methodologies for deriving loss functions by (i) considering individual component performance; (ii) grouping them as per their performance characteristics; and (iii) applying them to similar building usage categories. The degree of variation in building stock and understanding their characteristics are important factors to be considered in the loss estimation methodology and the field surveys carried out to collect data add value to the study. To facilitate developing ‘downtime’ functions, this study investigates two key components of downtime: (i) time delay from post-event damage assessment of properties; and (ii) time delay in settling the insurance claims lodged. In these two areas, this research enables understanding of critical factors that influence certain aspects of downtime and suggests approaches to quantify those factors. By scrutinising the residential damage insurance claims data provided by the Earthquake Commission (EQC) for the 2010- 2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES), this work provides insights into various processes of claims settlement, the time taken to complete them and the EQC loss contributions to building stock in Christchurch city and Canterbury region. The study has shown diligence in investigating the EQC insurance claim data obtained from the CES to get new insights and build confidence in the models developed and the results generated. The first stage of this research develops contribution functions (probabilistic relationships between the expected losses for a wide range of building components and the building’s maximum response) for common types of claddings used in New Zealand buildings combining the probabilistic density functions (developed using the quantity of claddings measured from Christchurch buildings), fragility functions (obtained from the published literature) and cost functions (developed based on inputs from builders) through Monte Carlo simulations. From the developed contribution functions, glazing, masonry veneer, monolithic and precast concrete cladding systems are found to incur 50% loss at inter-storey drift levels equal to 0.027, 0.003, 0.005 and 0.011, respectively. Further, the maximum expected cladding loss for glazing, masonry veneer, monolithic, precast concrete cladding systems are found to be 368.2, 331.9, 365.0, and 136.2 NZD per square meter of floor area, respectively. In the second stage of this research, a detailed cost breakdown of typical buildings designed and built for different purposes is conducted. The contributions of structural and non- structural components to the total building cost are compared for buildings of different usages, and based on the similar ratios of non-structural performance group costs to the structural performance group cost, four-building groups are identified; (i) Structural components dominant group: outdoor sports, stadiums, parkings and long-span warehouses, (ii) non- structural drift-sensitive components dominant group: houses, single-storey suburban buildings (all usages), theatres/halls, workshops and clubhouses, (iii) non-structural acceleration- sensitive components dominant group: hospitals, research labs, museums and retail/cold stores, and (iv) apartments, hotels, offices, industrials, indoor sports, classrooms, devotionals and aquariums. By statistically analysing the cost breakdowns, performance group weighting factors are proposed for structural, and acceleration-sensitive and drift-sensitive non-structural components for all four building groups. Thus proposed building usage groupings and corresponding weighting factors facilitate rapid seismic loss estimation of any type of building given the EDPs at storey levels are known. A model for the quantification of post-earthquake inspection duration is developed in the third stage of this research. Herein, phase durations for the three assessment phases (one rapid impact and two rapid building) are computed using the number of buildings needing inspections, the number of engineers involved in inspections and a phase duration coefficient (which considers the median building inspection time, efficiency of engineer and the number of engineers involved in each assessment teams). The proposed model can be used: (i) by national/regional authorities to decide the length of the emergency period following a major earthquake, and estimate the number of engineers required to conduct a post-earthquake inspection within the desired emergency period, and (ii) to quantify the delay due to inspection for the downtime modelling framework. The final stage of this research investigates the repair costs and insurance claim settlement time for damaged residential buildings in the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Based on the EQC claim settlement process, claims are categorized into three groups; (i) Small Claims: claims less than NZD15,000 which were settled through cash payment, (ii) Medium Claims: claims less than NZD100,000 which were managed through Canterbury Home Repair Programme (CHRP), and (iii) Large Claims: claims above NZD100,000 which were managed by an insurance provider. The regional loss ratio (RLR) for greater Christchurch for three events inducing shakings of approximate seismic intensities 6, 7, and 8 are found to be 0.013, 0.066, and 0.171, respectively. Furthermore, the claim duration (time between an event and the claim lodgement date), assessment duration (time between the claim lodgement day and the most recent assessment day), and repair duration (time between the most recent assessment day and the repair completion day) for the insured residential buildings in the region affected by the Canterbury earthquake sequence is found to be in the range of 0.5-4 weeks, 1.5- 5 months, and 1-3 years, respectively. The results of this phase will provide useful information to earthquake engineering researchers working on seismic risk/loss and insurance modelling.
This study analyses the Earthquake Commission’s (EQC) insurance claims database to investigate the influence of seismic intensity and property damage resulting from the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) on the repair costs and claim settlement duration for residential buildings. Firstly, the ratio of building repair cost to its replacement cost was expressed as a Building Loss Ratio (BLR), which was further extended to Regional Loss Ratio (RLR) for greater Christchurch by multiplying the average of all building loss ratios with the proportion of building stock that lodged an insurance claim. Secondly, the total time required to settle the claim and the time taken to complete each phase of the claim settlement process were obtained. Based on the database, the regional loss ratio for greater Christchurch for three events producing shakings of intensities 6, 7, and 8 on the modified Mercalli intensity scale were 0.013, 0.066, and 0.171, respectively. Furthermore, small (less than NZD15,000), medium (between NZD15,000 and NZD100,000), and large (more than NZD100,000) claims took 0.35-0.55, 1.95-2.45, and 3.35-3.85 years to settle regardless of the building’s construction period and earthquake intensities. The number of claims was also disaggregated by various building characteristics to evaluate their relative contribution to the damage and repair costs.