2010Darfield(Canterbury)

Oceania/New_Zealand/20100904_M7.0_Canterbury/1_Impact/Impact_All_ID_0.csv

@@ -2,4 +2,8 @@
 NZL,New_Zealand,0,0,2,,,,,,,,2000000000-4500000000,USD,,,Verisk,Two people were seriously injured as a result of falling masonry and glass.
 NZL,New_Zealand,0,0,,,,,,,,6500000000,,USD,,,NOAA,
 NZL,New_Zealand,0,0,2,,300002,,,,,6500000000,5000000000,USD,,,EM-DAT,"Insured Damages and Total Damages, unadjusted ('000 US$)"
-NZL,New_Zealand,0,0,2256,,,,,,,,,,,,Johnston_et_al_2014,"The total injury burden was analyzed for demography, context of injury, causes of injury, and injury type. Injury context was classified as direct (shaking of the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing unavoidable injuries), action (movement of person during the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing potentially avoidable injuries), and secondary (cause of injury after shaking ceased). Nine categories of injury cause were identified (i.e. trip/fall, cleanup, projectile, helping others, children, ground damage, glass, masonry, animals)."
+NZL,New_Zealand,0,0,377 (2256),,,,,,,,,,,,Johnston_et_al_2014,"377 people injured as a result of ground shaking during the mainshock. The total injury burden (2256) was analyzed for demography, context of injury, causes of injury, and injury type. Injury context was classified as direct (shaking of the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing unavoidable injuries), action (movement of person during the primary earthquake or aftershocks causing potentially avoidable injuries), and secondary (cause of injury after shaking ceased). Nine categories of injury cause were identified (i.e. trip/fall, cleanup, projectile, helping others, children, ground damage, glass, masonry, animals)."
+NZL,New_Zealand,0,0,100,,,,,,,,,,,,Gledhil_et_al_2010,"The earthquake caused significant damage in Christchurch and the surrounding region but no loss of life. There were about 100 people injured, two of them seriously"
+NZL,New_Zealand,,,,,,6855,,,,,,,liquefaction,,Tonkin_and_Taylor_2010,"A provisional government-commissioned report documenting geotechnical land damage reported that four weeks after the earthquake, 6855 surveyed properties had land damage ranging between minor and very severe."
+NZL,New_Zealand,,,,,,,395,,,,,,,,Ingham_and_Griffith,"395 of the 595 buildings (66%) were rated as having 10% damage or less, with only 162 (34%) of the buildings assessed as having more than 10% damage."
+NZL,New_Zealand,,,,,,,65,0,,,,,,,Kam_et_al_2010,"No RC buildings collapsed during this earthquake. Out of 717 inspected buildings, only 65 experienced some levels of damage - 10 buildings classified as 'red tag', 55 buildings classified as 'yellow tag'."

Oceania/New_Zealand/20100904_M7.0_Canterbury/1_Impact/README.md

@@ -30,11 +30,17 @@ Check the definitions of the parameters used in the impact files in the [impact
 
 ### Publications
 
-- **Ingham_and_Griffith_2011:** Ingham J, Griffith M (2010). Performance of unreinforced masonry buildings during the 2010 Darfield (Christchurch, NZ) earthquake. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 11(3):207-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2010.11465067.
+- **Gledhil_et_al_2010:** Gledhil KR, Ristau J, Reyners M, Fry B, Holden C (2010). The Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake of September 2010: Preliminary seismological report. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 43(4):215-221. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.43.4.215-221.
+
+- **Kam_et_al_2010:** Kam WY, Pampanin S, Dhakal R, Gavin HP, Roeder C (2010). Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the September 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 43(4):340-350. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.43.4.340-350.
+
+
+- **Ingham_and_Griffith_2011:** Ingham J, Griffith M (2011). Performance of unreinforced masonry buildings during the 2010 Darfield (Christchurch, NZ) earthquake. Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, 11(3):207-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13287982.2010.11465067.
 
