ECan EQrisk Part1 Methodology Report Final

Earthquake Risk Assessment
Study
Part 1 - Review of Risk Assessment
Methodologies and Development of a
Draft Risk Assessment Methodology
for Christchurch
Report No. U04 / 108 : Final
Earthquake Hazard and Risk Assessment Project
Earthquake Risk Assessment Study

Part 1 - Review of Risk Assessment
Methodologies and Development of a Draft Risk
Assessment Methodology for Christchurch
Report No. U04 / 108 : Final
Prepared by
P. Brabhaharan, Robert Davey,
Francis ORiley, and Leonard Wiles
Reviewed by
Opus International Consultants Limited

Wellington Office
Level 9, Majestic Centre
100 Willis Street, PO Box 12-003
Wellington, New Zealand
Telephone:
Facsimile:
+64 4 471 7000

+64 4 471 1397
Report No
Date:
Reference:
Status:
SPT 2004 / 28
August 2005
5C0542.00
Final
Dr David Prentice
This document is the property of Opus International Consultants Limited.

Any unauthorised employment or reproduction, in full or part is forbidden.
Disclaimer
Opus has used the best available information in preparing this report and has interpreted this information
exercising all reasonable skill and care. Nevertheless, neither Environment Canterbury nor Opus accepts any
liability, whether direct, indirect or consequential, arising out of the provision of information in this report.
All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of
Environment Canterbury (the client). Such permission is to be given only in accordance with the terms of the
clients contract with Opus. This copyright extends to all forms of copying and any storage of materials in any
kind of information retrieval system. The copyright for the data, maps, figures, and tables contained in this report
is held by Opus.
Opus International Consultants Limited 2005
Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1
Contents
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... iii

1
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................1
Scope of Study ......................................................................................................................................2
Key Components of Earthquake Risk Assessment and Applications.......................................3

3.1 Objectives .....................................................................................................................................3
3.2 Risk Assessment..........................................................................................................................3
3.3 Socio-economic Consequences..................................................................................................5
3.4 Outcomes .....................................................................................................................................5
3.5 Applications.................................................................................................................................6
Literature Review.................................................................................................................................7
4.1 Scope of Review ..........................................................................................................................7
4.2 General Earthquake Risk Assessment .....................................................................................7
4.3 Earthquake Hazards.................................................................................................................13
4.4 Damage and Loss Modelling ..................................................................................................15
4.5 Earthquake Risk Studies Undertaken for Christchurch and Canterbury.........................24
4.6 Summary of Literature Review...............................................................................................25
Inventory Data ....................................................................................................................................27

5.1 General Approach.....................................................................................................................27
5.2 Buildings ....................................................................................................................................27
5.3 Roads ..........................................................................................................................................29
5.4 Water Supply Networks ..........................................................................................................30
5.5 Telecommunications Assets ....................................................................................................30
5.6 Electricity Assets .......................................................................................................................31
5.7 Demographic Information .......................................................................................................33
5.8 Geographical Information Systems Data Format.................................................................33
5.9 Summary of Asset Inventory Data .........................................................................................33
Earthquake Hazard Information Review ......................................................................................35

6.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................35
6.2 Earthquake Hazard Literature ................................................................................................35
6.3 Discussion of Hazard Information .........................................................................................43
6.4 Additional Hazard Information .............................................................................................43
Development of Risk Assessment Methodology for Christchurch .........................................45

7.1 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................45
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final

7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
Risk Assessment Context.........................................................................................................45

Scenario and Probabilistic Approaches .................................................................................46
Spatial Assessment Approach.................................................................................................47
Modelling Uncertainty.............................................................................................................47
Risk Assessment Model ...........................................................................................................48
Risk Assessment Outputs ........................................................................................................56
Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................58
Recommendations..............................................................................................................................60
10
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................63
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Mesh Blocks and Statistical Area Units for Christchurch
Appendix B
Example Risk Assessment Outputs for Lifelines
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
ii
Executive Summary
Environment Canterbury (ECan) needs to know the likely impact and consequences of a
major earthquake on Christchurch, to fulfil its hazard mitigation and emergency
management functions. Opus International Consultants Limited (Opus) was
commissioned by ECan to review risk assessment methodologies and develop a draft risk
assessment methodology for Christchurch.
A comprehensive review of literature relating to earthquake risk assessment has been
completed. Key features of significant relevant literature are presented.
Sources of asset data for the study have been explored by contacting the relevant Councils
and organisations. This indicates that the information required for the risk assessment is
generally available. The inventory would be collected from a variety of organisations, and
would include information on critical facilities.
There is good hazard information available from previous research and studies. Some
additional microzoning information would need to be derived, including a map showing
ground class to modify ground shaking, liquefaction ground damage hazards for the
earthquake scenarios, and slope hazards for the Port Hills. These can be incorporated into
the risk assessment. The tsunami risk could be considered in a separate study.
A spatial approach should be used for the risk assessment using a geographical
information system (GIS) platform, and the results of the study be presented as maps and
accompanying tables and charts, so that the information can be readily used by
stakeholders.
A methodology has been developed to undertake an earthquake risk assessment for
Christchurch. The approach has been based on generating risk information that meets the
objectives of Environment Canterbury and provides a basis for organisations to undertake
risk management actions.
It is proposed that the risk assessment be carried out for four earthquake scenarios, rather
than using probabilistic uniform hazard levels. This would provide information most
suitable for emergency management and meeting functionality requirements for lifelines.
Risk assessment has considerable uncertainty and loss estimates could be derived using
probability distributions so that the uncertainty is explicitly presented. The risk assessed
should focus on direct losses. The socio-economic consequences may be considered later in
follow-on studies.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
iii
Introduction
Environment Canterbury (ECan) needs to know the likely impact and consequences of a
major earthquake on Christchurch, to fulfil its hazard mitigation and emergency
management functions. ECan considers that the earthquake hazard information currently
available is generally of a standard and scale suitable for an earthquake risk assessment.
The Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and more recently the Civil Defence
Emergency Management Act 2002 require local authorities to identify, assess and mitigate
the effects of natural hazards and other technological hazards. An assessment of the risk
from earthquakes to Christchurch will assist with the management of the risk, through
reduction, readiness, response and recovery planning.
Opus International Consultants Limited (Opus) has been commissioned by ECan to review
risk assessment methodologies and develop a draft risk assessment methodology for
Christchurch as part of the Earthquake Risk Assessment Study: Part 1.
This report presents the results of this study, and recommends a methodology for use in
carrying out a risk assessment for Christchurch.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
Scope of Study
The scope of the study required by ECan comprises the following steps:
1.
Describe in detail the key components of earthquake risk assessment methodologies,

and in particular the outputs and their applications.
2.
Review in detail the available literature on (any) specific earthquake risk assessments
carried out for Canterbury and/or Christchurch, and methodologies and approaches
developed in New Zealand and internationally for assessing earthquake risk.
This review will include:
(a) A description of the approach used to complete the literature review.
(b) A full bibliographic reference for each report, paper, map or other publication
reviewed.
(c) Details of where each report, paper, map or other publication can be obtained.
(d) A detailed summary of the relevant details of each report, paper, map or
publication.
(e) A discussion on the implications of the literature review findings for the
development of an earthquake risk assessment model for Christchurch.
3.
Investigate the source, availability and nature of building (residential, industrial and
commercial), engineering lifeline infrastructure (water supply, telecommunications,
electricity distribution and roading only) and demographic information for
Christchurch, and provide a summary of the information in the report.
4.
Investigate the source, availability and nature of earthquake hazard information for
Canterbury and Christchurch, and provide a summary of the information in the
report.
5.
Identify (if appropriate), the need for, and nature of, any additional earthquake hazard
information and/or investigations for the purpose of better assessing the earthquake
risk in Christchurch.
6.
Based on the literature review findings and the nature of the existing earthquake
hazard information available for Canterbury and Christchurch, and the existing
available building, engineering lifeline infrastructure and demographic information,
develop a draft risk assessment methodology for Christchurch.
ECan required that this study include the lifelines of water supply, telecommunications,
electricity distribution and roading only. However, this may be extended to include other
key lifelines in the city such as wastewater, ports and rail infrastructure.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
Key Components of Earthquake Risk Assessment and Applications
3.1
Objectives
Risk may be defined as the chance of something happening that will have an impact upon
objectives. It is measured in terms of consequences and likelihood [AS/NZS 4360:2004].
The objective of an earthquake risk assessment is to quantify the potential damages and
losses due to future earthquakes (the consequences) and their probabilities of occurrence in
a given period (the likelihood).
3.2
Risk Assessment
The basic steps in an earthquake risk assessment are:
Hazard Analysis:
Identification of earthquake sources.

Modelling of the occurrence of earthquakes from these sources.
Estimation of the attenuation of earthquake motions between these
sources and the study area.
Evaluation of the site effects of soil amplification, liquefaction,
landslide and surface fault rupture.
Inventory Collection: Identification of infrastructure (buildings and lifelines) that are

exposed to damage.
Classification of the buildings and lifelines according to their
vulnerability to damage.
Classification of the occupancy of the buildings and facilities.
Damage Modelling :
Modelling of the performance of the inventory classes under

earthquake shaking and consequent effects such as ground damage.
Development of damage functions (relationship between levels of
damage and corresponding levels of shaking).
Estimation of the damage to the inventory from the earthquake
motion at the inventory locations.
Estimation of the damage caused by post earthquake fires.
Loss Estimation :
Estimation of direct losses due to damage repair costs.

Estimation of indirect losses due to loss of function of the inventory.
Estimation of casualties caused by the damage.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final

These steps are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Basic Steps in Earthquake Risk Assessment

[King and Kiremidjian, 1994]
The regional risk assessment process is further illustrated in Figure 2, and the risk
assessment process with the aid of a Geographical Information System (GIS) is illustrated
in Figure 3.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final

3.3
Socio-economic Consequences
The social and economic consequences of earthquake damage are also important.
However, the assessment of the social and economic effects is more complex and there isnt
a well defined process to assess these outcomes. Usually these have been assessed as a
multiplier of the direct losses to indicate an order of magnitude of such losses.
A number of researchers have considered the economic impact of earthquakes (Cochrane,
1995). More research is continuing to assess such effects. For example, Gordon et al (1997)
outlined a framework for assessing the total economic impact from the effect of
earthquakes on transportation (bridges only considered), using input/output models.
They included changes in traffic demand after the earthquake. However, the practical use
of this model for risk assessment of a road network was not demonstrated (Brabhaharan et
al, 2001). The Multi-disciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) in
the USA has an objective to develop a model for assessing the economic effects of damage
to transportation networks.
Research into the social impacts of earthquakes is currently being carried out by Opus
International Consultants, under a 4 year research programme.
It would be prudent to consider assessment of the socio economic effects of earthquakes as
a future extension of the earthquake risk assessment.
3.4
Outcomes
The primary outcomes of a risk study are summaries and maps highlighting the spatial
distribution of damage and casualties. A typical summary for an asset would include an
overall damage rating, the number of casualties, the number of people affected by the
damage, timeframe for basic reinstatement and likely repair costs.
Key assets covered by the summaries include:
Commercial, industrial and residential buildings;
Critical facilities including hospitals, police stations and fire stations;
Lifelines, including:
Electrical and communication lifelines including

exchanges, underground and overhead lines;
substations,
Roading network including bridges;
Water assets including reservoirs, pump stations and key water mains.
telephone
For lifelines, the consequential effects (such as availability / disruption to road users)
would also be assessed.
Maps are used to highlight the spatial distribution of damage to assets.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final

3.5
Applications
The outcomes from a risk assessment study have many applications.
Such applications may include:
Consider the impact of earthquakes and development of appropriate policy on
earthquake risk reduction initiatives (for example Earthquake Risk Buildings Policy
development);
Earthquake risk reduction initiatives through a detailed understanding of the extent
and distribution of damage, critical elements and redundancies;
Prioritisation and justification for founding of earthquake risk, based on a detailed
understanding of the damage and consequences;
Understand and act on the interdependencies and relationships between various
lifelines and emergency response and recovery;
Emergency response planning by the Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups
and Civil Defence Personnel;
Understand the post-earthquake recovery resources requirements based on the
understanding of the extent of damage to buildings and other infrastructure (including
lifelines). Such a study was carried out for the Wellington Region and the results were
published in a number of papers presented in Wellington After the Quake The
Challenge of Rebuilding Cities (Earthquake Commission, 1995).
An earthquake risk assessment for the Greater Wellington Area was undertaken by Works
Consultancy Services (1995) for the Wellington Regional Council. This study has been
used extensively in the understanding of the risks to the region, earthquake risk policy
development, and planning for emergency preparedness. As illustrated above, it has also
provided the basis for understanding the resource requirements for recovery after large
events.
An application of comprehensive assessment of the risk to lifelines, is the risk assessment
of key roads in the Wellington City Road network and development of risk management
strategy undertaken by Opus International Consultants for Wellington City Council
(Brabhaharan, 2004), and this has provided the framework for prioritising, funding and
implementation of key vulnerable roads in the Wellington City, starting with Ngaio Gorge
Road.
This illustrates the usefulness of the results of earthquake risk assessment studies for
earthquake preparedness planning and for developing strategies to minimise the risk from
earthquakes.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
Literature Review
4.1
Scope of Review
A review has been undertaken of New Zealand and international literature on earthquake
risk assessment and of specific earthquake risk assessments carried out for Canterbury or
Christchurch. This literature review has involved:
1.
A review and collation of earthquake hazard and risk reports held by ECan;
2.
A search of library databases by Opus Information Centre;
3.
Sourcing of literature from various sources;
4.
Review of information collated.
Search of relevant information for the study was carried out Opus Information Centre,
which has access to a variety of databases and search facilities which allowed it to search a
variety of papers and reports in journals, conference proceedings, research publications
and studies.
The seminal paper Engineering seismic risk analysis by Cornell [1986], set the scene for
the considerable advances that have been made in earthquake risk assessment over the
past two decades. Many thousands of papers and other publications have been published
on the subject since that time. This review has therefore been limited to those publications
that are particularly relevant to a regional earthquake risk assessment as proposed for
Christchurch.
The review is structured as follows:
4.2
General Earthquake Risk Assessment.
Earthquake Hazards.
Damage and Loss Modelling.
Earthquake Risk Studies undertaken for Christchurch and Canterbury.
General Earthquake Risk Assessment

King SA and Kiremidjian, A (1994).
geographic information systems.
Regional seismic hazard and risk analysis through
This report describes the development of a geographic information system (GIS) based
methodology for a regional seismic hazard and risk analysis, and illustrates this with a case
study. It is particularly useful as it provides a good framework for a GIS based risk
assessment.
A flow chart of the basic procedure that was developed for this risk assessment is shown in
Figure 2.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
Figure 2 - Flowchart Showing the Basic Regional Risk Assessment Process

[King and Kiremidjian. 1994]
The data and models that are the fundamental building blocks of regional risk assessments
referred to in Figure 2 are:
Models
Seismicity
Bedrock motion (attenuation)
Local site effects (amplification, liquefaction)
Motion-damage (fragility)
Repair cost
Loss of use (repair time)
Non-monetary loss (casualties)
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final

Inventory Data
Facility (building, lifelines) structural characteristics
Facility occupancy characteristics
Regional population distribution
The GIS mapping process for the seismic risk analysis is illustrated in Figure 3.
Figure 3 - GIS Mapping Process for Regional Seismic Risk analysis

[King and Kiremidjian, 1994]
Maps representing regional geological and geographical data are overlaid and their
attributes are combined to produce intermediate maps of regional seismic hazards. These
hazard maps are then overlaid and combined with structural inventory maps to produce
maps predicting regional damage distributions. Combining the map of damage
distributions with a map of population distributions for the area results in final estimates
of direct loss (damage repair costs, etc), indirect loss (business interruption costs, etc) and
casualties.
FEMA (2001). Earthquake loss estimation methodology, HAZUS99.
HAZUS is a comprehensive earthquake loss estimation methodology that was developed
for the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It is designed for use by
state, regional and local governments in planning for earthquake loss mitigation,
emergency preparedness planning and response and recovery.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final

Use of the methodology will generate an estimate of the consequences to a city or region of
a "scenario earthquake", i.e., an earthquake with a specified magnitude and location. The
resulting "loss estimate" generally will describe the scale and extent of damage and
disruption that may result from a potential earthquake. The following information can be
obtained:
Quantitative estimates of losses in terms of direct costs for repair and replacement of
damaged buildings and lifeline system components; direct costs associated with loss of
function (e.g., loss of business revenue, relocation costs); casualties; people displaced
from residences; quantity of debris; and regional economic impacts.
Functionality losses in terms of loss-of-function and restoration times for critical

facilities such as hospitals, and components of transportation and utility lifeline
systems and simplified analyses of loss-of-system-function for electrical distribution
and potable water systems.
Extent of induced hazards in terms of fire ignitions and fire spread, exposed population
and building value due to potential flooding and locations of hazardous materials.
To generate this information, the methodology includes:

Classification systems used in assembling inventory and compiling information on the

building stock, the components of highway and utility lifelines, and demographic and
economic data.
Methods for evaluating damage and calculating various losses.
Databases containing information used as default (built-in) data that are useable in the
calculation of losses.
A flow chart illustrating this methodology is shown in Figure 4.

