Search

found 181 results

Images for stage; more images...

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

Stage IV of the Christchurch liquefaction study updated the Stage II liquefaction hazard and ground damage maps with further data collected from other organisations, and included two additional maps indicating liquefaction sensitivity to groundwater levels. Stage IVa of the Christchurch liquefaction study used revised groundwater levels and adjustments to the liquefaction prediction algorithm. The outputs of the report were liquefaction hazard and ground damage maps for both average summer (low) and average winter (high) groundwater levels. The maps produced as part of Stage IVa of the report were subsequently included in an Environment Canterbury public education poster The Solid Facts on Christchurch Liquefaction which also contained information on how liquefaction occurs and what can be done to mitigate the liquefaction hazard. Stage IV of the Christchurch liquefaction study contained a number of recommendations to improve the liquefaction potential and ground damage maps for Christchurch. See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Articles, UC QuakeStudies

The Christchurch liquefaction study was initiated to better determine liquefaction susceptibility in Christchurch city. It aimed to improve on earlier liquefaction susceptibility maps, which were based on soil type and distribution, by incorporating soil strength data into liquefaction analysis. This stage of the study included collating available geological and geotechnical data from Environment Canterbury and Christchurch City Council into a database, modelling liquefaction hazard and ground damage and presenting these as maps. The report contains many recommendations, which were taken up in subsequent stages of the study. (Note that the results of Stage 1 of the Christchurch liquefaction study were provided to Environment Canterbury as a letter rather than a report. This was a summary of work completed to 30 June 2001, including a review of geological and geotechnical data available within Environment Canterbury and Christchurch City Council records.) See Object Overview for background and usage information.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

Christchurch City Council (Council) is undertaking the Land Drainage Recovery Programme in order to assess the effects of the earthquakes on flood risk to Christchurch. In the course of these investigations it has become better understood that floodplain management should be considered in a multi natural hazards context. Council have therefore engaged the Jacobs, Beca, University of Canterbury, and HR Wallingford project team to investigate the multihazards in eastern areas of Christchurch and develop flood management options which also consider other natural hazards in that context (i.e. how other hazards contribute to flooding both through temporal and spatial coincidence). The study has three stages:  Stage 1 Gap Analysis – assessment of information known, identification of gaps and studies required to fill the gaps.  Stage 2 Hazard Studies – a gap filling stage with the studies identified in Stage 1.  Stage 3 Collating, Optioneering and Reporting – development of options to manage flood risk. This present report is to document findings of Stage 1 and recommends the studies that should be completed for Stage 2. It has also been important to consider how Stage 3 would be delivered and the gaps are prioritised to provide for this. The level of information available and hazards to consider is extensive; requiring this report to be made up of five parts each identifying individual gaps. A process of identifying information for individual hazards in Christchurch has been undertaken and documented (Part 1) followed by assessing the spatial co-location (Part 2) and probabilistic presence of multi hazards using available information. Part 3 considers multi hazard presence both as a temporal coincidence (e.g. an earthquake and flood occurring at one time) and as a cascade sequence (e.g. earthquake followed by a flood at some point in the future). Council have already undertaken a number of options studies for managing flood risk and these are documented in Part 4. Finally Part 5 provides the Gap Analysis Summary and Recommendations to Council. The key findings of Stage 1 gap analysis are: - The spatial analysis showed eastern Christchurch has a large number of hazards present with only 20% of the study area not being affected by any of the hazards mapped. Over 20% of the study area is exposed to four or more hazards at the frequencies and data available. - The majority of the Residential Red Zone is strongly exposed to multiple hazards, with 86% of the area being exposed to 4 or more hazards, and 24% being exposed to 6 or more hazards. - A wide number of gaps are present; however, prioritisation needs to consider the level of benefit and risks associated with not undertaking the studies. In light of this 10 studies ranging in scale are recommended to be done for the project team to complete the present scope of Stage 3. - Stage 3 will need to consider a number of engineering options to address hazards and compare with policy options; however, Council have not established a consistent policy on managed retreat that can be applied for equal comparison; without which substantial assumptions are required. We recommend Council undertake a study to define a managed retreat framework as an option for the city. - In undertaking Stage 1 with floodplain management as the focal point in a multi hazards context we have identified that Stage 3 requires consideration of options in the context of economics, implementation and residual risk. Presently the scope of work will provide a level of definition for floodplain options; however, this will not be at equal levels of detail for other hazard management options. Therefore, we recommend Council considers undertaking other studies with those key hazards (e.g. Coastal Hazards) as a focal point and identifies the engineering options to address such hazards. Doing so will provide equal levels of information for Council to make an informed and defendable decision on which options are progressed following Stage 3.