The 22 February 2011, Mw6.2 Christchurch earthquake is the most costly earthquake to affect New Zealand, causing an estimated 181 fatalities and severely damaging thousands of residential and commercial buildings. This paper presents a summary of some of the observations made by the NSF-sponsored GEER Team regarding the geotechnical/geologic aspects of this earthquake. The Team focused on documenting the occurrence and severity of liquefaction and lateral spreading, performance of building and bridge foundations, buried pipelines and levees, and significant rockfalls and landslides. Liquefaction was pervasive and caused extensive damage to residential properties, water and wastewater networks, high-rise buildings, and bridges. Entire neighborhoods subsided, resulting in flooding that caused further damage. Additionally, liquefaction and lateral spreading resulted in damage to bridges and to stretches of levees along the Waimakariri and Kaiapoi Rivers. Rockfalls and landslides in the Port Hills damaged several homes and caused several fatalities.
This paper examines the consistency of seismicity and ground motion models, used for seismic hazard analysis in New Zealand, with the observations in the Canterbury earthquakes. An overview is first given of seismicity and ground motion modelling as inputs of probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, whose results form the basis for elastic response spectra in NZS1170.5:2004. The magnitude of earthquakes in the Canterbury earthquake sequence are adequately allowed for in the current NZ seismicity model, however the consideration of ‘background’ earthquakes as point sources at a minimum depth of 10km results in up to a 60% underestimation of the ground motions that such events produce. The ground motion model used in conventional NZ seismic hazard analysis is shown to provide biased predictions of response spectra (over-prediction near T=0.2s , and under-predictions at moderate-to-large vibration periods). Improved ground motion prediction can be achieved using more recent NZ-specific models.
On the second day of teaching for 2011, the University of Canterbury (UC) faced the most significant crisis of its 138-year history. After being shaken severely by a magnitude 7.1 earthquake on 4 September 2010, UC felt it was well along the pathway to getting back to ‘normal’. That all changed at 12:51pm on 22 February 2011, when Christchurch city was hit by an even more devastating event. A magnitude 6.3 (Modified Mercalli intensity ten – MM X) earthquake, just 13km south-east of the Christchurch city centre, caused vertical peak ground accelerations amongst the highest ever recorded in an urban environment, in some places more than twice the acceleration due to gravity. The earthquake caused immediate evacuation of the UC campus and resulted in significant damage to many buildings. Thankfully there were no serious injuries or fatalities on campus, but 185 people died in the city and many more suffered serious injuries. At the time of writing, eighteen months after the first earthquake in September, Christchurch is still experiencing regular earthquakes. Seismologists warn that the region may experience heightened seismicity for a decade or more. While writing this report we have talked with many different people from across the University. People’s experiences are different and we have not managed to talk with everyone, but we hope that by drawing together many different perspectives from across the campus that this report will serve two purposes; to retain our institutional memory of what we have learnt over the past eighteen months, and also to share our learnings with other organisations in New Zealand and around the world who, we hope, will benefit from learning about our experience.
The Canterbury earthquakes are unique in that the there have been a series of major earthquakes, each with their own subsequent aftershock pattern. These have extended from the first large earthquake in September 2010 to currently, at the time of writing, two years later. The last significant earthquake of over magnitude 5.0 on the Richter scale was in May on 2012, and the total number of aftershocks has exceeded 12,000. The consequences, in addition to the loss of life, significant injury and widespread damage, have been far reaching and long term, with detrimental effects and still uncertain effects for many. This provides unique challenges for individuals, communities, organisations and institutions within Canterbury. This document reviews research-based understandings of the concept of resilience. A conceptual model is developed which identifies a number of the factors that influence individual and household resilience. Guided by the model, a series of recommendations are developed for practices that will support individual and household resilience in Canterbury in the aftermath of the 2010-2011 earthquakes.
Under the caption, young people carrying their baggage flutter into the air, away from Canterbury and toward 'Oz'.
In September GNS Earth Sciences reported that after the earthquakes, the Greendale and associated faults were still moving as they settled into a new configuration. At the same time the young were leaving Canterbury (and New Zealand) for a better future in Australia. The population of New Zealand was moving into a new configuration.
Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).
In this paper we introduce CityViewAR, a mobile outdoor Augmented Reality (AR) application for providing AR information visualization on a city scale. The CityViewAR application was developed to provide geographical information about the city of Christchurch, which was hit by several major earthquakes in 2010 and 2011. The application provides information about destroyed buildings and historical sites that were affected by the earthquakes. The geo-located content is provided in a number of formats including 2D map views, AR visualization of 3D models of buildings on-site, immersive panorama photographs, and list views. The paper describes the iterative design and implementation details of the application, and gives one of the first examples of a study comparing user response to AR and non-AR viewing in a mobile tourism application. Results show that making such information easily accessible to the public in a number of formats could help people to have richer experience about cities. We provide guidelines that will be useful for people developing mobile AR applications for city-scale tourism or outdoor guiding, and discuss how the underlying technology could be used for applications in other areas.
