No critical damage to CTV from 2010 quake

MARC GREENHILL
Last updated 11:24 26/07/2012
CTV July 26
STACY SQUIRES/Fairfax NZ

'MINOR' DAMAGE: Brendon Bradley, Ashley Smith and Athol Carr give evidence at a royal commission hearing today.

Relevant offers

Christchurch Earthquake 2011

Christchurch quake memorial plans revealed Limited space for Christmas cheer in caravan Dyers Pass Rd reopens Desperate woman in EQC limbo Resilience plan may risk too much talking Teen's quake piece to have abbey debut 'Jerky' quake rattles Canterbury The art of urban exploration Flashes expose quake-building intruders EQC to pay for loss of land value

Computer analysis of the Canterbury Television building collapse does not support theories that the September 2010 earthquake caused critical damage, an inquiry has heard.

An expert panel convened by the Canterbury earthquakes royal commission today discussed two computer analyses of likely collapse scenarios.

The panel included Canterbury University emeritus professor Athol Carr, Department of Building and Housing report authors Clark Hyland and Ashley Smith, Texas A&M University professor John Mander and Beca technical director Rob Jury.

Jury said that although the second analysis suggested "slighter higher" levels of damage from the quake than first thought, it still appeared to be "relatively minor".

It was "not indicative of a building under distress" or with impaired resistance to shaking, he said.

The damage had little influence on the building's overall performance in the February 2011 quake, and the analyses confirmed the collapse was caused by the failure of one or more columns, Jury said.

Joint failure was not able to be predicted in the computer modelling.

"I still believe that the loss of stiffness is more important, if not equally important, than the loss of strength," Jury said.

Ad Feedback

- The Press

Comments

Special offers
Opinion poll

Is it worth spending extra to repair heritage buildings?

Yes, Christchurch needs to invest in its heritage buildings

No, we should embrace modern design if it is cheaper and quicker

Only some heritage buildings are worth the money

Vote Result

Related story: Landmark church nearly $1m short

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content