A video of a conversation between John Hamilton, National Controller of the Civil Defence Emergency Response, and Dr Sonia Giovinazzi, Research Fellow at the Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering at the University of Canterbury. Hamilton and Giovinazzi discuss the Civil Defence's response to the 22 February 2011 earthquake and the lessons that they learned.The video includes footage from the Ministry of Civil Defence (licenced under Creative Commons Attribute 3.0 New Zealand).
Description: Observations of RC building performance in recent earthquakes with a special focus on the devastating events in Christchurch, New Zealand. These events have highlighted the complexity of post-earthquake decisions for damaged buildings and the impacts on communities. The presentation will reflect on factors influencing demolition decisions and emerging challenges for the earthquake engineering community. http://atc-sei.org/
This article argues that active coordination of research engagement after disasters has the potential to maximize research opportunities, improve research quality, increase end-user engagement, and manage escalating research activity to mitigate ethical risks posed to impacted populations. The focus is on the coordination of research activity after the 22nd February 2011 Mw6.2 Christchurch earthquake by the then newly-formed national research consortium, the Natural Hazards Research Platform, which included a social science research moratorium during the declared state of national emergency. Decisions defining this organisation’s functional and structural parameters are analyzed to identify lessons concerning the need for systematic approaches to the management of post disaster research, in collaboration with the response effort. Other lessons include the importance of involving an existing, broadly-based research consortium, ensuring that this consortium's coordination role is fully integrated into emergency management structures, and ensuring that all aspects of decision-making processes are transparent and easily accessed.
Data from the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence (CES) provides an unprecedented opportunity to assess and advance the current state of practice for evaluating liquefaction triggering. Towards this end, select case histories from the CES are used herein to assess the predictive capabilities of three alternative CPT-based simplified liquefaction evaluation procedures: Robertson and Wride (1998); Moss et al. (2006); and Idriss and Boulanger (2008). Additionally, the Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) framework for predicting the severity of surficial liquefaction manifestations is also used to assess the predictive capabilities of the liquefaction evaluation procedures. Although it is not without limitations, use of the LPI framework for this purpose circumvents the need for selecting “critical” layers and their representative properties for study sites, which inherently involves subjectivity and thus has been a point of contention among researchers. It was found that while all the assessed liquefaction triggering evaluation procedures performed well for the parameter ranges of the sites analyzed, the procedure proposed by Idriss and Boulanger (2008) yielded predictions that are more consistent with field observations than the other procedures. However, use of the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure in conjunction with a Christchurch-specific correlation to estimate fines content showed a decreased performance relative to using a generic fines content correlation. As a result, the fines correction for the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) procedure needs further study.
As the fourth anniversary of the earthquake which devastated Christchurch approaches, the slow pace of the rebuild has surprised many. But how quickly have other earthquake hit cities returned to their former glory? Radio New Zealand Christchurch reporter, Rachel Graham, visited Japan for an Insight documentary to compare the progress made in the Sendai area, almost four years after it was hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake and a mega tsunami. She also visited Kobe to look at the impact on that city, and the lessons learnt, 20 years after it was hit by a major earthquake.
On 22 February 2011, the second day of the first semester, a devastating magnitude 6.2 earthquake struck the city of Christchurch forcing the campus of the University of Canterbury to close for several weeks. Here, we report on the sudden curriculum and assessment overhaul that needed to be implemented using two large, first-year introductory courses as case studies. We discuss the reasoning and justifications behind these changes, as well as the logistics of this process. We draw conclusions based on student feedback and assessments and formulate lessons learnt.
A major lesson from the 2011 Christchurch earthquake was the apparent lack of ductility of some lightly reinforced concrete (RC) wall structures. In particular, the structural behaviour of the critical wall in the Gallery Apartments building demonstrated that the inelastic deformation capacity of a structure, as well as potentially brittle failure of the reinforcement, is dependent on the level of bond deterioration between reinforcement and surrounding concrete that occurs under seismic loading. This paper presents the findings of an experimental study on bond behaviour between deformed reinforcing bars and the surrounding concrete. Bond strength and relative bond slip was evaluated using 75 pull-out tests under monotonic and cyclic loading. Variations of the experiments include the loading rate, loading history, concrete strength (25 to 70 MPa), concrete age, cover thickness, bar diameter (16 and 20 mm), embedded length, and the position of the embedded bond region within the specimen (deep within or close to free surface). Select test results are presented with inferred implications for RC structures.