These systems, methods, and data have been coded into user-friendly software based on a
GIS platform. GIS technology facilitates the manipulation of data on building stock,
population, and the regional economy. The software can be run under two different GIS
platforms, MapInfo and ArcView. The software makes use of GIS technology for
displaying and manipulating inventory, and permits losses and consequences to be
portrayed on both spreadsheets and maps.
Collecting the required information and entering it in an analysis program are the major
tasks involved in generating a loss estimate. The HAZUS methodology permits estimates
to be made at several levels of sophistication, based on the level of data input into the
analysis (i.e., default data versus locally enhanced data). The better and more complete the
inventory information, the more meaningful the results.
A new version of the software, HAZUS-MH (i.e. HAZUS Multi-Hazard), includes losses
from floods and hurricane winds as well as earthquakes.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
10
Potential Earth Science Hazards
4. Ground Motion
4. Ground Failure
Direct Physical
Damage
5. General
Building
Stock
6. Essential and
High Potential
Loss Facilities
7. LifelinesTransportation
Systems
8. LifelinesUtility
Systems
Induced Physical
Damage
9. Inundation
Direct Economic/
Social Losses
13. Casualities
10. Fire 11. HazMat 12. Debris
14. Shelter
15. Economic
16. Indirect
Economic
Losses
Figure 4 - Flow Chart of the HAZUS Loss Estimation Methodology
Most of the models that form the basis of the HAZUS methodology are documented in
detail in the HAZUS Technical Manual, which is freely available from the FEMA website
(http://www.fema.gov/hazus). These models can therefore be adopted and adapted for
use in other methodologies. The GIS based HAZUS software is also freely available, but it
can only be used for the geographical regions that the software has been customised for,
i.e. the US and a few other countries. The HAZUS software has not been customised for
New Zealand.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
11

In a simplified form, the steps in applying the methodology are:
Select the area to be studied. This may be a city, a county or a group of municipalities.
It is generally desirable to select an area that is under the jurisdiction of an existing
regional planning group.
Specify the magnitude and location of the scenario earthquake. In developing the
scenario earthquake, consideration should be given to the potential fault locations.
Provide additional information describing local soil and geological conditions, if

available.
Using formulas embedded in HAZUS, probability distributions are computed for

damage to different classes of buildings, facilities, and lifeline system components and
loss-of-function estimates are made.
The damage and functionality information is used to compute estimates of direct

economic loss, casualties and shelter needs. In addition, the indirect economic impacts
on the regional economy are estimated for the years following the earthquake.
An estimate of the number of ignitions and the extent of fire spread is computed. The
amount and type of debris is estimated. If an inundation map is provided, exposure to
flooding can also be estimated.
The user plays a major role in selecting the scope and nature of the output of a loss
estimation study. A variety of maps can be generated for visualising the extent of the
losses. Numerical results may be examined at the level of the census tract (equivalent to
statistical area unit / mesh block in New Zealand) or may be aggregated by county or
region.
McGuire, RK (2004). Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis.
McGuire is one of the pioneers of seismic risk analysis, and his monograph provides a
general introduction to methods of seismic hazard and risk analysis. He pays particular
attention to one of the most important aspects of seismic risk analysis, that is, how to deal
with the associated large uncertainties. There are two types of uncertainty:
1.
Aleatory (or random) uncertainty: uncertainty that is inherent in a random phenomenon

and cannot be reduced by acquiring additional data: Examples include future
earthquake locations, future earthquake magnitudes, ground motions at a site given
the median value, damage state for a class of buildings given the median value.
2.
Epistemic (or knowledge) uncertainty: the uncertainty that stems from lack of knowledge
about some model or parameter. This type of uncertainty can be reduced (at least
conceptually) by additional data. Examples include maximum magnitude for a source,
median value of ground motion given the source properties, median damage state for
a class of buildings given the ground motion.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
12

McGuire describes risk analysis methodologies that include allowance for uncertainty
based on probability theory. The probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) method
is described, along with methods to convert seismic hazard into seismic risk or loss.
4.3
Earthquake Hazards
4.3.1
General Approaches
Reiter, Leon (1990). Earthquake Hazard Analysis.

Reiter provides an introduction to the subject of identification of earthquake sources and
modelling of the occurrence of earthquakes on these sources.
Models for the occurrence of future earthquakes are based on historical seismicity, crustal
geology and tectonic processes. There are two sources of earthquake:
1.
Area sources are geographical areas within which an earthquake of a given magnitude
is equally likely to occur at any time or location, where the local geological features
that cause the earthquakes have not been identified.
2.
Fault sources are usually individual faults where the tectonic and geological features
causing earthquakes have been identified.
4.3.2
New Zealand Data
Active fault and historic earthquake data for New Zealand are available in the following
databases.
Environment Canterbury Active Faults Database
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/EcanGIS/ecanpro/viewer.htm
The Environment Canterbury database keeps an up to date record of the active faults in the
Canterbury Region.
Active Faults Database of New Zealand.
http://www.gns.cri.nz/store/databases/indexb.html#Faults
The Active Faults Database of New Zealand is maintained by the Institute of Geological
and Nuclear Sciences. It has been designed to hold all data collected from investigations of
active faults. Along with the locations of active faults, the Active Faults Database contains
the results from field measurements of offset features, trenching, and dating. It also stores
interpretation of these results in the form of the fault recurrence interval, slip rate, single
event displacement and date of last movement.
National Earthquake Information Database
http://www.gns.cri.nz/store/databases/indexb.html#Earthquake
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
13

The National Earthquake Information Database is maintained by the Institute of Geological
and Nuclear Sciences. It contains summary information of New Zealand earthquakes
including epicentres, depths, magnitudes, and felt information for more than 160,000
earthquakes. This includes pre-instrumental shocks, but not all information is available for
all events. The database also contains over 1,000,000 analogue and digital seismograms
recorded by the short-period National Seismograph Network, of which the digital archive
is held on-line.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences (2000). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of
New Zealand: New Active Fault Data, Seismicity Data, Attenuation Relationships and Methods
This report provides details of the fault sources and area sources that were used for a
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for New Zealand.
Seismological Society of America (1997). Seismological Research Letters, No. 68.
Attenuation relationships are used to calculate the ground shaking at a site given the
earthquake location and magnitude. They are derived from recorded earthquake ground
motions. This publication provides a good state-of-the-art summary of the development of
these relationships.
McVerry GH, et al. (2000). Crustal and Subduction Zone Attenuation Relations for New Zealand
Earthquakes.
McVerry et al developed attenuation relationships from a dataset of New Zealand
earthquake records, supplemented by overseas data. The attenuation model takes account
of different tectonic types of earthquake (crustal and subduction zone) and their range of
depths. The attenuation expressions for crustal earthquakes have further subdivisions for
different types of fault rupture (strike-slip, normal, oblique reverse and reverse). The
model takes account of site soil amplification through a range of site soil classes. The
ground motions are given in terms of peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral
acceleration.
Dowrick D.J., Rhoades D.A. (1999). Attenuation of Modified Mercalli Intensity in New Zealand
Earthquakes.
Dowrick and Rhoades developed Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity attenuation
relationships from observed intensities in New Zealand earthquakes. The MM intensity
(MMI) scale measures the earthquake effects at a site in terms of the effect it has on the
natural and built environment. The advantage of using the MMI scale as a measure of
earthquake intensity is that there is more historical earthquake consequence data available
that is correlated to MMI than there is to peak ground accelerations (PGA).
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
14

4.4
Damage and Loss Modelling

4.4.1
General
Rojahn, C and Sharpe, R L (1985). Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, ATC-13.
In the mid-1980s, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) undertook a
comprehensive programme to estimate the economic impacts of a major California
earthquake. This included estimates of damages to all types of facilities, the associated
losses and casualties. Because the required earthquake damage and loss data were not
available in the literature, FEMA and Applied Technology Council (ATC) agreed that the
best way to develop the required data was to draw on the experience and judgement of
seasoned earthquake engineers. Accordingly a panel of senior level specialists in
earthquake engineering was established to develop consensus damage and loss estimates.
The expert panel estimated the probability of damage to a range of structure types. The
standard damage descriptions used and the associated damage factors are shown in
Table 1. The damage factor (also commonly known as damage ratio) is the ratio of the cost
of repairing the damage to cost of replacing the structure.
Table 1 - ATC-13 Damage States and Damage Factors (Rojahn and Sharpe, 1985)
The outputs of the ATC-13 study included damage probability matrices, an example of
which is shown in Table 2. By using such matrices, it is possible to estimate the probability
of a structure being in a particular damage state for a given MMI ground shaking intensity,
and to estimate the expected dollar loss by multiplying the damage factors for the structure
by the estimated replacement value.
Estimates were also made of the repair times for given damage states, and number of
casualties for given damage states and occupancy rates.
The data produced by this project remains the most comprehensive source of damage data,
and form the basis of many subsequent loss studies and methodologies.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
15

Table 2 - ATC-13 Damage Probability Matrix
FEMA (2001). Earthquake loss estimation methodology, HAZUS99

Damage models are provided in HAZUS for the full range of building types and other
infrastructure.
In HAZUS, damage models are in the form of lognormal fragility curves that relate the
probability of being in, or exceeding, a damage state for a given earthquake demand
parameter (e.g., response spectrum displacement, PGA).
Northridge Earthquake Losses
Studies have been carried out by Mary Comerio and others on loss ratios from the
Northridge earthquake 1994 in California, USA. Some of these results may be of relevance
to risk assessment for buildings in Christchurch. These studies also considered contents
losses, and are based on insurance claims.
In considering these results for New Zealand, care should be taken to recognise differences
in insurance industry and the types of buildings.
4.4.2
Buildings and Casualties
HAZUS
Figure 5 provides an example of building fragility curves for the four damage states used
in the HAZUS methodology. These have been derived by analysing the earthquake
response of model building types.
Descriptions of structural and non-structural damage states are provided for all of the
model building types in HAZUS. Examples for one building type (reinforced concrete
moment resisting frames) are given below :
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
16

Slight Structural Damage : Flexural or shear type hairline cracks in some beams and
columns near joints or within joints.
Moderate Structural Damage : Most beams and columns exhibit hairline cracks. In
ductile frames some of the frame elements have reached yield capacity indicated by
larger flexural cracks and some concrete spalling. Non-ductile frames may exhibit
larger shear cracks and spalling.
Extensive Structural Damage : Some of the frame elements have reached their ultimate
capacity indicated in ductile frames by large flexural cracks, spalled concrete and
buckled main reinforcement; non-ductile frame elements may have suffered shear
failures or bond failures at reinforcement splices, or broken ties or buckled main
reinforcement in columns which may result in partial collapse.
Complete Structural Damage : Structure has collapsed or is in imminent danger of

collapse due to brittle failure of non-ductile frame elements or loss of frame stability.
Approximately 20% (low-rise), 15% ( mid-rise) or 10% (high-rise) of the total area of
the building with complete damage is expected to have collapsed.
Figure 5 - Example HAZUS Fragility Curves for Reinforced Concrete Framed Buildings
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
17

The estimated damage (i.e., damage state for model building type for a given level of
ground shaking) is used in conjunction with other models that are provided in the
methodology to estimate :
1.
casualties due to structural damage, including fatalities;
2.
monetary losses due to building damage (i.e. cost of repairing or replacing damaged
buildings and their contents);
3.
monetary losses resulting from building damage and closure (e.g., losses due to
business interruption);
4.
social impacts (e.g., loss of shelter); and
5.
other economic and social impacts.
The building damage predictions may also be used to study expected damage patterns in a
given region for different scenario earthquakes (e.g., to identify the most vulnerable
building types, or the areas expected to have the most damaged buildings).
Dowrick, et al. Various
Dowrick and his colleagues have analysed insurance claim records for the 1931 Hawkes
Bay, 1942 Wairarapa, 1986 Inangahua and 1987 Edgecumbe earthquakes in New Zealand.
They have used the data to calculate the damage ratio as a function of MM intensity for a
range of building types and ground conditions. The damage ratio is the cost of damage to
a building divided by the replacement value of the building.
The data from these studies are very important as they provide the most robust empirically
derived information from New Zealand data, as opposed to expert opinion (eg ATC-13) or
theoretically (eg HAZUS) derived damage or loss models. However, the range of building
types covered by the data is limited.
Works Consultancy Services (1995). Earthquake Risk Assessment Studies
Opus International Consultants (Works Consultancy Services, 1995) assessed the damage
and losses to buildings in the Wellington Region, and estimated deaths and injuries, for
selected earthquake scenarios. The methodology that was developed for the studies was in
accordance with the state-of-the-art of the time including the forerunner of HAZUS (NIBS,
1994).
The geographic models for the studies were built up from Valuation Roll Number areas.
The analyses were done with spreadsheets, not GIS.
The building damage models were specifically developed for New Zealand construction
types, based on data from Dowrick, ATC-13 and other sources. The number of buildings,
their floor areas and construction types were supplied by Quotable Value (QV) New
Zealand (Valuation New Zealand). Replacement costs were calculated from construction
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
18

cost rates. Drive past surveys were undertaken in a sample of suburbs to supplement the
QV construction type data. Damages from fire following earthquake were included.
Population data used as a basis of the casualty estimates were obtained from Department
of Statistics census data. From this data, it was possible to directly calculate the night-time
population in each roll area and the daytime population, for over 15 years old, in each area.
The under 15years old population was estimated from consideration of the school
populations.
A table of casualty rates versus building construction type and damage state was
developed from NIBS (1994) and University of Cambridge data (Spence, 1994), for
estimating injuries, deaths and entrapments.
The outputs of the studies were:
Numbers of buildings in each damage state (none, light, moderate, extensive,

complete).
Costs of repairing earthquake damage to buildings.
Expected damage to critical facilities (hospitals, police stations, fire stations, CDHQ).
Number of casualties.
Maps showing the geographical distribution of these damages and losses.
The results of these studies have been used extensively, and in particular for earthquake
preparedness planning.
One limitation with the methodology used is that it produced nominally mean estimates
of damage and losses, with only a general indication given of the likely variation from the
mean in any particular event due to uncertainty.
EQC Minerva Model
The Earthquake Commission (EQC) had a computer model developed, to allow it to
predict and plan for insurance losses for the portfolio of assets covered by the EQC scheme.
The EQC model is known as Minerva, and combines a geographical information system,
a hazard model and a dynamic financial analysis model (Middleton, 2002). An outline of
the insurance loss model is given by Shephard et al (2002). The model uses an approach
similar to that shown on Figure 1, and uses the Quotable Value Database, EQC Building
Costs Database and an Aon Soils Database. The earthquake loss system derives losses
based on earthquake sources, a variety of attenuation models, and building damage
vulnerability models (comprising loss tables for different building types and earthquake
intensities and statistical distribution of loss). It should be noted that this primarily covers
residential buildings in New Zealand which are covered by EQC.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
19

