Christchurch earthquake pdf

The video below shows the effects of the earthquake one minute after it struck. If you've found the resources on this page useful please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support the development of the site. The site is self-funded and your support is really appreciated. If you've found the resources on this site useful please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support the development of the site.

What caused the Christchurch earthquake? What were the effects of the Christchurch earthquake? They were sworn in with New Zealand policing powers and worked alongside New Zealand officers enforcing law and order and reassuring the people of Christchurch 30, residents were provided with chemical toilets What were the long-term responses to the Christchurch earthquake?

The long-term responses included: the construction of around 10, affordable homes water and sewage were restored by August temporary housing was provided by the New Zealand governement Many NGOs provided support including Save the Children Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority was created to organise rebuilding the region.

It had special powers to change planning laws and regulations. Related Topics Use the images below to explore related GeoTopics. Japan Earthquake Earthquake Home. Nepal Earthquake Please Support Internet Geography If you've found the resources on this site useful please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support the development of the site. The main objectives of the data collection exercise were to document building characteristics and any seismic strengthening methods encountered, and correlate these attributes with observed earthquake damage.

The procedure used to collect and process information associated with earthquake damage, general analysis and interpretation of the available survey data for the URM buildings, the performance of earthquake strengthening techniques, and the influence of earthquake strengthening levels on observed damage are reported within.

A series of thousands of aftershocks followed this earthquake, all varying in magnitude and location. At The epicentre of the M6. The use of URM in the construction of buildings in Christchurch was first seen in the late s, with URM used in all important structures such as government buildings and schools.

URM construction was popular due to its aesthetic and architectural qualities, and also for its fire resistant properties. Christchurch was subjected to several earthquakes during its early years. On 3 February a M7. The first legislation to address the earthquake performance of existing buildings empowered City Councils to require building owners to strengthen or demolish buildings which were considered earthquake prone, which resulted in a number of buildings being either demolished or having their ornamental parapets and cornices removed.

Most major cities and towns took up the legislation. Christchurch City Council adopted a passive approach, generally waiting for a change in use or other development to trigger the requirements. The purpose of the IEP is to make an initial assessment of the performance of an existing building against the standard required for a new building, i.

Many innovations in structural engineering have been developed in order to address the issue of earthquake strengthening of old URM buildings in New Zealand, with many of these methods having been installed in URM buildings in Christchurch at the time of the earthquakes. It is customary for innovations in structural earthquake engineering to be developed through a process of laboratory experimental testing and supplementary computer modelling, matched with a rational design procedure, such that the structural engineering community discerns the innovation to be appropriate for implementation into actual buildings.

In some cases, further in-field testing may be conducted on parts of buildings in which the innovation has been installed, in an attempt to simulate the effect of earthquake loading and identify likely behaviour. Consequently, it is to be expected that many earthquake strengthening techniques are implemented primarily on the basis of laboratory evidence of their suitability, rather than their observed adequate performance in past earthquakes.

Consequently, these observations are of major significance in order to gain an updated understanding of the likely seismic performance of previously strengthened URM buildings located not only throughout New Zealand, but also in countries having an analogous stock of URM buildings, such as for instance in Australia and West Coast USA.

Furthermore, it may be argued that the recorded observations have relevance to the likely seismic performance of URM buildings worldwide. Building surveys were primarily external only, with all building elevations surveyed where this was safe and access was available. However, when safe, and when access was available, internal building inspections were also undertaken.

Throughout the CBD numerous active demolition sites were visited and inspected. This exercise also allowed for relatively straightforward collection of small building samples from building demolition sites, including: brick and mortar samples, through ties with timber assemblages, adhesive anchor rods, and cavity ties. Inspection of demolition sites also proved to be valuable when attempting to identify the seismic strengthening systems within the internal parts of the building, and when seeking to investigate the quality of earthquake strengthening installations, particularly for adhesive type anchors.

Also post- earthquake aerial photography was extensively used throughout the damage analysis stage of this survey. In particular, post-earthquake aerial photograph was used for identification of out-of-plane cantilever type failure modes and identification of parapet failures and other building components in the regions of buildings otherwise not visible from the street elevation.

Time constraints restricted a greater number of records from being reviewed. However, in some cases the CCC records lacked information about earthquake assessment and strengthening, or any structural aspects of the building.

However it is known that approximately 10 buildings were not incorporated into the survey database due to limited available information on these buildings. Further information was also noted such as the number of storeys, the presence of a basement, the occupancy type, the type of elevation, whether the buildings was a row building or a stand- alone building and if the building was a row building, whether it was located mid-row or end- of-row.

Earthquake strengthening methods that were encountered were also recorded. The overall damage observed for each building was recorded using two damage scales. The protocols developed by the Applied Technology Council ATC were used because of their widespread use in past post-earthquake damage inspections, with the damage scale shown in Table 1. Details of this damage scale are reported in Table 2. Figure 2 shows examples of damage levels A-D using the Wailes and Horner damage scale.

The level of damage to parapets and the parapet orientation were recorded using similar classifications of none, minor, moderate, heavy, partial collapse and full collapse. Other recorded damage included the level of damage due to falling debris from adjacent buildings. Damage was recorded and classified as none, minor, moderate and severe.

Earthquake strengthening systems that were encountered were also recorded in detail, and assigned to various categories for analysis. This finding is consistent with the fact that the survey was confined to the CBD area, but is also likely to be true for the New Zealand national URM building stock.

Figure 3 b shows the distribution of row buildings and stand-alone buildings, again illustrating the predominance of URM row buildings in the CBD. Missing data was due to restricted access for some buildings. Table 3: Data distribution by elevation type No. Table 5: Wailes and Horner damage scale Damage No.

Clearly this comparison indicates a high level of correlation between the two survey methods. This high correlation can be further identified by considering the two charts in Figure 4, where it can be seen that comparable numbers of buildings were assigned for each of the incremental damage levels within the two scales.

Similarly, the performance of row buildings was considered based upon damage correlated to whether the building was located mid-row or end-of-row see Figure 6 b , where it was found that greater damage was sustained to end-of-row buildings.

Also reproduced in the far right column of Table 6 are the damage statistics previously reported in Table 4 for entire buildings. Table 6: Damage levels for all elevations No. Examples of Type B earthquake improvement are, strong-backs installed either internally or externally, steel moment frames, steel brace frames, concrete moment frames, addition of cross walls, shotcrete, FRP, and post tensioning.

This decision was made in order to avoid having an increased number of classifications that each had a minimal number of recorded cases of implementation. Unfortunately, it was not possible to definitively identify a sufficient sample size of specific types of parapet restraint systems from building inspections.