 - **Johnston_et_al_2014:** Johnston D, Standring S, Ronan K, Lindell M, Wilson T, Cousins J, Aldridge E, Ardagh MW, Deely JM, Jensen S, Kirsch T, Bissell R (2014). The 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes: context and cause of injury. Natural Hazards, 73:627-637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-014-1094-7.
 
-- **Kam_et_al_2010:** Kam WY, Pampanin S, Dhakal R, Gavin HP, Roeder C (2010). Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the September 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 43(4):340-350. https://doi.org/10.5459/bnzsee.43.4.340-350.
+
+
 
 
 ### Global databases / references
@@ -54,3 +60,7 @@ Check the definitions of the parameters used in the impact files in the [impact
 
 
 ### Other useful references
+
+- **Tonkin_and_Taylor_2010:** Tonkin & Talor (2010). Darfield Earthquake 4 September 2010 Geotechnical Land Damage Assessment & Reinstatement
+Report - Stage 1, Report prepared by Tonkin & Taylor Limited for the Earthquake Commission 
+

Oceania/New_Zealand/20100904_M7.0_Canterbury/README.md

@@ -36,7 +36,8 @@ The `2010 Canterbury earthquake`, also referred to as the Darfield earthquake, s
 
 ## Estimated and observed ground shaking
 
-The folder [OpenQuake_gmfs](./OpenQuake_gmfs/) contains the input files required to generate ground motion fields, considering different rupture solutions and conditioning the ground shaking to the recording stations for the event, where available. The figures below present an example of the results, illustrating the median ground motion fields with and without conditioning. These results are based on the rupture and ground motion model that demonstrates the lowest nominal bias. The maximum recorded Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) was [insert value here], observed at [insert location here]. If no seismic station data were available for the event, the generated ground motion fields are shown without conditioning to recording stations, as illustrated in the figures.
+The folder [OpenQuake_gmfs](./OpenQuake_gmfs/) contains the input files required to generate ground motion fields, considering different rupture solutions and conditioning the ground shaking to the recording stations for the event, where available. The figures below present an example of the results, illustrating the median ground motion fields with and without conditioning. These results are based on the rupture and ground motion model that demonstrates the lowest nominal bias. The maximum recorded Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) was 0.792 g, observed at Greendale site (station code: GDLC). 
+If no seismic station data were available for the event, the generated ground motion fields are shown without conditioning to recording stations, as illustrated in the figures.
 
 <img src="./4_OpenQuake_gmfs/median_gmf_stations_none.png" height="250">
 <img src="./4_OpenQuake_gmfs/median_gmf_stations_seismic.png" height="250">
@@ -50,11 +51,11 @@ A summary of the main consequences of the event is available in the [earthquake_
 | Attribute | Value |
 |:-------|:-------------|
 | Fatalities | ~0 |
-| Injured | 2-2256 |
+| Injured | 100 |
 | Displaced population | nan |
 | Affected population | ~300002 |
 | Affected units | nan |
-| Damaged units | nan |
+| Damaged units | 460 |
 | Collapsed units | nan |
 | Economic losses | 6500 M USD |
 | Insured losses | 2000-5000 M USD |

Oceania/New_Zealand/20100904_M7.0_Canterbury/earthquake_information.csv

@@ -8,17 +8,17 @@ Local Time,04:35:47
 Longitude (decimal degrees),171.83
 Latitude (decimal degrees),-43.522
 Depth (km),12
-Mw,7.0
+Mw,7
 Max Intensity (MMI),VIII
 Fault mechanism,Strike slip
 Tectonic region type,Active shallow crustal
 Fatalities,~0
-Injured,2-2256
+Injured,100 (2 severely injured)
 Displaced population,
 Affected population,~300002
 Affected units,
-Damaged units,
-Collapsed units,
+Damaged units,460
+Collapsed units,0
 Economic losses,6500 M USD
 Insured losses,2000-5000 M USD
 Earthquake-triggered effects,