Estimating Risks from Fire Following Earthquake (2002)
The New Zealand Fire Service commissioned GNS to investigate the risk of post
earthquake fires. A GIS model containing property and valuation data for Wellington was
shown to be a useful platform for modelling the spread of post-earthquake fire in the urban
setting. Two approaches were investigated, one static and one dynamic. The static
approach relied on a simple buffering technique to define potential burn-zones that are
sampled randomly to give estimates of losses. Repeated sampling was used to assess the
probability of exceedance of various levels of loss as a function of the number of ignitions
and the spacing between buildings. The dynamic approach used a cellular automaton
technique for determining both the rate and extent of fire spread in response to a wide
range of factors including wind, radiation, sparking, branding, and individual separations
of buildings.
4.4.3
Lifelines Studies
Lifelines studies have been carried out in a number of cities and regions in New Zealand
starting with Wellington, to consider the potential for damage to lifelines in earthquakes
and other hazards, and understand the interdependencies. These studies were carried out
at a high level to understand the potential damage to lifelines largely based on the expert
judgement of engineering professionals, based on their knowledge.
These include studies for :
Wellington (Centre for Advanced Engineering, 1991)
Christchurch (Centre for Advanced Engineering, 1997)
Auckland
Hawkes Bay
Invercargill
These studies nevertheless provided the impetus for further assessment of the risk from
earthquakes and other natural hazards, and implementation of mitigation measures.
4.4.4
Water Supply
ORourke and Liu (2001)

ORourke and Liu have considered the theoretical response of pipelines to ground
deformation. However because of the complexities of the ground motions, the soil-pipe
interaction and pipeline behaviour, it is not practicable to estimate network damage rates
from these analyses.
Damage rates are therefore based primarily on empirical evidence (earthquake damage
data), tempered with engineering judgement and sometimes by analytical formulation.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
20

American Lifelines Alliance (2001). Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems
The American Lifelines Alliance has prepared fragility curves for buried pipelines, water
tanks, tunnels and canals. These are based in part upon a large volume of earthquake
damage data that was assembled for that study. These are the most comprehensive and
soundly based models for water systems in particular and pipelines in general.
Data are available from the 1995 Kobe, 1994 Northridge, 1989 Loma Prieta, 1983 HihonkaiChubu, 1971 San Fernando and 1906 San Francisco earthquakes principally. Even so there
is not a great deal of data available, and even that has inconsistencies in the way that
numbers of repairs and the demands (PGV and PGD) were recorded.
Typically damage survey compilations are performed by third parties some time after the
water system has been restored. Repair records by field crews are commonly used to
ascertain damage counts. Since the main objective of the repair crews is to restore supply as
rapidly as possible, documenting damage is of secondary importance. As a result, the
damage estimates have some inaccuracies, including omitted repair records, vague damage
descriptions, multiple repairs at a single site combined into one record and two visits (e.g.
temporary and permanent repair) to one site counted as two repairs. Unfortunately, this
inaccuracy is inherent in all damage surveys, is likely to vary significantly from earthquake
to earthquake, and is impossible to quantify. These uncertainties need to be kept in mind
when interpreting the results of loss analyses based on these data.
The fragility curves developed by the American Lifelines Alliance and others take into
consideration the data and lessons from these earthquake events.
Opus International Consultants (2002). Earthquake Loss Assessment for Wellington Region
Wholesale Water Pipelines
A probabilistic assessment was made of the financial loss that the Wellington Regional
Council is exposed to from damage to its wholesale water supply pipeline network caused
by an earthquake on the Wellington Fault.
The damage models for the buried pipe were expressed as a repair rate per unit length of
pipe, as a function of wave passage (peak ground velocity) or ground failure (permanent
ground deformation). These were derived from the American Lifelines Alliance data
(ALA, 2001).
4.4.5
Telecommunications Networks
Schiff AJ (ed)(1998). Proceedings of the Workshop on Performance Criteria for Telecommunication

Services Under Earthquake Conditions
These proceedings provide useful data on the earthquake performance of
telecommunications networks.
They identify several measures to characterise
communications systems performance in earthquakes. The performance of the overall
system will depend on the performance of various sub-systems and components in the
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
21

telecommunications network. The workshop also addressed the key issues to help
improve earthquake performance.
Work Consultancy Services (1996) Estimated Earthquake Damage to Telecom New Zealands
Outside Plant
Opus (Works Consultancy Services) estimated the damage to the Telecom New Zealands
telecommunications network in the Wellington Region. These were based on damage
models for buried and pole mounted cables that were developed from earthquake damage
data.
The damage assessment for the telecommunication cables were based on the expected
ground shaking from earthquakes and more importantly the level of ground damage due
to the earthquakes considered. Permanent ground deformation was assessed based on the
potential for liquefaction and consequent lateral spreading as well as the potential for fault
rupture and earthquake induced slope failures, which were derived from regional hazard
maps and consideration of ground conditions in representative sub-areas. This then
enabled the assessment of the damage to these assets by developing appropriate fragility
relationships.
4.4.6
Road Networks
International literature on road risk assessment was summarised by Brabhaharan et al

(2001). Relevant and particularly recent literature are summarised below.
Bridges
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (1992) held a US-Japan workshop in
1991 on earthquake disaster prevention for lifeline systems. The section on transportation
lifelines concentrated on bridges, with reports on Caltrans seismic retrofit program in the
USA (Maroney and Gates, 1992), and the seismic inspection and strengthening program in
Japan (Kawashima et al, 1992). There have also been several reports and papers published
on bridge seismic screening, prioritisation and retrofit.
Transit New Zealand (1998) published a seismic screening procedure for state highway
bridges based on the methodology developed by Opus International Consultants (1998).
The bridges along New Zealands state highways have been screened systematically, and
the bridges were prioritised by Opus for further assessment on the basis of the screening
(Opus International Consultants, 2002). Following on from the screening programme, the
seismic performance of some bridges has been assessed in further detail.
Basoz and Kiremidjian (1995) proposed a more network based approach to the assessment
of bridges and demonstrated the use of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) for bridge
prioritisation. The use of GIS has facilitated the combination of seismicity, bridge
vulnerability and traffic origin-destination information, to assess the risk. This allowed
them to consider the effect of the seismic performance of bridges on the road network
(Basoz and Kiremidjian, 1997).
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
22

Road Network
Nozaki and Sugita (2000) considered the traffic demand from post-earthquake emergency
disaster recovery activities and the potential for damage to network links in assessing the
network, using a parameter termed structural performance index. They illustrate the use
of this model to assess the effectiveness of structural (retrofit) and non-structural (traffic
control) measures. Chunguang and Huiying (2000) presented an assessment of the
reliability of a road network by considering the probability of damage to various
components of the network using a Monte Carlo simulation. They demonstrated the use of
this approach in considering the location of emergency service resources, such as
ambulances.
Henrickson et al (1980) considered losses to users from earthquake damaged road
networks. They assessed a net user benefit or the value of the transportation network to
users as the difference between the total user benefit and the cost of the trip. The effect of
disruption from an earthquake was assessed as a decrease in the total net user benefit.
Hence the total loss from the earthquake was assessed as :
total loss = repair or replacement cost + loss in user benefits
This together with a component damage probability matrix (earthquake damaged road link
capacity and the associated probability of damage states for different earthquake
intensities) was used to derive total cost of earthquake damage. This was then compared
with the retrofit cost for that component.
Werner et al (1997) proposed seismic risk analysis of a highway system to estimate the loss
from earthquakes. The use of GIS was suggested, with the following four modules :
System module with network and traffic data.
Hazards module with seismicity, topography and soils data.
Component module with structural, functionality and loss / repair cost data.
Socio-economic module with loss, emergency response and societal effects data.
They demonstrated this model using a simplified deterministic analysis for four
earthquake scenarios (considering only the ground shaking effects) for a section of the road
network in Memphis, Tennessee, USA, and considering only bridges on the road network.
MINUTP traffic forecasting software was used to assess traffic impact. Only direct losses
(repair cost) and traffic disruption costs were considered.
Gordon et al (1997) outlined a framework for assessing the total economic impact from the
effect of earthquakes on transportation (bridges only considered), using input/output
models. They included the change in traffic demand after the earthquake.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
23

Augusti et al (1994) described the use of a dynamic programming optimisation procedure
to assess the reliability (that is maintaining connection between origin and destination),
evaluate optimal intervention (retrofit of bridges) and reduce the seismic risks to highway
networks. The method allowed intervention (retrofit) to be distributed for a given amount
of total resources, to maximise the reliability.
Opus International Consultants (1999) carried out a risk analysis for Upper Hutt City
Councils rural road network comprising the Akatarawa, Whitemans, Kaitoke and
Moonshine Valley areas (Brabhaharan, 2000). A risk management framework was
developed for the study based on hazard characterisation, loss estimation and riskeconomic analysis with the aid of a GIS based model. The study considered all natural
hazards, and characterised and mapped the hazards and the potential impact on the roads.
The analysis comprised an assessment of the total economic costs, which were derived as :
total economic costs = damage reinstatement costs + traffic disruption costs
The analyses took into consideration the probabilities of various intensities of each hazard.
In this instance, earthquake and storm hazards were the dominant hazards, and
consequent liquefaction, slope failure, erosion and flooding were also considered.
Dalziell et al (1999) carried out a study of the hazards affecting the road network in the
Central North Island of New Zealand. They considered the state highway network in the
area, and assessed the risk to the Desert Road section of State Highway 1. Computer aided
traffic analysis using a SATURN model was used to consider the impact on traffic using
the road network. The study included consideration of volcanic eruption, earthquakes,
snow and ice as well as traffic accidents.
Brabhaharan et al (2001) developed a GIS based approach for the assessment of the risk to
road networks and a systematic approach for the management of the risk. This was further
developed by Brabhaharan & Moynihan (2002) who presented methods of implementation
of risk management in the New Zealand context. This approach has been successfully
applied to assess the risk to road networks in New Zealand (Brabhaharan, 2002 and 2004).
In particular, the application to the Wellington Road Network has enabled the
development of systematic risk management and implementation.
The approach developed by Brabhaharan et al (2001) would be a useful approach for
assessing the risk to the road network, as it covers the risk to the whole road network, and
the results are readily suited to further assessment of risk management.
4.5
Earthquake Risk Studies Undertaken for Christchurch and Canterbury

The Earthquake Hazard in Christchurch (Elder et al, 1991) presented a detailed evaluation of
the earthquake hazards in Christchurch, and also included a brief overview of the potential
damage that may affect structures, housing, water supply, sewerage reticulation, drainage,
transport and energy supply.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
24

Christchurch Seismic Loss Study (Soils & Foundations, 1991) presents an early study of
potential earthquake losses for Christchurch, based on the understanding of the earthquake
hazard at that time and total building stock values classified into building type from the
valuation department. The report estimated an average annual loss of $ 42 Million (in 1989
dollar values) for structural damage to buildings, with losses exceeding $ 1 billion (in 1989
dollar values) for a 200-year return period earthquake.
Canterbury Regional Council Infrastructural Assets Risk Assessment (Institute of Geological &
Nuclear Sciences, 1994) reported the seismicity, areas of liquefaction and damage ratios for
Canterbury Region, but did not actually provide an estimate of the risk or losses.
Risks & Realities, a report of the Christchurch Engineering Lifelines Group (Centre for
Advanced Engineering, 1997) presents a multi-disciplinary approach to the vulnerability of
lifelines to natural hazards. It presents a qualitative assessment of the potential damage to
drainage, sewer system, water supply, petroleum products, electricity supply,
telecommunications, transport and emergency services. It also provides some maps
showing the distribution of expected damage. It provides a good overview of potential
damage from a variety of hazards, but only in a qualitative manner.
Soils & Foundations (1999) Lower Avon River Lateral Spread, Damage Costs and Mitigation
considered the impact of liquefaction and consequent lateral spread in the Lower Avon
River banks on residential properties, damage costs and potential liquefaction mitigation
costs. This was an area-specific study confined to a small area of Christchurch.
LAPP Fund : Earthquake Risk to Councils Assets in Wellington and Christchurch ( Institute of
Geological & Nuclear Sciences , 2002) presents an assessment of the loss to assets owned by
the Council only. The fragility models used for the assessment of the loss are not presented
in the report.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences (2003). Review of Effects of Liquefaction Induced
Differential Settlements on Residential Dwellings in Christchurch. The report reviews a student
report by Kirsti Maria Carr on the potential damage to houses due to liquefaction.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences (2005).
earthquakes affecting Christchurch.
4.6
Estimated damage and casualties from
Summary of Literature Review

A review of relevant literature has been searched, sourced and reviewed as part of this
project. The focus of the review has been to identify sources of information and techniques
that would help develop a methodology for the earthquake risk assessment for
Christchurch.
HAZUS provides a general framework for the assessment of the risk from earthquakes,
buildings, casualties and lifelines. This framework is applicable for the earthquake risk
assessment for Christchurch, with variations to suit the information available for the study.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
25

The available hazard information and the approach for modelling hazards are presented in
detail and discussed in Section 6.
Fragility relationships are available from HAZUS, ATC13 as well as data from the research
into New Zealand earthquake damage and selected overseas data such as from Northridge.
The Wellington study on 1995 still provides a useful example for a risk assessment for the
built infrastructure and casualties. The recent research into damage from fire following an
earthquake, has been carried out by Victoria University and the Institute of Geological &
Nuclear Sciences, and could be useful to better assess the damage from fire.
Lifelines studies across New Zealand, including the Christchurch Study (Centre for
Advanced Engineering, 1997) have been high level studies based on expert opinion, and
have highlighted the importance of earthquake effects.
The American Lifelines Association fragility relations provide a useful basis for assessment
of the damage to water supply pipelines, and recent studies by Opus International
Consultants in Wellington provide an example of its application for the New Zealand, and
are relevant for the Christchurch study.
Schiff AJ (ed)(1998) provides useful information on the assessment of performance of
telecommunication systems, and the Works Consultancy Services (1996) study provides an
example of risk assessment to Telecom assets in Wellington.
The HAZUS based assessment of the risk to bridges and the Brabhaharan et al (2001)
approach to assessment of the risk to road networks provide a useful basis for road
networks, particularly as illustrated by its successful application to the Wellington Road
network by Brabhaharan (2004).
Previous risk studies for Christchurch have considered some aspects of damage and loss to
the city, but not in a comprehensive manner.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
26
Inventory Data
5.1
General Approach
Research into potential sources, availability and nature of data for buildings, engineering
lifeline assets and demographic information has been carried out for the Christchurch area.
ECan limited the lifeline infrastructure investigations to water, roads, electricity and
telecommunications. Other assets such as the rail network, ports and wastewater
infrastructure were not investigated but could be included in the earthquake risk study.
The research was undertaken by contacting infrastructure managers at the Christchurch
City Council (CCC), utility and telecommunications companies. Discussions were also
held with people responsible for maintaining and updating information at these
organisations.
The information available is predominantly stored in databases, GIS systems, asset
management plans and seismic investigation reports. Details of these are included in the
sections below.
Another key source of information is the engineering lifelines study for Christchurch that
was undertaken in the mid nineties. The results are summarised in the publication Risks
and Realities (Centre for Advanced Engineering, 1997). This study represents a major
collation of lifeline information that was provided by various organisations in a form
suitable for risk assessments.
5.2
Buildings
The CCC and commercial organisations such as Quotable Value (QV) hold information on
properties and buildings. The council databases have been populated with information
from:
Building permits prior to 1992;
Building consent information since 1992;
Property information supplied by the former Government Valuation Department.
Up until 1998, the Government Valuation Department undertook property valuations and
maintained detailed records of property information. However since the enactment of the
Rating Valuations Act 1998, responsibility for property valuations was transferred to local
councils and detailed land and building data held by the Government Valuation
Department was transferred to the local councils.
Information is generally available at property level or mesh block level. Mesh blocks are
predefined areas that contain information for all properties within the mesh block
boundaries. The number of properties within a mesh block can vary from a few up to
hundreds of properties. The mesh blocks for Christchurch are shown in Appendix A.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
27

Typical property information that is available from commercial or council databases
include :
Residential/commercial/industrial classification;
Building Age (decade of construction);
Wall construction material (wood, brick, concrete etc);
Property use (residential, office, hotel, retail, mixed, storage, education etc);
Numbers of properties;
Land and building valuations.
The three important factors for classifying the earthquake performance of buildings are:
building structure,
age, and
number of storeys.
The age and number of storeys can be readily obtained from commercial or council
databases, however the building structure classification (i.e. unreinforced masonry, steel
frame, concrete frame) is not generally held on any database. The wall material
classification and age of the building can be used to infer the likely building structure with
reasonable accuracy. A small random sample of commercial properties could be inspected
to verify the validity of the assumptions.
CCC has a register of earthquake risk buildings. The data is stored on a GIS system that is
used to prepare LIM reports. The council could supply a spreadsheet file with a property
identifier.
Information on seismic upgrades to commercial buildings is not available on the Council
databases. Seismic strengthening of earthquake prone buildings will generally improve
the structural performance of a building in a seismic event, above the level assessed based
on the building classification only.
Access to the CCC database is typically for in-house staff only, and much of the data and
GIS information is not available in the public domain. Release of data for the ECan
earthquake risk study may require approval by a number of people at the CCC and
conditions of use may apply to data that is deemed potentially sensitive in the public
domain.
ECan and CCC work closely together on many related projects and regularly exchange
information from their databases. Therefore ECan would need to play an active role in
assisting the risk study group with obtaining data from CCC through database searches
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
28

and GIS layers. Some costs may apply to CCC staff that spend time clarifying information
requests and processing data to provide it in a suitable format for risk study use. Some
information may already be held by Environment Canterbury, who could provide the data
for the study.
Alternatively, property information can be obtained from a commercial organisation, such
as QV. QV hold similar information to the council databases (with the exception of the
earthquake prone building register). The benefits of using QV are that they will provide
the information in a timely manner and reduce the negotiations and approvals necessary to
obtain data from the CCC.
5.3
Roads
5.3.1
Local Roads
The road network model can be developed from one of the following two sources:
Topovector data;
RAMM database.
Use of Topovector data requires a software licence. The Topovector data would allow the
entire road network in the Christchurch City to be modelled in GIS. The geometry is based
on 1:50,000 topographic maps. However, the attributes associated with the data are limited
and include such characteristics as the number of road lanes and whether the surface is
sealed or unsealed.
RAMM data could be sourced from the CCC. The RAMM data has a mapping layer that
can be exported into other GIS systems. The RAMM data contains all attributes that
characterise the road including surface width, seal type, traffic volumes and maintenance
history.
The RAMM data has several advantages over the Topovector data. One advantage is that
the results from the analysis, in the form of GIS layers, can be returned to the council for its
own use at a later date, and would be consistent with the data already held by the Council.
Another advantage is that the RAMM data contains more attributes that describe the road
itself enabling a more robust risk assessment
The RAMM database does not hold any information on bridges, retaining walls and
culverts. The majority of data and maintenance history for these structures are in hardcopy
format.
Studies into seismic vulnerabilities of bridges have been completed by CCC and would be
made available to the risk study group. The detail to which this study has been carried out
is not known at this stage. Bridge and retaining wall drawings and specifications would
also be available to allow the risk study group to briefly assess and classify the seismic
performance if required.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
29

5.3.2
State Highways
State highways 1, 73, 74 and 75 pass through the Christchurch city area. The highways are
owned and maintained by Transit New Zealand (Transit).
The RAMM database is used to store information on the highway network.
attributes can be exported into a GIS system with RAMM mapping software.
Road
Bridge information is held on a separate database. For Transit, Opus has carried out a
seismic screening of the state highway bridges in the Christchurch area and the results of
this study would be available for the Christchurch risk study.
5.4
Water Supply Networks

The key assets for the water supply network are pipes, pumping stations, valves and
reservoirs. The CCC stores information on pipes in a GIS system. Pipe attributes including
size, length, age and material are also available. The location of pumping stations, major
valves and reservoirs can also be linked into a GIS model.
An overview of the Water Supply Asset Management Plan 2002 is available on the council
website. A detailed copy of the asset management and business continuance plan would
be made available to the risk study group.
5.5
Telecommunications Assets
Telecom New Zealand Ltd (Telecom) and Telstra Clear Ltd (TelstraClear) have
communication networks in Christchurch.
Vodafone and Telecom also operate
independent cellular phone networks.
5.5.1
Telecom
Telecom uses Small World GIS software to store information on their network assets.
Telecoms main assets are exchange buildings, underground communication cables and
cell phone towers.
Telecom has a policy of not releasing drawings showing the complete underground cable
network as this information is commercially sensitive. Telecom has released incomplete or
disjointed information for previous lifelines studies. Most of the drawings were provided
in a CAD format and prepared by in-house Telecom draughtsmen. It may be more difficult
to obtain the same quality of information for this risk study as Telecom no longer have the
in-house drafting capability to provide such services.
Small World GIS compatibility software is available to convert layers and attribute data
into appropriate formats for use in other GIS systems. However the ability to provide
incomplete or disjointed cable network information from a GIS system may be difficult.
Another alternative would be to trace printed outputs from the Small World GIS system
using CAD. The CAD layer could then be imported into the GIS model for Christchurch.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
30

Any network information used in the risk study would need prior sign off with Telecom.
5.5.2
TelstraClear
The majority of the TelstraClear network has been installed over the last ten years. The
majority of communications equipment is likely to be restrained with seismic restraints and
exchange buildings designed to modern standards.
Information on the TelstraClear network is stored on a GIS system. TelstraClear have
indicated they would be willing to provide information with a lifelines confidentiality
agreement. Exchange buildings, cabinets and major underground cable routes would be
able to be incorporated into a GIS model.
TelstraClear have also provided a summary document of a recent civil defence exercise that
includes information on major cable routes, exchange buildings, vulnerabilities and links to
other providers such as Vodafone and BCL.
5.5.3
Vodafone
Vodafones main assets include cellular towers and small exchange buildings. The
majority of the Vodafone network has been installed over the last ten to fifteen years, so
most of the network has be designed to modern seismic standards.
The tower structures are not susceptible to seismic loading. However the tower
foundations will be susceptible to earthquake induced ground settlement and landslides.
Underground fibre optic cables are also prone to damage from earthquake settlement.
Vodafone exchange buildings are generally small single storey buildings with
communication cabinets. Most cabinets are generally secured by seismic restraints that are
designed to the latest earthquake standards.
5.6
Electricity Assets
Orion NZ Ltd (Orion) owns and operates the local supply network in the Christchurch
region.
Orion receives power via the national grid, which is owned and operated by Transpower
NZ Ltd (Transpower).
5.6.1
National Grid
Transpowers asset information is available in a form that can be imported into a GIS
platform.
Transpowers main assets are substations, transmission lines and
communication towers.
Transpower has undertaken seismic mitigation work at their substations over the last
fifteen years. There are four substations located within the Christchurch city area. The
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
31

substations have switching cabinets housed in buildings and switchyards that contain high
voltage equipment such as circuit breakers and transformers.
The transmission and communication tower foundations are susceptible to earthquake
induced ground settlement and landslides. Earthquake induced damage to transmission
lines located away from Christchurch city area that are closer to the earthquake epicentre
may affect the power supply to Christchurch city. This risk study will only consider the
key electricity supply assets within the Christchurch city area.
5.6.2
Local Supply Network
Orions main assets are district substations and supply cables. The substations have
switching cabinets housed in buildings and switchyards that contain high voltage
equipment such as circuit breakers and transformers. The electricity cables throughout the
city are a mixture of overhead lines and underground cables.
Orion has a GIS system that holds information on the electricity network.
A copy of the 2005 asset management plan is available on the Orion website. The asset
management plan has a section on risk management that summarises the following topics:
Seismic strengthening of substation buildings;
Importance of electricity supply to other lifeline services;
Key assets that could lead to catastrophic supply failure;
Recent earthquake mitigation works.
Orion has provided a summary of reports relating to recent seismic investigation work (a
selection of which are listed below). The reports would be made available to the risk study
group.
Resource Management Act - Risk Assessment, 1993;
Resource Management Act Reduction of Risk Exposure, 1993;
Outdoor Pad Mounted Transformers Survey, 1998;
Dallington 66kV Cable Liquefaction Hazard at the Avon River Crossing, 1998;
Substation Liquefaction Hazard, 1998;
Assessment of Overhead LV Distribution Network in Christchurch Metropolitan Area,

2000;
Christchurch Urban Network Full Scale Pole Testing Report, 2002;
Seismic Risk Assessment Transpower Christchurch Substations, 2002.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
32

5.7
Demographic Information
Demographic information is available from the Statistics New Zealand 2001 Census data.
Information that will be useful in a risk analysis study includes:
Average number of people per household (night time figures only);
Average number of people employed in the Christchurch Central Business District.
The census data can be grouped into appropriate land areas such as the statistical area unit
or mesh block. The mesh block is the smallest unit of area for which population data is
available.
5.8
Geographical Information Systems Data Format

Property information is stored in the CCC GIS databases in two forms. Firstly the property
parcels are stored in a polygon theme/layer with each having a key field landparcel_id.
Secondly the addresses of properties are stored in a point theme/layer.
Non-spatial data covering the items of interest to the CCC are also stored in relational
databases. These contain data such as capital values but not necessarily a propertys
condition, age or materials. Any of this non-spatial data can be spatially linked to the
parcels polygon theme/layer through the common key field landparcel_id.
Actual building outlines are also stored in the CCC GIS databases but they contain no key
fields or useful attributes. The building centroids could be used to define the parcel-based
data to a more refined location to that of the parcel centroid.
Water, wastewater and stormwater are stored in line theme/layers and hold attributes
such as pipe age, material, and diameter.
The information can be readily incorporated with other GIS themes/layers to provide a
basis for further data manipulation and spatial analysis. The resultant spatial modelling of
the data provides a basis for the risk/hazard analysis.
Much of this information is also held by Environment Canterbury, either generally (land
parcel data) or for restricted use in the consents section (water, wastewater, stormwater
data).
5.9
Summary of Asset Inventory Data

likely to be available.
Building data is available from Environment Canterbury, Christchurch City Council or
Quotable Value, and the most effective means of obtaining the data and the cost needs to
be confirmed.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
33

The power supply companies have shown a willingness to supply information.
Telecom New Zealand has indicated that they would make information available, but this
would be limited for commercial sensitivity reasons. The information Telecom is willing to
make available for the study needs to be confirmed. TelstraClear have indicated that
would provide the information.
Information on water supply would be available from CCC and they also hold information
on local roads. The information on state highways is available from Transit New Zealand.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
34
Earthquake Hazard Information Review
6.1
Introduction
The source, availability and nature of earthquake hazard information have been reviewed,
to assess the appropriateness for use in the earthquake risk study.
A comprehensive list of earthquake hazard information held by ECan was collated and
relevant publications have been obtained and used in this review. Other literature of
earthquake hazard in Christchurch has also been sourced and reviewed.
6.2
Earthquake Hazard Literature

6.2.1
Ground Shaking
The Earthquake Hazard in Christchurch (Elder et al, 1991) presented a detailed evaluation of
the earthquake hazards in Christchurch, and contributed to a significant advance in the
knowledge of the earthquake hazards in the city. It considered earthquake fault sources, a
prediction of the intensity of ground shaking (with associated probabilities and recurrence
intervals) and spectra. In addition, it also considered the influence of the geology of the
area, the potential for amplification of shaking, liquefaction susceptibility and earthquake
induced slope failures. It also presented some generic comments on the potential damage
to buildings and infrastructure. However, this did not provide a formal assessment of the
risk.
Natural Hazards in Canterbury (Canterbury Regional Council, 1994) summarised natural
hazards affecting Canterbury. A section of the report presented the seismic hazards
including historical earthquakes, the faults systems capable of causing earthquakes and a
summary of the outcomes of seismic hazards assessments.
Risks & Realities, a report of the Christchurch Engineering Lifelines Group (Centre for
Advanced Engineering, 1997) presents a multi-disciplinary approach to the vulnerability of
lifelines to natural hazards. This comprehensive report only provides a summary of the
earthquake hazards affecting Christchurch.
The report notes that the likelihood of surface fault rupture in Christchurch is remote given
that there are few geological indications of surface fault traces. Faults close to Christchurch
are postulated to be capable of maximum magnitudes of 6.6, whereas faults in the foothills
region can give magnitude 7.5 earthquakes, and the more distant Alpine Fault can give
magnitude 8 to 8.5 earthquakes.
It discusses three potential sources of earthquakes:
1.
Moderately large to large earthquake in the Canterbury Foothills or North Canterbury
2.
A very large earthquake on the Alpine Fault
3.
Earthquakes centred close to Christchurch
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
35

The first two scenarios were considered to be capable of causing MM VIII to IX shaking
intensities on the Modified Mercalli Scale, and the third MM VIII intensity. The lifeline
study adopted a 150-year return period earthquake with shaking intensities of MM VIII
IX over most of Christchurch. There was disagreement between researchers as to the
expected intensity of shaking in a 150-year return period earthquake, though these were
considered to be of less significance in the assessment of damage to lifelines.
The report notes the potential effect of the deep relatively soft sediments and variability of
the soil profile on the ground shaking, and points out that the shaking intensities could be
increased by 0 to 2 MMI units compared to bedrock, or 0 to 1 MMI units compared to
average ground (shallow soil). The potential for ground shaking amplification is classified
into three zones (Zone 1 bedrock at shallow depths, Zone 2 sediments less than 50 m
deep and Zone 3 sediments 50 m to 800 m deep).
The Probability and Consequences of the Next Alpine Fault Earthquake (Yetton et al, 1998)
presented the outcomes of further paleoseismic investigations and research into the age of
forests along the Alpine Fault corridor in the West Coast of the South Island. The report
concluded that the last two earthquakes along the Alpine Fault appear to have occurred in
about 1717 AD and 1620 AD. Based on the information available including these outcomes,
Yetton et al (1998) estimated the probability of an earthquake involving rupture on the
Alpine fault over the next 50 years to be 65 15%, and 85 10% over the next 100 years.
Earthquake Source Identification and Characterisation (Pettinga et al, 1998) collated and
presented the potential earthquake source information relevant to the Canterbury Region.
This collective study by the University of Canterbury, Geotech Consulting Limited and the
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, presents the locations and characteristics of
known faults in and around the Canterbury Region, classified into eight domains.
The report notes that while instrumentally recorded seismicity beneath the Canterbury
Plains indicates active earth deformation, and the highest recorded level of shaking MM 7
to 8 in Christchurch was recorded during the 1869 New Brighton Earthquake (with an
inferred epicentre immediately offshore from Christchurch), there are no known faults or
sources of earthquake in the Canterbury Plains including Christchurch. The thick
alluvium, complex subsurface structures and poor data constrain the identification of
earthquake sources, and there remains the potential for hidden earthquake sources.
Recurrence intervals for the Alpine Fault rupture over the past 1500 years vary
considerably, from 100 years to more than 380 years, with an average of about 250 years
and standard deviation of 96 years. North of Christchurch, the Porters Pass - Amberley
Fault Zone is assessed to have a recurrence interval of about 1300 years to 2000 years, and
is thought to be capable of a magnitude 7 to 7.5 earthquake. Information of the North
Canterbury fault and fold belt is noted to be limited.
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment and Earthquake Scenarios for the Canterbury Region and
Historical Earthquakes in Christchurch (Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, 1999) is a
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
36

follow on study that presented a review of historical earthquakes in the region, and a
probabilistic seismic hazard assessment.
Christchurch is noted to have felt MM 6 or greater shaking in nine historical earthquakes,
and their characteristics are summarised in Table 3 below :
Table 3 Historical Earthquakes Causing MM 6 or Greater in Christchurch
Year of
Occurrence
Earthquake
Name
Magnitude
1869
Christchurch
5?
1870
Location / Epicentral Distance

from Christchurch
Very close Addington ?,
hidden source ?
South of Christchurch, Lake
Ellesmere ?
5.5 ?
MM Intensity
recorded in
Christchurch
7-8
6-7
1881
Castle Hill
6.0 ?
Cass ?
5-6
1888
North
Canterbury
7 7.3
Hope Fault, west of Hanmer

Springs
5-7
1901
Cheviot
Ms 6.9
Parnassus
1922
Motunau
Ms 6.4
Motunau / Scargill
6-7
1929
Arthurs Pass
Ms 7.01
Kakapo Fault / Arthurs Pass
1929
Buller
Ms 7.8
1994
Arthurs Pass
ML 6.7
5-6
Arthurs Pass
3-6
The report suggests that amplification by about 1 MM unit occurred in Christchurch city in
five of these earthquakes in the 1881 Castle Hill, 1888 North Canterbury, 1922 Motunau,
1929 Arthurs Pass, and 1929 Buller earthquakes.
The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis carried out as part of that study gives contour
maps of peak ground accelerations on average soil sites (Class B) for the Canterbury
Region, for return periods of 50 years, 150 years, 475 years and 1000 years. Similar maps
for 0.2 s and 1 s spectral accelerations are also included. The peak ground acceleration
maps have also been converted into MM intensity maps using an empirical relationship.
Tabulated values are also provided for the main towns, and the values for Christchurch are
reproduced in Table 4.
Deaggregation plots showing the contribution of various earthquake sources to the ground
shaking in Christchurch, for annual frequency of exceedance of 0.8g (0.2 s spectral
acceleration) and 0.1g (2 s spectral acceleration) are presented in the report. The 0.2 s
spectral acceleration is dominated by local M 5 to 6 earthquakes or to some extent by
foothills earthquakes of M 7 to 7.2 at distances less than 40 km.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
37

It is noted that the Alpine Fault has a very small contribution to the 0.2 s spectral
acceleration, but makes a significant contribution to the 2 s spectral acceleration in
Christchurch.
Table 4 Ground Shaking Estimates for Christchurch
Ground Shaking in Christchurch in Average Soil
Ground Shaking
Parameter
Return Period
50 years
150 years
475 years
1000 years
PGA
0.17
0.25
0.37
0.47
0.2 s SA
0.37
0.61
0.97
1.27
0.5 s SA
0.24
0.35
0.49
0.60
1 s SA
0.09
0.16
0.19
0.24
2 s SA
< 0.05
0.08
0.12
0.17
MM I
7.5
7.99
8.52
8.82
The expected ground shaking in Christchurch from a local earthquake, a foothills

earthquake and an Alpine Fault earthquake are summarised in Table 5.
Table 5 Expected Ground Shaking in Christchurch from Earthquake Scenarios
Foothills earthquake on
Alpine Fault
earthquake
Local earthquake
Ashley, Springbank, Porters

Pass-Amberley Faults
Magnitude /
distance
M 5 to 5.5 closer than 20 km
M 7 to 7.2 closer than 50 km
M 8 at 75 km to 150 km
MM Intensity
7, possibly 8
7 to 8
Duration
5 s to 10 s
30 s
60 s or more
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of New Zealand : New Active Fault Data, Seismicity
Data, Attenuation Relationships and Methods (Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences,
2000) presents the results of a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA) for the
whole of New Zealand. This national study gives somewhat lower levels of peak ground
accelerations than from the Canterbury study (IGNS, 1999).
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
38

Deaggregation plots showing the percentage contribution of different earthquake sources
to the ground shaking with different return periods in Christchurch are presented in the
report.
The deaggregation plots for peak ground accelerations (PGA) with 475 year and 1000 year
return periods (reproduced in Figure 6 and
Figure 7) and 1 second period spectral accelerations for these return periods (reproduced in
Figure 8 and Figure 9) show the significant contribution of the foothills earthquakes
(magnitude of about 7 to 7.3) and secondly the local earthquakes (magnitude 5.5 to 6) to the
peak ground accelerations.
The dominant contribution to higher spectral acceleration motions (1 second period) is
from the distant Alpine Fault earthquake (magnitude 8 to 8.5) and the foothills earthquakes
(magnitude 7 to 7.3)
Figure 6 - Deaggregation Plot, PGA, for 475 year Recurrence Interval, Christchurch
(Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, 2000)
Figure 7 - Deaggregation Plot, PGA, for 1000 year Recurrence Interval, Christchurch
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
39
Figure 8 - Deaggregation Plot, 1s SA, for 475 year Recurrence Interval, Christchurch
Figure 9 - Deaggregation Plot, 1 s SA, for 1000 year Recurrence Interval, Christchurch
Environment Canterbury Active Faults Database Manual (Environment Canterbury, 2004)
summarises how ECan has compiled and holds information on the active faults in the
Canterbury Region. The information includes the location, activity, slip rates, recurrence
intervals, rupture length and displacement and potential magnitude of the earthquake that
could be caused by its rupture.
6.2.2
Liquefaction Hazard
Guilhem and Berrill (1993) assessed the potential for liquefaction at sixteen key lifeline sites
as part of the Christchurch Lifelines Project, and concluded that 12 of the sites appeared
susceptible to liquefaction.
Soils & Foundations (1996) assessed the potential for liquefaction at six stormwater pump
station sites in Christchurch, and concluded that four sites had a high susceptibility, one
had moderate susceptibility and one had low susceptibility to liquefaction. It also makes
brief comments on the potential damage to the pump stations.
Risks& Realities (Centre for Advanced Engineering, 1997) highlights the liquefaction
hazards in Christchurch, and has mapped liquefaction by classifying the ground shaking
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
40

Zone 3 into two liquefaction zones, Zone A high susceptibility (sand between 2 m and 10 m
depth), and Zone B moderate susceptibility (silts and sandy silts between 2 m and 5 m
depth or deeper). It appears the liquefaction susceptibility has been assessed subjectively
based on soil types rather than the potential for liquefaction and consequent ground
damage.
Soils & Foundations (1998) carried out a study to assess the potential for liquefaction along
the Kerrs Reach to Pleasant Point section of the Lower Avon River banks, and concluded
that widespread liquefaction and lateral spreading was likely in earthquakes. Soils &
Foundations (1999) also considered the impact of liquefaction and consequent lateral
spread in the Lower Avon River banks on residential properties, damage costs and
potential liquefaction mitigation costs.
Soils & Foundations (1999b) also assessed the potential for liquefaction in the Ferrymead
Special Planning Zone along the Heathcote River, and concluded that of the 11 sites
investigated, 5 had a medium to high probability of liquefaction and lateral spreading in a
moderate earthquake (450 year return period) and an additional 3 sites had a similar
probability of liquefaction in a large earthquake (1000 year return period).
Cassassuce and Berrill (2000) carried out seismic cone tests at various sites around
Christchurch and assessed the liquefaction susceptibility at about 20 sites of which 12 had a
potential for liquefaction.
Carr (2001) considered different methods of estimation of liquefaction-induced settlement
and the impact of differential settlements on house designs. The author estimated that a M
7.5 Porters Fault earthquake could lead to liquefaction-induced settlements of the order of
70 mm to 185 mm.
Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner (2003) contacted various organisations holding information
on ground conditions in the Christchurch area, on behalf of Environment Canterbury and
summarise their findings.
Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner (2004) report on the outcomes of the Christchurch
Liquefaction Study for Environment Canterbury. Liquefaction maps are provided for two
groundwater levels, and indicate high, moderate or low liquefaction potential, depending
on whether liquefaction is likely in 0.12g, 0.2g or 0.34g earthquake shaking levels. All the
liquefaction assessments are based on the Alpine Fault earthquake only. The report also
provides liquefaction ground damage maps.
6.2.3
Slope Failure Hazards
Elder et al (1991) presents a discussion on earthquake induced slope failures in the

different soil and rock materials in Christchurch, in particular Port Hills. No slope hazard
maps are presented.
Trangmar (1991) has compiled an Erosion Map of the Port Hills, which indicates slope
instability in that area of Christchurch.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
41

Natural Hazards in Canterbury (Canterbury Regional Council, 1994) provides general
information on earthquake induced slope failures, and the hazards in the wider
Canterbury Region. There is limited information relating to Christchurch, except to note
that there is a significant rockfall hazard in the Port Hills, and there is no evidence of large
scale failure in the Port Hills loess.
Risks & Realities (Centre for Advanced Engineering, 1997) presents a brief section on slope
hazards and presents slope hazard zones for hill areas, particularly the Port Hills. It shows
three hazards zones, 1 low risk, 2 moderate risk and 3 high risk. It only indicates that
damage could be triggered by a 1 in 100 year storm, or 1 in 100 or 1 in 150 year earthquake
occurring in later winter.
6.2.4
Tsunami Hazards
Tsunamis are a series of very long waves caused by a sudden displacement of the sea by
undersea earthquake fault rupture, landslide or volcanic eruption (undersea or flow into
sea). Earthquake induced tsunamis can be caused by an undersea fault rupture or
consequent landslide. Tsunamis can be locally generated by such events or could be
generated at a distance and travel many hundreds or thousands of kilometres to affect
coastal areas. The tsunami magnitude could be amplified by the local seabed profile.
Most tsunami reports for New Zealand have been associated with distantly generated
tsunamis, and these can reach the Christchurch coastline.
Natural Hazards in Canterbury (Canterbury Regional Council, 1994) provides a discussion
on the tsunami hazards in Canterbury and mainly focuses on the far field tsunamis
originating from the South American coast.
Risks & Realities (Centre for Advanced Engineering, 1997) presents information on Tsunami
hazards that could affect Christchurch.
The risk of a near field tsunami from active faults off the Christchurch coast is not well
understood.
Tsunamis can cause catastrophic damage to coastal areas as evident from the South Asian
Tsunami of 26 December 2004, which caused severe and widespread damage and loss of
life. Following this event, the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management is
collating information on tsunami hazards in New Zealand. It would be prudent to review
this information, and decide if any further tsunami hazard studies are prudent for
Christchurch. This would then provide the basis for a separate future tsunami risk study.
The tsunami scenarios for Christchurch are likely to be quite different to the other
earthquake scenarios, and a separate study or a separate part to the proposed earthquake
risk study would therefore be appropriate.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
42

6.3
Discussion of Hazard Information

The probabilistic seismic hazard study for Canterbury (Institute of Geological & Nuclear
Sciences, 1999) and for New Zealand (Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, 2000)
provide a basis for the risk assessment for Christchurch. There are some differences in the
results for the two studies in the probabilistic hazards, and this may need to be resolved by
discussion with the Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences.
However, a scenario approach may be more appropriate for the Christchurch Risk Study
(see discussion in Section 7), in which case the differences would not be important for this
study. The Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences was asked if there have been any
further recent developments that would make the Canterbury Study (Institute of
Geological & Nuclear Sciences, 1999) out-of-date. It is understood (Mark Stirling pers
comm.) that there are no significant changes to the seismicity and probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Assessment since that time. However, it is understood that the PSHA is based on a
Poisson distribution for the occurrence of earthquakes, and does not take into account the
elapsed time since the last earthquake, which may be significant in the case of the Alpine
Fault, where a significant time has elapsed since the last earthquake in relation to the
assessed recurrence interval for that fault. However, this is not likely to make a significant
difference (<10%) to the seismicity of Christchurch.
The Modified Mercalli Intensities from specific earthquake scenarios can be assessed from
the earthquake sources identified (Pettinga et al, 1998 and Environment Canterbury, 2004).
The intensities would need to be modified to account for the presence of soft and deep soil
deposits in Christchurch. In the absence of maps showing the ground class to allow for
modification of rock ground motions, this would need to be assumed based on available
geological and liquefaction hazard maps. Alternatively a ground class map could be
produced to reflect the variation of ground conditions across the city. The ground data
collated as part of the Environment Canterbury liquefaction study would provide a
valuable resource for the development of ground class.
The ECan liquefaction hazard maps (Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner, 2004) would provide a
basis for the assessment of ground damage for the estimate of damage to infrastructure.
This would need to be extrapolated to cover the potential liquefaction induced ground
damage in other earthquake scenarios.
The slope hazard maps in Risks & Realities (Centre for Advanced Engineering, 1997) is
coarse, but given the small area affected could be supplemented by a brief earthquake
slope hazard study using topographical contour maps for the area and brief site
reconnaissance.
6.4
Additional Hazard Information

There is generally good earthquake hazard information for Christchurch. However there
are a number of limited areas, where further hazard information would be useful as
discussed below:
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
43

Ground Shaking
There is good information on the seismicity of the Christchurch area. However, it would
be useful to develop a ground class map so that changes to the ground shaking due to site
and soil conditions can be assessed. The ground class map can be developed using the
ground information collated for ECan as part of the liquefaction hazard study.
Liquefaction Hazard
Comprehensive liquefaction hazard maps have been compiled by Beca (2004) for
Environment Canterbury, and would provide the basis for assessing ground damage and
consequent damage to infrastructure.
The liquefaction maps would need to be
extrapolated for other earthquake scenarios to be considered in the risk assessment.
Earthquake induced Slope Failure
There is limited information on the earthquake induced slope failure hazards for
Christchurch. Given the terrain in Christchurch, the slope failure hazards are likely to be
confined to local areas, such as Port Hills. It would be prudent to carry out brief exercise to
map the earthquake induced slope failure hazards in the Port Hills area, as part of the
earthquake risk assessment study. This can be based on topographical, geological maps
and reports supplemented by site reconnaissance.
Tsunami
It would be prudent to review the tsunami hazard information compiled by the Ministry of
Civil Defence Emergency Management, and consider what tsunami hazard studies are
necessary to assess the risks from tsunami. It is suggested that this could be a separate
study to the proposed earthquake risk study.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
44
Development of Risk Assessment Methodology for Christchurch
7.1
Objectives
Environment Canterbury needs to know the likely impact and consequences of a major
earthquake on Christchurch. This will allow it to fulfil its hazard mitigation and
emergency management functions. The primary purpose of the risk assessment is
therefore to provide information on the impact and consequences of earthquakes on
Christchurch.
7.2
Risk Assessment Context

The Australian / New Zealand Standard, AS/NZS 4360 : 2004, Risk Management
(Standards New Zealand, 2004), defines risk as the chance of something happening that
will have an impact on objectives. The risk is often measured in terms of the combination
of the consequences of an event and their likelihood. The risk management process is set
out in the standard and is reproduced in Figure 10.
Figure 10 - Risk Management Process

(Standards New Zealand, 2004)
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
45

In the earthquake risk study context, risk is the damage and other consequences on the
built environment, natural environment and on the society in Christchurch, due to
earthquakes. The risk information is required to enable Environment Canterbury to fulfil
its hazard mitigation and emergency management functions.
For the earthquake risk study, the consequences are the:
Damage losses (repair or replacement cost)
Consequential direct losses (e.g. traffic disruption)
Indirect social and economic costs
This risk study focuses mainly on the damage losses and some consequential direct losses.
The indirect consequences such as economic losses and social disruption are much more
difficult to quantify and are not considered in this study. The indirect losses may be
considered separately as a follow-on study based on the results of this study. There are
ongoing research initiatives to develop methodologies to assess the socio-economic
consequences of earthquakes and their impact on the built environment as discussed in
Section 3.3.
For risk mitigation and emergency management, it is important to know the distribution of
the damage and losses, and not just the total losses, to facilitate the planning of risk
reduction and response. A spatial approach to the risk assessment is therefore considered
to be more beneficial.
7.3
Scenario and Probabilistic Approaches

Earthquake risk assessments are commonly carried out for selected earthquake scenarios
(e.g. Alpine Fault event) or for selected probability levels (uniform hazard levels)(e.g. 10%
probability in 50 years).
The probabilistic or uniform hazard approach is useful for economic analyses of the
impacts of earthquake risk and risk mitigation options.
A scenario approach is useful to assess the impact to a city or region in a selected event, so
that emergency response and recovery measures can be planned. It would also be valuable
in assessing the performance of the lifelines or assets against desired performance
expectations or levels of service in selected earthquake events.
Given the context of this study for Environment Canterbury, and taking into consideration
their objectives with respect to emergency management and hazard or risk mitigation, a
scenario approach is considered to be the most appropriate, as it would define the extent of
damage and losses in a particular earthquake event. The scenario approach would be
valuable in planning for responding to potential casualties. This approach was used for
the Wellington Risk Study carried out by Opus for the Wellington Regional Council
(Works Consultancy Services, 1995).
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
46

The scenario approach would also be useful for lifeline asset owners to assess the overall
impact to their assets from particular events and the consequential effect on the services
provided to the community or customers. This would also allow asset owners to set levels
of service or performance criteria and assess whether these would be met under different
plausible earthquake scenarios.
However, a probabilistic approach based on a range of uniform earthquake hazard levels
(say 10% in 50 years) would be useful to assess the financial benefits or justification for a
particular level of performance or for assessing risk reduction measures. The previous risk
assessments carried out for Christchurch have been carried out on the basis of a
probabilistic risk assessment approach (Soils & Foundations, 1991 and Institute of
Geological Sciences, 2002), and while they could have been useful for insurance purposes,
they have not provided the information necessary for Environment Canterbury to fulfil its
emergency management functions.
Given that the primary purpose of this risk study is to provide ECan with information
required for it to fulfil its emergency management and risk reduction functions, a scenario
approach is considered to be the most appropriate. This will also be useful for asset
owners such as Christchurch City Council, and could be later supplemented by a
probabilistic risk assessment based on uniform hazard levels if considered appropriate. A
separate study using tsunami scenarios should also be considered.
7.4
Spatial Assessment Approach

The asset information should be obtained in spatial format wherever possible and the risk
assessment results presented spatially. The hazard information should also be collated
and or derived in spatial form. It would be prudent to carry out the risk assessment where
possible using GIS to facilitate risk assessment and presentation. However, some
information may be better assessed using a database or spreadsheet. The GIS presentation
would facilitate the use of the results for emergency management and risk reduction
planning.
It is therefore proposed that GIS be used as the basis for the risk assessment study.
7.5
Modelling Uncertainty
There is a considerable amount of uncertainty in earthquake risk assessments.
dominant uncertainties are :
The
Earthquake event characteristics (for example rupture length, magnitude etc)
Within event (rate of attenuation of earthquake shaking between source and location
in Christchurch, and through different ground conditions)
Fragility relationships (extent of damage given certain ground shaking)
Losses (damage repair cost and consequential costs given damage state)
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
47

Given that the uncertainties are significant, it would be prudent to reflect the degree of
uncertainty through appropriate analysis. The uncertainties would be taken into account
through :
Assigning a range of values for the parameters based on the uncertainty, with a
suitable probability distribution.
Monte Carlo analysis using a program such as the @Risk module of spreadsheets.
This would lead to outcomes that are probability distributions or ranges, which can be
stated in terms of a mean and confidence intervals.
This would involve assessment using a combination of GIS and spreadsheets with a
module with Monte Carlo simulation capability such as @Risk.
7.6
Risk Assessment Model

7.6.1
General Description
A potential risk assessment model for the Christchurch Risk Study is described and
discussed below. The approach is consistent with that used in HAZUS99 (FEMA, 2001),
and other studies undertaken in New Zealand (Works Consultancy Services, 1995 and
Brabhaharan, 2002).
The risk should be quantified by, for example, $ losses (cost of repair), numbers of pipe
breaks and number of casualties. For lifelines (in particular water supply and roads) it
would be prudent to quantify the consequential loss of service (loss of water supply for
users and traffic disruption). Indirect losses such as business and social disruption are not
included, and could be considered in a follow-on study as discussed in Section 3.3.
In general terms, loss (or numbers of breaks, etc) could be estimated as follows:
Loss = f (hazard, vulnerability, exposure), where:
o
hazard is a condition that increases the chance of loss (e.g. proximity to a fault line),
vulnerability is the susceptibility to damage (e.g. earthquake design standard),
exposure is the quantity exposed to earthquake (e.g. length of pipeline).
The process of earthquake risk assessment proposed for Christchurch may be visualised as
a series of GIS themes, each representing a layer of data. This would require the
acquisition of data in a GIS format that would include :
(a) infrastructure maps to establish location and various properties of each asset,
(b) earthquake hazard information, comprising

ground shaking
ground class
liquefaction
slope failure
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
48

7.6.2
Infrastructure Inventory Modelling
General Approach
Obtaining reliable inventory data is the most difficult and time-consuming part of
earthquake risk studies. It is therefore necessary to very carefully design an inventory
model for each infrastructure type that will meet the requirements of the risk methodology
while making use of data that are readily accessible. This requires professional judgement
by engineers experienced in earthquake engineering.
Infrastructure inventory data would be collected from various sources as follows:
(a) Demography Statistics New Zealand
(b) Buildings (Residential, commercial and Industrial) from ECan, CCC or QV
(c) Critical Facilities (Hospitals, Fire Stations, Police Station, Emergency Response
Centres)
(d) Roads CCC and Transit NZ
(e) Water Supply CCC
(f) Telecommunications Telecom, TelstraClear, Vodafone
(g) Electricity Orion, Transpower
The following assets should be covered in the study:
all residential, commercial and industrial buildings to estimate economic loss,

casualties and numbers of homeless;
the water supply network to estimate the number and distribution of repairs;
the main telecommunication, power and road networks to enable the loss of service
experienced from these networks and their impacts to be estimated.
A GIS theme would be formed for each type of infrastructure inventory data, which would
include information supplied by the asset owners, CCC or ECan. Assets would be
classified according to their vulnerability to damage based on age, construction type and
other infrastructure-specific characteristics.
Buildings
Information on buildings could be obtained from Christchurch City Council, ECan or
Quotable Value (QV), as discussed in Section 5.2.
Mesh block information would be ideal for residential areas that contain one or two storey
buildings. Typical residential properties have similar seismic performance levels that
would only vary depending on the localised ground conditions. Therefore the time and
effort required to process property data in areas smaller than mesh blocks is not justified as
ground shaking and ground damage is not likely to vary significantly within a mesh block.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
49

However, unlike in residential areas, in the central business district (CBD), there is
generally very little uniformity between adjacent buildings. Given the diversity of
commercial buildings in the CBD, it maybe useful to obtain data for individual properties
considered to be significant.
The CBD buildings would be run through the earthquake risk assessment model at
individual property level and then aggregated to mesh block or area unit level, for
presentation of the results.
Additional information on the distribution of building classes within the mesh blocks
would be obtained by drive-through surveys of representative samples of these areas to
supplement the information available from QV and other sources.
CCC has a register of earthquake risk buildings. The data is stored on a GIS system that is
used to prepare LIM reports. The council could supply a spreadsheet file with a property
identifier. This information could be incorporated into a GIS model to show the location of
commercial buildings that are more likely to suffer extensive damage in earthquakes.
The following buildings classes are proposed:
Occupancy:

Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Structural Class:

Timber frame
Light steel frame
Tilt-up concrete
Steel moment frame
Steel braced frame
Concrete moment frame
Concrete shear wall
Unreinforced masonry
Reinforced masonry
Structural class could be inferred from building age as discussed in Section 5.2. Similar
classes should be developed for other infrastructure. Building age is also a key
consideration as it relates to earthquake design standards at the time of construction, as
discussed in Section 5.2.
Critical Facilities
Specific information on critical facilities such as hospitals, fire stations, police stations and
emergency response centres will be obtained so that the potential damage to these critical
buildings in earthquakes can be assessed.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
50

Population
Population data will be obtained from Statistics New Zealand census data from the 2001
census. This will provide night-time population data. This would need to be
supplemented by information on employment in the CBD, occupancy rates, school
population and transportation information from the Council to estimate day-time
population data. This will enable estimation of casualties depending on whether the
earthquake happens at night or during the day.
Road Assets
Road asset information will need to be sourced from the Christchurch City Council and
Transit New Zealand, in GIS format as discussed in Section 5.3. Information would also be
obtained on the bridges and retaining structures on the priority roads in the city, and any
reports on the assessment of the earthquake performance of the bridges.
The road network would be prioritised using a range of factors using the approach
developed by Brabhaharan et al (2001), and the risk assessment would then be carried out
for the higher priority roads, rather than every road in the network. It should be noted that
the consequences of failure of minor residential streets is small and therefore the risk is
low. This will enable greater focus to be placed on the priority roads.
The roads will be characterised in terms of their vulnerability to failure and partial or full
closure of the road. This would be dependent on the geology, height of slopes, geometry
and liquefaction or slope failure potential. Retaining structures would be classified based
of the type, age and height. The characterisation of roads would be carried out through site
reconnaissance by appropriate specialists, consistent with the approach developed by
Brabhaharan et al (2001).
Bridges on priority roads would be characterised by a bridge earthquake specialist,
through screening the bridges for earthquake vulnerability. The process would involve
viewing of bridge drawings where available and brief site reconnaissance, consistent with
the approach of HAZUS, but modified to reflect the bridge stock in Christchurch, based on
aspects of the state highway-screening programme developed by Opus International
Consultants (1998) for Transit.
Water Supply
Information on the water supply network is available from CCC. GIS data showing the
location of the water supply pipe network and asset data on the type, size and condition of
the pipes would also be sourced from the Council.
The characterisation of the pipe network would be similar to that in HAZUS, and adapted
for the Wellington Region bulk water pipeline risk assessment study (Opus International
Consultants, 2002).
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
51

Telecommunications Assets
Telecommunication asset and location information would need to be sourced from
Telecom, Telstra Clear and Vodafone. The exact extent of information available should be
discussed and agreed given the commercial sensitivity of the information for the
telecommunication companies.
The asset information collated would include the type and age of exchanges (similar to
building data) and any recent seismic upgrades. Also the location, type and age of key
main fibre-optic land cable links should be obtained.
Electricity Assets
Information on the electricity assets would be obtained from Transpower and Orion. This
would be GIS information on the location of assets as well as information on the type, age
and generic design of the assets (similar to buildings). Also the location, type and age of
main electricity feeder lines should be obtained.
7.6.3
Hazard Modelling
Earthquake Scenarios
A scenario approach to the earthquake risk assessment is proposed as discussed in Section
7.3 of this report.
Four earthquake scenarios are proposed, as summarised in Table 6.
The first three scenarios are discussed in Section 6.2.1.
The fourth scenario is a possible large earthquake on a hidden earthquake source close (say
10 km to 20 km) to Christchurch, perhaps an extension of the North Canterbury faults into
the Canterbury Plains. This is a conjectured source and would indicate the level of damage
from a large, say magnitude 7, earthquake in the Canterbury Plains where the earthquake
sources are poorly understood, and could provide a possible extreme scenario. This
scenario would require further consideration, and reviewed against seismological
knowledge before it is adopted as a scenario for the risk study.
Table 6 - Earthquake Scenarios for Risk Study
Scenario
Magnitude / distance
MM Intensity
Duration
Local earthquake
M 5.5
closer than 20 km
7, possibly 8
5 s to 10 s
Alpine Fault earthquake
M8
at 75 km to 150 km
7 to 8
60 s or more
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
52
Foothills earthquake on
Ashley, Springbank, Porters
Pass-Amberley Faults
Hidden Canterbury Plains