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 finds that, despite progress in disaster risk reduction over the last decade “evidence indicates that exposure of persons and assets in all countries has increased faster than vulnerability has decreased, thus generating new risk and a steady rise in disaster losses” (p.4, UNISDR 2015). Fostering cooperation among relevant stakeholders and policy makers to “facilitate a science-policy interface for effective decisionmaking in disaster risk management” is required to achieve two priority areas for action, understanding disaster risk and enhancing disaster preparedness (p. 13, p. 23, UNISDR 2015). In other topic areas, the term science-policy interface is used interchangeably with the term boundary organisation. Both terms are usually used refer to systematic collaborative arrangements used to manage the intersection, or boundary, between science and policy domains, with the aim of facilitating the joint construction of knowledge to inform decision-making. Informed by complexity theory, and a constructivist focus on the functions and processes that minimize inevitable tensions between domains, this conceptual framework has become well established in fields where large complex issues have significant economic and political consequences, including environmental management, biodiversity, sustainable development, climate change and public health. To date, however, there has been little application of this framework in the disaster risk reduction field. In this doctoral project the boundary management framework informs an analysis of the research response to the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence, focusing on the coordination role of New Zealand’s national Natural Hazards Research Platform. The project has two aims. It uses this framework to tell the nuanced story of the way this research coordination role evolved in response to both the complexity of the unfolding post-disaster environment, and to national policy and research developments. Lessons are drawn from this analysis for those planning and implementing arrangements across the science-policy boundary to manage research support for disaster risk reduction decision-making, particularly after disasters. The second aim is to use this case study to test the utility of the boundary management framework in the disaster risk reduction context. This requires that terminology and concepts are explained and translated in terms that make this analysis as accessible as possible across the disciplines, domains and sectors involved in disaster risk reduction. Key findings are that the focus on balance, both within organisations, and between organisations and domains, and the emphasis on systemic effects, patterns and trends, offer an effective and productive alternative to the more traditional focus on individual or organisational performance. Lessons are drawn concerning the application of this framework when planning and implementing boundary organisations in the hazard and disaster risk management context.
Improving community resilience requires a way of thinking about the nature of a community. Two complementary aspects are proposed: the flows connecting the community with its surrounding environment and the resources the community needs for its ongoing life. The body of necessary resources is complex, with many interactions between its elements. A systems approach is required to understand the issues adequately. Community resilience is discussed in general terms together with strategies for improving it. The ideas are then illustrated and amplified by an extended case study addressing means of improving the resilience of a community on the West Coast of New Zealand to natural disasters. The case study is in two phases. The first relies on a mix of on-the-ground observations and constructed scenarios to provide recommendations for enhancing community resilience, while the second complements the first by developing a set of general lessons and issues to be addressed from observations of the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010 and 2011.
1. PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: What reports, if any, has he received about KiwiRail's plans to get rid of electric locomotives on the North Island Main Trunk Line and replace them with diesel locomotives?
2. JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Is he considering replacing the electric locomotives with diesel locomotives on the Main Trunk Line, and would this mean removing electrification on that line.
3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy and business sentiment?
4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he believe the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Act 2012 has achieved "a stable, permanent capital base for the Co-operative, secures our future and will support progress with our strategy to grow volumes and value"; if so, why?
5. MATT DOOCEY to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made to improve statutory child protection in New Zealand?
6. Dr DAVID CLARK to the Minister for Economic Development: What lessons, if any, on regional economic development has he drawn from his recent ministerial visits to Northland?
7. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Will he stop any further work on dairy conversions by Landcorp, in light of the drop in the dairy price yesterday and concerns about the impact that those conversions will have on water quality; if not, why not?
8. MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Trade: What recent steps has the Government taken to promote and support New Zealand exporters?
9. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Trade: What monetary and other assistance was provided by the New Zealand Government in support of his bid for appointment as Director-General of the World Trade Organisation?
10. BARBARA KURIGER to the Minister for Small Business: How are small businesses benefiting from the Better for Business - Result 9 Programme?
11. POTO WILLIAMS to the Minister for Social Housing: Why are Christchurch's social housing organisations facing increased homelessness four years after the last major earthquake?
12. MAHESH BINDRA to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by all his answers given to the House on 1 April 2015?
