Why did Christchurch buildings collapse? "You don't know what you don't know"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ต.ค. 2024
- Why did Christchurch buildings collapse?
How buildings responded to the 22 February 2011 Earthquake.
Disturbing new evidence reveals the likely role soft soils played in the CTV and PGC building collapses, and how critical shortcomings in high-rise building design fails to take into account the phenomenon of soils and buildings resonating together. Failure of engineers and government policy to address this issue will mean hundreds maybe thousands of lives will needlessly be lost.
Leading engineering academics and professors, government's chief engineer, and an IPENZ and NZSEE representative are interviewed in this documentary.
This documentary was accepted for entry into the following film festivals:
Los Angeles CineFest - 2016
CINETEKTON! International Architecture Film Festival - 2016
(Also has Spanish subtitles)
The defensiveness and obfuscation in half of those being interviewed in this video, so typical of bureaucrats everywhere desperate to keep their jobs, does not bode well for NZ.
The engineers responsible for the design of the CTV building, including the council employees that approved the design are culpable for manslaughter.
That maybe Keir Mac Donald, but the whole point of my documentary is to point out there may well have been other factors at play (such as soil resonance). It would be tragic if people were prosecuted and then it turned out that resonance was the main cause for the collapse. Remember other similar buildings did not collapse.
Hi Dixon Productions. The Engineers responsible for the design of the CTV building failed in their duty to ensure the design met minimum building standards.
The CTV building had serious design flaws that meant that it did not meet the minimum standard. The Engineers responsible knew it and have been proven to have known it.
Other buildings survived soil resonance because they complied with the building standard.
It's already tragic that 115 people died in this building but further tragedy would be to allow those responsible for the lazy, profit driven engineering practices that caused this horror to unfold.
Without prosecution, there is no deterrent. Therefore this mistake will happen again.
Your documentary on soil resonance is ground-breaking ( pun ?), brilliant and will certainly make an impact on engineering going forward. It does not exonerate Alan Reay and the Christchurch City Council engineers.
The deceased victims, their families and the rescuers who were affected by this awful tragedy need to know that it won't happen again. If we don't prosecute those responsible, it will happen again.
Keri, I doubt that; "Other buildings survived soil resonance because they complied with the building standard". It's more likely that other buildings were not affected by soil resonance to the same degree as the CTV building may have been. Soil resonance can increase shaking up to 20 times more than that designed for. No building has a 20 times safety margin. Yes prosecute for poor design, but to be consistent also prosecute all the other designers of similarly poorly designed buildings.
So Dixon Productions is saying that the CTV building experienced soil resonance that no other building in Canterbury did ?
115 lives were lost in the CTV collapse. The Engineers responsible have been found negligent, directly causing the colllapse. By a Royal Commission.
Attempting to exonerate those engineers with pseudo-science is abhorrent and disgusting.
Please stop.
I'm not saying that no other buildings experienced soil resonance or even that the CTV building did. I'm simply asking the question, "has this been seriously considered?"
Love it how people around the world all chip in for a better understanding
Incompetence is the only word that describe what happened in Christchurch. We have a saying in Chile that says that earthquakes don't kill people, but bad buildings do. And definitely what happened in Christchurch is bad building.
No, the key is that they learn from the experience, reinforce the building law, and make accountable to the responsible ones.
Christchurch was a very old city. Since the earthquakes most of these old dangerous buildings are now gone.
The documentary is a disgrace and shows full ignorance of the concept of "capacity design" developed at the Univ. of Canterbury in the 70s by Professors Paulay and Park and which, since then, has been embedded in most earthquake resistant design building codes. It is a pity that none of the interviewed Univ. of Canterbury professors mentioned its importance and contribution, all over the world, to ensuring building earthquake resistance, over the last four decades !!!
If you compare Buildings, to modern cars, then you can make them safer with technology. The "unknown" in a car is the Road surface you are driving on, as conditions can vary. It sounds very similar to Quake proofing a Building. You cant Build for EVERY variable! OR you can, but at what true Cost? Who pays for all of this Cost also?
craig harbrow, you are right. But it is a cost you guys must pay in order to have safer cities.
May.be check Japan's code. Their five minute shake would take down all the old buildings in ChCh. So sorry for all your losses
Hold on a second. Do these engineers calculate the actual period of the structure? Or simply assume a conservative figure to be safe.
This guy seems to think you can just walk into any building and upgrade it like they are talking about. what he doesnt say is that in most buildings you would need too completely tare out the interiors to get to the structural elements. that is not quick or inexpensive.
gregg4164 Well, we could put a plaque on each building showing a rating for earthquake stability on it. Building owners will have plenty of time and incentive to retrofit their building once all tenants have vacated. Like with other standard, it only a matter of time before such retrofits will be mandatory. Many buildings would likely be sold off due to long periods without paying tenants. They would then be retrofitted or torn down and rebuilt to resist destructive seismic activity.
When it comes to meeting new minimal safety standards, many structures have been retrofitted throughout history. Those where it isn't economically viable, are sold off.
Like with other major retrofits required of all building their will be a timeline of several years to meet these new requirements. This allows building owners and tenants to work around eachother. One tenant moves out, work is completed on that space. The remaining tenants can be moved around the building into the recently retrofitted space until all of the building have been completed. Only large building woukd benefit of this type of plan. Ideally each floor would be vacant and retrofitted at the same time before moving to the next floor.
Governments do take into account the major expenses incurred for the building owner. Tax incentives or write offs are common. Tenant are either released from their lease or given rent credit to ease the burden and expense of moving to a new space.
When it comes to what the public wants or needs, it always gets done. Maybe not over night. Eventually.
Great information
Great documentary. Indeed a lot more needs to be studied. There is a lot of resistance to doing site studies because of the expense. All expenses are absorbed over the life of the building. How much does a human life cost these days?
One question... What am I looking at @ 27:30 ?
Thanks for your comments Cameron. 27:30 are shots from Christchurch University's testing laboratory. How structures respond to seismic events.
Thank Cameron and I totally agree.
This is a very good earthquake doco, thankyou. 👍