Earthquake
M 7.2
closer than 50 km
30 s
M7
At 10 km to 20 km
9+
25 s to 30 s
Source Data
Fault data (locations, magnitudes, rupture type, recurrence intervals) can be sourced from
the Environment Canterbury (2004) Active Faults Database and other publications (e.g.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, 1999). Further information on potential
earthquake sources in the Canterbury plains would need to be obtained from Geological
and Nuclear Science.
Attenuation
International trends in earthquake hazard and risk modelling (e.g. HAZUS) use ground
motions (e.g. PGA, spectral accelerations) as the earthquake intensity parameter, rather
than MM intensity. McVerrys attenuation model (McVerry et al, 2000) has been
developed from New Zealand earthquake data and is therefore the most appropriate for
this study.
Ground shaking in the Christchurch area would be derived from the source model and the
McVerry Attenuation relationships and mapped in GIS.
Microzonation
Microzonation effects should be taken into consideration by deriving the following maps:
(a) Ground Class map, from the ground information collated by ECan for the liquefaction
study of Christchurch (Beca, 2003).
(b) Liquefaction ground damage maps, derived by extrapolation of the liquefaction
ground damage map prepared for the Alpine Fault event, for ECan (Beca, 2004).
(c) Slope failure hazard maps, prepared using the broad scale map prepared for the
Christchurch lifelines study (Centre for Advanced Engineering, 1997), improved
through consideration of the terrain (topography data) and site reconnaissance of the
small area affected in the Port Hills.
The ground shaking from earthquake scenarios would be modified using ground class
maps.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
53

7.6.4
Damage Modelling
General Approach
A damage model could be developed for each asset type, which relates the intensity of the
earthquake to the expected level of damage defined as damage state.
Buildings
The building damage modelling would be based on the HAZUS standard damage states,
none, slight, moderate, extensive and complete. Damage descriptions would be provided
for each building class in each damage state.
The models would be in the form of fragility curves similar to those shown in Figure 11.
They could be derived from HAZUS, ATC-13, New Zealand data (Dowrick et al various) as
well relevant other data (e.g. from Northridge).
Estimates would also be made of damage due to post-earthquake fire.
Slight/Minor
Moderate
Extensive
Complete
Probability [ Ds > ds | PGA ]
1.0000
0.7500
0.5000
0.2500
0.0000
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Peak Ground Acceleration (g)
Figure 11 - Typical Fragility Curves for Buildings

The damage state would also be modified to take into consideration ground damage such
as liquefaction and slope failures.
Water Supply
The pipeline fragility curves would be based on the ALA data (ALA, 2001), which are in
terms of repairs/km versus peak ground velocity or permanent ground deformation (i.e.
fault rupture, liquefaction, landslide). They are available for a range of pipe materials,
ductility, and joint type. A typical fragility curve from ALA is shown on Figure 12.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
54

The damage state to water pipelines along roads (bridges, embankments and retaining
structures) would be modified to reflect the damage state of the road or associated
structure.
Reservoir fragilities would be based on HAZUS and any other models that have been
developed. Pumping station fragilities would be suitably modified building models.
Repair Rate per km
1.4
0
0
1600
PGV (mm/sec)
16% (ALA)
Median (ALA)
84% (ALA)
Data Points (ALA)
Mean (ALA)
Figure 12 - Typical Fragility Curve for Pipelines from ALA (2001)

Outputs would be: numbers of pipe repairs, reservoir damage states, pump station damage
states.
Telecommunications
Telephone exchange fragility models could be suitably modified from building models.
Models could also be developed for cable fragilities (buried and pole mounted).
Power Supply
Substation fragility models could be suitably modified from building models. Models
could also be developed for cable fragilities (buried and pole mounted).
Road Networks
Bridge fragility models could be developed from data on the type and age of bridge stock
in Christchurch based on seismic screening studies carried out for state highway bridges in
that area and other areas of New Zealand. The seismic screening methodology developed
by Opus International Consultants for Transit New Zealand (1998) could be used in the
development of the damage models, and this is available from Transit New Zealand. The
outputs from the damage models will the damage states for the bridges.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
55

The fragility models for the roads could be based on the road characterisation (see Section
7.6.2) and the approach developed by Brabhaharan et al (2001), and the damage states
developed for a current Transfund Research project (Brabhaharan and Wiles, 2005). This
would provide damage states for the road.
7.6.5
Loss Modelling
Economic Loss
Economic loss estimates would be limited to cost of repairing building damage. These
losses are calculated by assigning damage ratios (cost of repair/replacement cost) to the
damage states.
While it is possible to estimate the cost of repairing other infrastructure such as pipelines,
power cables, etc, this would require the total inventory to be modelled, i.e. local as well as
main networks, which is not the intention of this study.
Loss of Function
The impact of the damage on the functioning of the lifelines could be assessed. This could
be modelled as availability /outage states.
The consequence of damage to the pipelines, electricity and telecommunications could be
assessed as the loss of supply to properties, and the consequence of damage to roads as the
traffic disruption.
Casualties
Deaths and injuries are principally attributable to the failure of man-made structures and
facilities. Of these the largest proportion of casualties would be due to building damage.
The casualties could be estimated for a day-time and night-time earthquake, based on
population estimated as discussed in 7.6.2.
The model proposed is to generally follow the HAZUS approach.
7.7
Risk Assessment Outputs

7.7.1
Outputs
The outputs of the study could be as follows:

(a) Numbers of buildings in each damage state (none, light, moderate, extensive,
complete).
(b) Costs of repairing earthquake damage to buildings.
(c) Expected damage to critical facilities (hospitals, police stations, fire stations, CDHQ).
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
56

(d) Numbers of casualties.
(e) Damage state in terms of repairs per kilometre for main water supply pipelines (see
example in Appendix B).
(f) Damage state of reservoirs and pump stations.
(g) Damage state of the core telecommunication network.
(h) Damage state of telephone exchanges.
(i) Damage state of core power supply network.
(j)
Damage state of electricity substations.
(k) Damage state of bridges on the main road network.

(l) Damage state of the main road network (see example in Appendix B).
(m) Availability and outage states for main water supply and roads networks.
(n) Households affected by loss of water supply due to damage to water supply mains.
(o) Traffic disruption for main roads affected.
(p) Maps showing the geographical distribution of these damages and losses, for the items
(a) and (d) to (o) above.
7.7.2
Uncertainty
There are high levels of uncertainty, from both random process effects and lack of
knowledge, associated with all stages of the risk assessment process. Outputs that take
account of these uncertainties could be in the form of a probability distribution rather than
a single number.
The uncertainty would be reflected by applying probability distributions to the hazard,
damage and loss models, and using Monte Carlo analyses to calculate the results.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
57
Conclusions
A comprehensive review of literature relating to earthquake risk assessment has been
completed. This included New Zealand and international literature. Key features of
significant relevant literature are presented.
likely to be available. Building data is available from Environment Canterbury,
Christchurch City Council or Quotable Value, and the most effective means of obtaining
the data and the cost needs to be confirmed. Telecom New Zealand has indicated that they
would make information available, but this would be limited due to commercial sensitivity
reasons. The data Telecom are willing to make available needs to be confirmed.
The hazard information that is available for the risk assessment has been reviewed.
Generally there is good hazard information available from previous research and specific
studies for Environment Canterbury. To facilitate risk assessment it is considered prudent
to derive some additional microzoning information including a map showing ground class
to modify ground shaking and extrapolate the liquefaction ground damage hazards for
other earthquake scenarios. It would also be useful to assess the slope hazards for the
small part of Christchurch affected in the Port Hills. These relatively limited tasks can be
effectively incorporated into the risk assessment.
A methodology has been developed to undertake an earthquake risk assessment for
Christchurch. This takes into account recent developments in risk assessment approaches,
the earthquake hazard and the existing infrastructure in Christchurch. The approach has
been based on generating risk information that would match the objectives of Environment
Canterbury for the study and to provide a basis for organisations to undertake risk
management actions.
The risk assessment would be based on modelling the inventory (assets), the hazards,
damage and losses. The inventory would be collected from a variety of organisations, and
would include information on critical facilities.
It is proposed that the risk assessment be carried out for four earthquake scenarios, rather
than using probabilistic uniform hazard levels (e.g. 10% probability in 50 years). This
would provide information most suitable for emergency management and meeting
functionality requirements for lifelines. The four earthquake scenarios proposed are the
Alpine Fault earthquake, a foothills earthquake, a local earthquake and a possible
earthquake on a hidden fault source near Christchurch. The hidden fault scenario requires
further consideration and discussion before adoption.
The earthquake shaking would be derived using the McVerry attenuation relationships,
and the ground class would be assessed to derive motions across Christchurch that takes
into consideration the ground conditions. The liquefaction and slope hazards would be
from existing studies and would be extended as required for other scenarios.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
58

The building damage modelling would be based on HAZUS, with relationships reviewed
to incorporate New Zealand data, such as from Dowrick et al. The water pipelines would
be assessed based on the American Lifelines Association models adapted to allow for New
Zealand data and similar studies by Opus. The road damage would be derived using the
approach developed by Opus for bridge assessment for Transit and for road networks. The
electricity and telecommunications damage would be assessed by a combination of these
methods.
Risk assessment has considerable uncertainty and loss estimates could be derived using
probability distributions and using a Monte Carlo approach, so that the uncertainty is
explicitly presented, and could be taken into consideration during emergency management
planning.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
59
Recommendations
Environment Canterbury will be commissioning an earthquake risk assessment
study for Christchurch. The objectives of such a risk assessment are to understand
the likely impact and consequences of a major earthquake on Christchurch, to fulfil
its hazard mitigation and emergency management functions, and provide
information to stakeholders for them to fulfil their responsibilities under the Civil
Defence Emergency Management Act.
The following recommendations are made:
(i)
A risk assessment study be carried out as envisaged to provide information for risk
management planning and implementation by Environment Canterbury, and other
stakeholders.
(ii)
The study be based on the outline methodology presented in HAZUS and Figures 1
to 3 in this report.
(iii)
A spatial approach be used for the risk assessment using a geographical

information system (GIS) platform, and the results of the study be presented as
maps and accompanying tables and charts, so that the information can be readily
used by stakeholders.
(iv)
Building and lifeline inventory information is available and be collected in spatial

form from stakeholders, wherever available, or be collated into spatial GIS
database.
(v)
Building and demographic data be obtained from ECan, Christchurch City Council
or QV, after considering the most effective way to obtain the data in a format
suitable for the study. Confirm with Telecom New Zealand, what information it
would make available for this study.
(vi)
The risk assessment be carried out using a scenario approach, to provide

information that most suits ECans objective to facilitate its emergency management
functions. The data compiled would be in a format useful for using a probabilistic
assessment of risk by stakeholders at a later stage to facilitate risk management
decision making.
(vii)
Three earthquake scenarios and a possible fourth scenario be used for the risk
assessment, to provide earthquake risk information to enable emergency response
planning for a range of scenarios. The fourth scenario of a hidden Canterbury
Plains Fault earthquake should be discussed with seismologists as part of the risk
assessment, to decide on the appropriateness for this study.
(viii)
A ground class map be compiled based on ground information collated for ECan
for the liquefaction study, to enable modifications of bedrock shaking to be assessed
across the Christchurch City.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
60

(ix)
The liquefaction ground damage map for the Alpine Fault compiled for ECan be
extended to present liquefaction ground damage for earthquake scenarios.
(x)
The earthquake induced slope failure hazard presented in the lifelines report be
enhanced to represent the slope failure hazards in the Port Hills Area, through a
review of aerial and topographical maps and site reconnaissance.
(xi)
The earthquake damage assessment to buildings be based on inventory data

aggregated to mesh block level in residential areas. In the CBD where the buildings
in each mesh block vary considerably, the damage assessment be at building level
and then aggregated to mesh block or area unit level.
(xii)
The building damage fragility be based on data presented in HAZUS, ATC-13,

information from research into damage in New Zealand earthquakes, and relevant
other data (e.g. Northridge).
(xiii)
The damage from fire following earthquakes be included in the risk assessment.
Consideration should be given to using recent New Zealand research into fire
following earthquake.
(xiv)
The earthquake risk to critical facilities such as hospitals, fire stations, police
stations and emergency response centres be assessed in addition to the area wide
assessment of the other buildings.
(xv)
Casualties be assessed based on day time and night time population distributions,
based primarily on building damage.
(xvi)
The uncertainty associated with the risk assessment be reflected by applying

appropriate probability distributions to hazard, damage and loss models.
(xvii) The assessment of damage to lifelines be based on recent information such as

pipeline fragility data published by the American Lifelines Association modified for
New Zealand pipe stock, and power and telecommunications fragility using data
suitably modified from building and pipeline data.
(xviii) The bridge risk be assessed by developing bridge fragility models from data on the
bridge stock in Christchurch, supplemented by data from the seismic screening of
State Highway bridges for Canterbury. The road network risk be assessed based on
the approach developed by Brabhaharan et al (2001).
(xix)
The loss of function be assessed for damage to lifelines to represent direct

consequences.
(xx)
The socio-economic consequences be considered as a separate follow on study as

methodologies are developed to facilitate such an assessment.
(xxi)
The results of the study be presented through a series of maps to present the spatial
distribution of damage, and accompanying charts and tables.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
61

(xxii) The methodology adopted and outcomes be summarised in a report, highlighting
the limitations and uncertainties.
(xxiii) The study be carried out based on a robust understanding of the performance of
buildings and lifelines in earthquakes and the earthquake hazards affecting
Christchurch.
(xxiv) The tsunami risk be considered in a separate study, when there is more information
available on tsunami hazards affecting Christchurch.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
62
10
Bibliography
American Lifelines Association (2001). Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water Systems.
http://www.americanlifelinesalliance.org/pdf/Part_1_Guideline.pdf
Augusti, G, Borri, A & Ciampoli, M (1994). Optimal allocation of resources in reduction of the
seismic risk of highway networks. Engineering Structure Vol 16 No 7 1994, 485-492.
Basoz, N & Kiremidjian, AS (1995). Use of geographic information systems for bridge
prioritisation. Proc 5th International Conference on seismic zonation, October 17-19,
Nice, France, Vol 1. EERI p17-24.
Basoz, N & Kiremidjian, AS (1997). Risk Assessment of Bridges and highway systems from the
Northridge earthquake. National Seismic Conference on bridges and highways 2nd.
July 8-11, 1997. Sacremento, California FHWA USA.
Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner (2003). Christchurch Liquefaction Study Stage III, Review of
Data Sources. Environment Canterbury Report No. U02/80. May 2003.
Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner (2004). Christchurch Liquefaction Study Stage IV.
Environment Canterbury Report No. U04/25. May 2004.
Brabhaharan, P, Fleming, MJ and Lynch, R (2001). Natural hazard risk management for road
networks. Part I : Risk management strategies. Transfund New Zealand Research
Report 217. 75pp.
Brabhaharan, P (2002). Natural Hazard Risk Management for Road Networks : Strategies for
Implementation. Ingenium Annual Conference 2002. Queenstown, New Zealand.
14-16 June 2002.
Brabhaharan, P and Moynihan S (2002). Natural hazard risk management for road networks.
Part II : Implementation strategies. Transfund New Zealand Research Report 212.
75pp.
Brabhaharan, P (2004). An Effective Approach to Improved Asset Risk Management for
Road Networks. Towards Sustainable Land Transport Conference. 21-24 November
2004. Wellington, New Zealand.
Brabhaharan, P and Wiles, L (2005). Risk Management for Road Networks. Performance
Criteria. Transfund research report. Under preparation.
Canterbury Regional Council (1994). Natural Hazards in Canterbury. Report 94(19).
Prepared by Owens, IF, Kirk, RM, Bell, DH, Cowan, H, Pettinga, N and Todd, D.
June 1994.
Canterbury Regional Council (1998). Earthquake Source Identification and Characterisation.
Earthquake Hazard and Risk Assessment Study. Stage 1 (Part A). Prepared by Pettinga,
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
63

