• Login:
Welcome, Register Here
follow PropertyTalk on facebook follow PropertyTalk on twitter Newsletter follow PropertyTalk on LinkedIn follow PropertyTalk on facebook
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1

    Default New Zealand City Earthquake Risk Estimate

    This is an interesting article that I read at another forum. It provides an easy way to estimate the earthquake risk at New Zealand Cities.

    Both New Zealand and Aussie building standards predominantly use a Z value to estimate the earthquake risk at locations. The higher the Z value is, the more earthquakes there are in the location and the higher magnitudes they will be.

    For example, at Wellington, Z = 0.4, and at Auckland, Z = 0.13, which indicates that the earthquake risk at Wellington is much higher than that of Auckland. This is consistent with our common sense: at Wellington, people are often shaken by earthquakes, while most Aucklanders never experience a noticeable earthquake during their lifetime.

    The New Zealand Z values varies from 0.13~0.6, while at Australia which is commonly recognized as a non-seismic country, the Z values of most cities are no higher than 0.12.

    It need to be mentioned that at the locations being north to Pukekohe (Z=0.13), the earthquake risk is lower than that of Pukekohe, according to seismic research. But because of the legal requirement, Z =0.13 is assigned to those cities for seismic design, e.g. Auckland, Whangarei.

    The Z values of NZ & Aussie locations are as below:


    • Kaikoura: 0.42
    • Wellington:0.40
    • Napier and Palmerstone North 0.38
    • Christchurch:0.30 (temporarily After 2011 earthquake)


    • Taupo: 0.28
    • Nelson: 0.27
    • Rotorua:0.24
    • Tauranga:0.20
    • Cambridge:0.18
    • Hamilton: 0.16
    • Huntly:0.15


    • Pukekohe: 0.13


    • Auckland:< 0.13
    • Whangare: < 0.13
    • Adelaide:0.10
    • Geelong: 0.10
    • Perth: 0.09
    • Melbourne/Sydney: 0.08

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrickrh View Post
    This is an interesting article that I read at another forum. It provides an easy way to estimate the earthquake risk at New Zealand Cities.

    Both New Zealand and Aussie building standards predominantly use a Z value to estimate the earthquake risk at locations. The higher the Z value is, the more earthquakes there are in the location and the higher magnitudes they will be.

    For example, at Wellington, Z = 0.4, and at Auckland, Z = 0.13, which indicates that the earthquake risk at Wellington is much higher than that of Auckland. This is consistent with our common sense: at Wellington, people are often shaken by earthquakes, while most Aucklanders never experience a noticeable earthquake during their lifetime.

    The New Zealand Z values varies from 0.13~0.6, while at Australia which is commonly recognized as a non-seismic country, the Z values of most cities are no higher than 0.12.

    It need to be mentioned that at the locations being north to Pukekohe (Z=0.13), the earthquake risk is lower than that of Pukekohe, according to seismic research. But because of the legal requirement, Z =0.13 is assigned to those cities for seismic design, e.g. Auckland, Whangarei.

    The Z values of NZ & Aussie locations are as below:


    • Kaikoura: 0.42
    • Wellington:0.40
    • Napier and Palmerstone North 0.38
    • Christchurch:0.30 (temporarily After 2011 earthquake)


    • Taupo: 0.28
    • Nelson: 0.27
    • Rotorua:0.24
    • Tauranga:0.20
    • Cambridge:0.18
    • Hamilton: 0.16
    • Huntly:0.15


    • Pukekohe: 0.13


    • Auckland:< 0.13
    • Whangare: < 0.13
    • Adelaide:0.10
    • Geelong: 0.10
    • Perth: 0.09
    • Melbourne/Sydney: 0.08
    Im laughing - no one ever thought Christchurch had a high risk of earthquake (which is exactly what people think about Auckland today, despite its obvious numerous volcanos)

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kbkiwi View Post
    Im laughing - no one ever thought Christchurch had a high risk of earthquake (which is exactly what people think about Auckland today, despite its obvious numerous volcanos)
    Those people didn’t think about the earthquake risk in Christchuch must regret when their houses were damaged or their family member are injured or even killed.

