Abstract
It is almost four years since the Lorna Prieta earthquake of October 17, 1989. Since those ten seconds of shaking many lessons have been learned by all those affected. The objective of this symposium was to share these lessons and experiences so that the impact of future earthquakes on other communities might be minimised.
 Before reporting on the symposium content it may be recalled that the Lorna Prieta earthquake was Richter magnitude 7.1 with the epicentral region located 100km. from the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. Excluding localised site effects, typical felt intensities, in these areas were about MM 7, similar to the expected intensity of a thirty year return period event in the central region of New Zealand. The Lorna Prieta earthquake, at least as experienced by two large cities was not a major earthquake. Details of the earthquake and its effects have been published extensively, including a report by the NZNSEE reconnaissance team in this Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 1, March 1990.
 The following six topics were reasonably equally discussed during the symposium: - geotechnical, buildings, emergency preparedness and response, lifelines, bridges and recovery, mitigation and planning. All plenary session papers will be published in due course and copies will be placed in the New Zealand Earthquake and War Damage Commission and Victoria University libraries. Those issues raised at the Symposium and thought to be of special relevance to the New Zealand scene are discussed under headings from each of the above topics.
Highlights
It was stressed that Territorial Authorities and bodies responsible for public utilities should identify likely damage and the subsequent problems caused by an earthquake before an event, and to plan
The performance of underground services was found to be strongly correlated to the amount of differential movement in the soil measured after the earthquake
There was found to be a need to educate people about the risks related to gas leakage following an earthquake
Summary
It was considered that there were few new lessons learned. Behaviour was generally as expected. The need for clients to be involved in decisions concerning the seismic risk and required performance of the building was emphasised. There is certainly a gap between the expectations of clients and the design philosophy of structural engineers. This was illustrated with the case of an structurally undamaged but flexible multi-storey building being retrofitted to prevent a reoccurrence of the violent motions experienced by its frightened occupants. Discussion between both parties at the coIIlIIlencement of designs for both new and retrofitted buildings is recoIIlIIlended to explore the distinction between a ''well designed" building and one that is "code complying". BULLETIN OF THE NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, Vol 26, No 2, June 1993
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