JR, Chamberlain, CG, Yetton, MD, Van Dissen, R and Downes, G. CRC Publication
No. U98/10. March 1998.
Carr, KM (2001). Effects of Liquefaction-Induced Differential Settlements on Residential
Dwellings in Christchurch.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Canterbury. October 2001.
Cassassuce, F and Berrill, J (2000). Investigation of Possible Liquefaction Sites in the City of
Christchurch, using the CPT and Seismic Cone. Prepared for Christchurch City Council.
Research Report 2000-08.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Canterbury. August 2000.
Centre for Advanced Engineering (1991). Lifelines in earthquakes. Wellington case study.
Project report. University of Canterbury, New Zealand. 1991.
Centre for Advanced Engineering (1997). Risks & Realities. A multidisciplinary approach
to the vulnerability of lifelines to natural hazards. Report of the Christchurch
Engineering Lifelines Group. November 1997.
Chapman, H E, Oakden, G J and Lauder, M K (2000). Seismic Screening of Bridges in New
Zealand. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 30 January 4 February 2000.
Cochrane, H (1995). The economic impact of earthquake disasters. Proc of conference on
Wellington after the Quake the challenge of rebuilding cities. 27-29 March 1995.
Published by the Earthquake Commission. pp65-79.
Cooper, JD (1981). Mitigation of earthquake damage on eastern highway systems. Public Roads.
Vol 45, No 3, Dec 1981. p113-123.
Cornell CA (1986). Engineering seismic risk analysis. Bull. Seis. Soc. Am. 58 (5).
Cowan, H (1993). Measurement of earthquake ground shaking at characteristic sites in
Christchurch.
Dalziell EP, Nicholson AJ, Wilkinson DL (1999). Risk Assessment Methods for Road Network
Evaluation. Transfund New Zealand Research Report No. 148. 212pp.
Dowrick D J, Rhoades D A, (1990). Damage Ratios for Residential Buildings in the 1987
Edgecumbe Earthquake.
Dowrick D J, (1991a). Damage Costs for Houses and Farms as a Function of Intensity in the 1987
Edgecumbe Earthquake. Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 20, 445-469.
Dowrick D J, Rhoades D A, Babour J, Beetham R D, (1994). Damage Ratios for Houses in the
MM10 Zone of the Magnitude 7.8 Hawkes Bay New Zealand Earthquake of 1931. Institute
of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd. Prepared for the Earthquake Commission.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
64

Dowrick D J, Rhoades D A, Babour J, Beetham R D, (1995). Damage Ratios for Houses and
Microzoning Effects in Napier in the Magnitude 7.8 Hawkes Bay New Zealand, Earthquake
of 1931. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Vol. 28, No 2, June 1995.
Dowrick D.J., Rhoades D.A. (1999). Attenuation of Modified Mercalli Intensity in New Zealand
Earthquakes, Bulletin of NZSEE, Vol 32, No. 2.
Dowrick D J, Rhoades D A, Davenport P N, (2002). Damage Ratios for Domestic Property in
the Magnitude 7.2 1968 Inangahua, New Zealand, Earthquake. Bulletin of the New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 34, No 3, September 2001.
Dowrick D J, Rhoades D A, Davenport P N, (2002). Damage Ratios for Low-Rise NonDomestic Brick Buildings in the Magnitude 7.1 Wairapa, New Zealand, Earthquake of 24
June 1942. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 35,
No 3, September 2002.
Du, Z and Nicholson, AJ (1993). Degradable transportation systems Performance, Sensitivity
and reliability analysis. Research Report 93-8. Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Earthquake Commission (1995). Wellington After the Quake The Challenge of
Rebuilding Cities. Proceedings of a conference in Wellington, 27-29 March 1995.
Published jointly by the Earthquake Commission and the Centre for Advanced
Engineering. P284. July 1995.
Elder, D McG, McCahon, IF, Yetton, MD (1991). The Earthquake Hazard in Christchurch. A
detailed evaluation. Funded by EQC. March 1991.
Environment Canterbury (2004). Environment Canterbury Active Faults Database Manual.
Report No U04/27. Prepared by Helen Grant. June 2004.
Environment Canterbury Active Faults Database
http://www.ecan.govt.nz/EcanGIS/ecanpro/viewer.htm
FEMA (2001). Earthquake loss estimation methodology, HAZUS99. Service Release 2,
Technical Manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington DC.
Gordon, P, Moore II, JE, Richardson, HW, Shinozuka, M, Cho, KY, Cho SB, Kim BS and
Kim, GY (1997). An integrated model of bridge performance, highway networks, and the
spatial metropolitan economy : towards a general model of how losses due to earthquake
impacts on lifelines affect the economy. NCEER Technical Report (Earthquake
Engineering Frontiers in Transportation 97-0005. p515 525.
Guilhem, O and Berrill, J (1993). Cone Penetrometer Results and Estimates of Liquefaction
Potential at some Key Christchurch Lifeline Sites. Project No. CP/2245. University of
Canterbury. Christchurch. August 1993.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
65

Hendrickson, C, Oppenheim, IJ and Siddarthan, K (1980). User Losses in EQ damaged
roadway networks. Journal of the Technical Councils of ASCE. Proceedings of the
Americal Society of Civil Engineers. Vol 106, No TC1, August 1980.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences (1999). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment
and Earthquake Scenarios for the Canterbury Region, and Historic Earthquakes in
Christchurch. Stage 1 (Part B) of Canterbury Regional Councils Earthquake Hazard
and Risk Assessment Study. Prepared for Canterbury Regional Council by Stirling,
M, Yetton, M, Pettinga, J, Berryman, K and Downes, G. CRC Report No. U99/18.
Client Report 1999/53. June 1999.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences (2000). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of
New Zealand : New Active Fault Data, Seismicity Data, Attenuation Relationships and
Methods. Prepared for the Earthquake Commission Research Foundation by Stirling,
M, McVerry, G, Berryman, K, McGinty, P, Villamor, P, Van Dissen, R, Dowrick, D,
Cousins, J and Sutherland, R. Client Report 2000/53. May 2000.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences (2002). LAPP Fund: Earthquake Risk to Councils
Assets in Wellington and Chrishchurch. Prepared for Trustees of the Local Authority
Protection Programme (LAPP) Fund by Jim Cousins and Warwick Smith.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences (2003). Review of Effects of LiquefactionInduced Differential Settlements on Residential Dwellings in Christchurch authored
by Kirsti Maria Carr in October 2001. Reviewers Jim Cousins and Dick Beetham. 14
July 2003.
Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences (2005). Estimated damage and casualties from
earthquakes affecting Christchurch. Prepared by Jim Cousins. Client Report
2005/057 prepared for Christchurch City Council. May 2005.
The basics of seismic risk analysis. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 5, No. 4, 1989.
Kawakami, H (2000). EQ performance of highway system in Tokyo. 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 30 January - 4 February 2000.
Kawashima, K, Unjoh, S and Iida, H (1992). Seismic inspection ad seismic strengthening of
highway bridges in Japan. Proceedings of the 4th US-Japan workshop on earthquake
disaster prevention for lifeline systems. August 19-21, 1991, Los Angeles, California.
Edited by Eguchi, RT. National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST special
prublication 840. p55-76.
King SA and Kiremidjian, A (1994). Regional seismic hazard and risk analysis through
geographic information systems. The John A Blume Earthquake Engineering Centre,
Report No. 111.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
66

Li, Y & Tsukaguchi, H (1996). A study on the capability of local road network against the Great
Hanbin-Awaji earthquake disaster. International Conference on urban engineering in
Asian cities in the 21st century Nov 20-23 1996, Bangkok, Thailand.
McGuire, RK (2001). Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis. Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, MHO-10.
McVerry GH, et al. (2000). Crustal and Subduction Zone Attenuation Relations for New Zealand
Earthquakes. Paper No. 1834. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference of Earthquake
Engineering 2000. Auckland. New Zealand.
Maffei, J (1996). The seismic evaluation and retrofit of bridges. Department of Civil
Engineering Research Report 96-2. University of Canterbury, New Zealand.
Maroney, B and Gates, J (1992). Seismic risk identification and prioritization in the CALTRANS
seismic retrofit program. Proceedings of the 4th US-Japan workshop on earthquake
disaster prevention for lifeline systems. August 19-21, 1991, Los Angeles, California.
Edited by Eguchi, RT. National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST special
prublication 840. p55-76.
Montgomery Watson NZ (1999). The Security of New Zealands Strategic Roading System.
Transfund New Zealand Research Report No. 147. 70pp.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (1992). Proceedings of the 4th US-Japan
workshop on earthquake disaster prevention for lifeline systems. August 19-21, 1991, Los
Angeles, California. Edited by Eguchi, RT. National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
Nojima, N & Sugito, M (2000). Simulation & Evaluation of Post-EQ functional performance of
transportation network. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland,
30 January - 4 February 2000.
Nozaki, T and Sugita, H (2000). A method to determine seismic performance of highway network
option. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 30 January - 4
February 2000.
Opus International Consultants (2002). Earthquake Loss Assessment for Wellington Region
Wholesale Water Pipelines, Prepared for Wellington Regional Council.
Opus International Consultants (1998). Seismic Screening of Bridges. Prepared by Howard
Chapman for Transfund. November 1998.
ORourke MJ & Liu X, (1999). Response of buried pipelines subject to earthquake effects.
Multidisciplinary Centre for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY.
Reiter, Leon (1990). Earthquake Hazard Analysis. Columbia University Press. New York.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
67

Rojahn, C & Sharpe, R L (1985). Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, ATC-13.
Applied Technology Council, California.
Schiff AJ (ed) (1998). Proceedings of the Workshop on Performance Criteria for
Telecommunication Services Under Earthquake Conditions, Multidisciplinary Centre for
Earthquake Engineering Research Technical Report MCEER-98-0008.
Soils & Foundations (1996). Christchurch City Council. Stormwater Pumping Stations.
Liquefaction Hazard. Prepared by McCahon, I and Young, R. April 1996.
Soils & Foundations (1998). Christchurch City Council. Lower River Avon. Liquefaction
Hazard. June 1998.
Soils & Foundations (1999). Christchurch City Council. Heathcote River Special Planning Zone.
Liquefaction Potential. April 1999.
Soils & Foundations (1999). Christchurch City Council. Lower Avon River Lateral Spread.
Damage Costs and Mitigation. July 1999.
Standards NZ (2004). Risk Management. AS/NZS 4360:2004. Australian/New Zealand
Standard.
Trangmar, BB (1991). Erosion Map of the Port Hills, Canterbury, New Zealand. Scale 1:15,000.
D.S.I.R. Land Resources Map 314 & 315.
Transit New Zealand (1998). Manual for Seismic Screening of Bridges. SM 110. Revision
2. Wellington.
Werner, SD, Taylor, CE & Moore II, JE (1997). Loss Estimation Due to Seismic Risks to
Highway Systems. Earthquake Spectra. Volume 13. No 4. November 1997.
Weseman, L, Hamilton, T, Tabazer, S & Bare, G (1996). Cost-of-delay studies for freeway
closures caused by Northridge Earthquake. Environmental, social, and economic effects of
transportation. Transportation Research Record, 1559, p67-75. National Research
Council (US). Transportation Research Board. National Academy Press, Washington,
DC, 1996.
Works Consultancy Services (1990). Risk Management - Asset Damage due to Earthquake or
Volcanic Eruption. Report to Transit New Zealand.
Works Consultancy Services (1995). Earthquake Risk Assessment Study Review of
Methodologies and Risk assessment for Study Areas Wellington, Hutt Valley, Wairarapa,
Kapiti Coast, Porirua Basin.
Work Consultancy Services (1996). Estimated Earthquake Damage to Telecom New Zealands
Outside Plant. Report Prepared for Telecom New Zealand.
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
68

Works Consultancy Services (1996). Seismic assessment of New Zealand highway bridges :
development and testing of preliminary screening procedures. Transit New Zealand
Research Report No. 58.
World Road Association (1996). Natural Disaster Reduction for Roads. Comprehensive Report.
PIARC Committee on Road Management. Permanent International Association of
Road Congresses. PIARC 72.01.B 1995.
World Road Association (1999). Natural Disaster Reduction for Roads. Final Report. PIARC
Working Group on Natural Disaster Reduction (92).
Yetton, MD, Wells, A and Traylen, NJ (1998). The Probability and Consequences of the Next
Alpine Fault Earthquake. EQC Research Report 95/193. March 1998.
http://www.fema.gov/hazus
http://www.gns.cri.nz/store/databases/indexb.html#Faults
http://www.gns.cri.nz/store/databases/indexb.html#Earthquake
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
69
Appendix
Mesh Blocks and Statistical Area Units for Christchurch
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
70
Appendix
Example Risk Assessment Map Outcomes
5C0542.00
August 2005: Final
71

ECan EQrisk Part1 Methodology Report Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECan EQrisk Part1 Methodology Report Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earthquake Risk Assessment

Earthquake Hazard and Risk Assessment Project

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study

Opus International Consultants Limited

+64 4 471 7000

This document is the property of Opus International Consultants Limited.

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... iii

Scope of Study ......................................................................................................................................2

Key Components of Earthquake Risk Assessment and Applications.......................................3

Inventory Data ....................................................................................................................................27

Earthquake Hazard Information Review ......................................................................................35

Development of Risk Assessment Methodology for Christchurch .........................................45

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Risk Assessment Context.........................................................................................................45

Mesh Blocks and Statistical Area Units for Christchurch

Example Risk Assessment Outputs for Lifelines

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Describe in detail the key components of earthquake risk assessment methodologies,

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Key Components of Earthquake Risk Assessment and Applications

Identification of earthquake sources.

Inventory Collection: Identification of infrastructure (buildings and lifelines) that are

Modelling of the performance of the inventory classes under

Estimation of direct losses due to damage repair costs.

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Figure 1 - Basic Steps in Earthquake Risk Assessment

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Electrical and communication lifelines including

Roading network including bridges;

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

A search of library databases by Opus Information Centre;

Sourcing of literature from various sources;

Review of information collated.

General Earthquake Risk Assessment.

Damage and Loss Modelling.

Earthquake Risk Studies undertaken for Christchurch and Canterbury.

General Earthquake Risk Assessment

Regional seismic hazard and risk analysis through

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Figure 2 - Flowchart Showing the Basic Regional Risk Assessment Process

Bedrock motion (attenuation)

Local site effects (amplification, liquefaction)

Loss of use (repair time)

Non-monetary loss (casualties)

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Facility (building, lifelines) structural characteristics

Facility occupancy characteristics

Regional population distribution

Figure 3 - GIS Mapping Process for Regional Seismic Risk analysis

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Functionality losses in terms of loss-of-function and restoration times for critical

To generate this information, the methodology includes:

Classification systems used in assembling inventory and compiling information on the

Methods for evaluating damage and calculating various losses.

A flow chart illustrating this methodology is shown in Figure 4.

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1

Potential Earth Science Hazards

10. Fire 11. HazMat 12. Debris

Figure 4 - Flow Chart of the HAZUS Loss Estimation Methodology

Earthquake Risk Assessment Study : Part 1