    This article enable any people to learn something new instead of regretting again.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    7,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kbkiwi View Post
    Im laughing - no one ever thought Christchurch had a high risk of earthquake
    after many years in ak

    the first quakes i felt were in chch

    and was only there 18months in the 80s..........nz not called the "shakey isles" in oz for nothing

    people who think auckland, 0.13, safe

    should keep in mind the newcastle quake in supersafe oz

    The 1989 Newcastle earthquake occurred in Newcastle, New South Wales on Thursday, 28 December.[2] The shock measured 5.6 on the Richter magnitude scale and was one of Australia's most serious natural disasters, killing 13 people and injuring more than 160. The damage bill has been estimated at A$4 billion (including an insured loss of about $1 billion).[2]
    Last edited by eri; 16-11-2016 at 07:37 PM.
    have you defeated them?
    your demons

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kbkiwi View Post
    Im laughing - no one ever thought Christchurch had a high risk of earthquake (which is exactly what people think about Auckland today, despite its obvious numerous volcanos)
    That's just plain wrong. I was a member of a Civil Defence rescue team in the late 90s and we used to train for the eventuality of a sizeable earthquake. Even back then, we knew that we were overdue for a big one, and it was a matter of 'when' not 'if.' We also had maps of which parts of the city would liquefy. (I suspect, from memory, that these zones turned out to be an underestimate.)

    Admittedly, it was thought that the epicentre would be in the Alps, but it was always known that Chch would get a good shake.
    My blog. From personal experience.
    http://statehousinginnz.wordpress.com/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    South Canterbury
    Posts
    513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sidinz View Post
    That's just plain wrong. I was a member of a Civil Defence rescue team in the late 90s and we used to train for the eventuality of a sizeable earthquake. Even back then, we knew that we were overdue for a big one, and it was a matter of 'when' not 'if.' We also had maps of which parts of the city would liquefy. (I suspect, from memory, that these zones turned out to be an underestimate.)

    Admittedly, it was thought that the epicentre would be in the Alps, but it was always known that Chch would get a good shake.
    Yep, CHCh has a long history of sizeable shakes, 1865 (or thereabouts). Also one late 1800s which knocked the top off the cathedral. People's memories are short though and in 20-40 years all will be forgotten by most people and once again they'll build on inappropriate land.

    Craig

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eri View Post
    after many years in ak

    the first quakes i felt were in chch

    and was only there 18months in the 80s..........nz not called the "shakey isles" in oz for nothing

    people who think auckland, 0.13, safe

    should keep in mind the newcastle quake in supersafe oz

    The 1989 Newcastle earthquake occurred in Newcastle, New South Wales on Thursday, 28 December.[2] The shock measured 5.6 on the Richter magnitude scale and was one of Australia's most serious natural disasters, killing 13 people and injuring more than 160. The damage bill has been estimated at A$4 billion (including an insured loss of about $1 billion).[2]
    You are right, no cities are absolutely safe because no locations in the world can be fully immune to earthquakes. But with the scientific data based on research, we can know which locations are probabilistically safer.

    Certainly, the cities like Whangarei and Auckland could have intensive earthquakes in future. But the possibility is similar to win powerball prize soly, while that possibility of Wellington, is like winning $30 lotto prize. The difference is significant, isnít it.

    Newcastle has the highest earthquake risk among all Austrlian cities (population>5000). Z = 0.11. But the earthquake magnitude is not high, though shallow. The intensive damage is mainly because the buildings are not designed properly for the earthquake. At that time, Aussie did not follow the kiwi earthquake standard, which they do follow now. If that earthquake occurred at NZ, the damage would be much less.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    3,885

    Default


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Lin View Post
    It's an interesting pattern.
    Almost , I don't know, as if there was something under there.
    Some sort of rift, almost as if two giant plates floating on a sea of molten rock were running against each other. Ha.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7,633

    Default

    New fault lines along (North Canterbury - up to Seddon) have been found since Monday's quake. Geez as if we need more!
    PropertyTalk Blog - property articles

    BusinessBlogs - the best business articles are found here




 

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. How to manage earthquake risk?
    By jomjom in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 07-05-2019, 03:08 PM
  2. Estimate to Final Bill
    By cube in forum Property Improvements (NZ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 18-08-2014, 10:19 AM
  3. Housing New Zealand is buying Auckland City Apartments?
    By jwang in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-03-2014, 11:51 AM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-04-2012, 04:17 PM
  5. Renovation Cost Estimate
    By Harvey in forum Property Improvements (NZ)
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 20-07-2011, 11:20 AM
  6. Figuring out estimate of value - reports
    By nzsq in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 26-11-2009, 06:34 PM
  7. How do you guys estimate market value?
    By Chief in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 19-07-2005, 06:01 PM
  8. Books - Property and Motivational
    By muppet in forum Property Investment (NZ)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-06-2005, 05:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •