Witnesses testify to the fury of February 22

Witness Nilgun Mulpe told the Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission hearing of the terrifying day the CTV building collapsed.

She described yesterday how she had jumped under a doorway on level six on February 22 and felt the sensation of falling down.

She could see blue sky above the ceiling and the gap was widened by rescue workers who helped her out.

In the preceeding weeks she had been very concerned and stressed about the condition of the building, which seemed to vibrate and shake much more than before.

She worked for Relationship Counselling and she said it was embarrassing dealing with trauma clients because she herself was frightened every time there was an after shock or movement.

These were caused by people in aerobic classes at the Les Mills gymnasium next door.

The building seemed to be greatly affected by demolition being undertaken next door on the western side of the building which seemed to have a shared wall.

The Royal Commission’s lawyer, Stephen Mills QC, outlined the planned sequence of witnesses and the positions they would take.

Crucial to the hearings will be evidence from experts commissioned by Alan Reay Consulting, which was involved in the design and construction of the building.

Many of these experts contradict a report carried out by the Department of Housing and Building about strength of the concrete and the structural design.

Mr Mills said the purpose of the hearings was not to apportion blame. However, other parties might do so and the police have a copy of the DBH report.

The collapse of the six-level CTV building killed 115 of the 185 February 22 Canterbury earthquake victims.

The commission's reopened hearings will continue for another eight weeks.

Office workers had reported creaks and noises after the first September 2010 earthquake and another big one on Boxing Day of that year.

He began by outlining why there was no investigation into the subsequent fire. The Fire Service had responded that its focus at the time was on rescue and no useful conclusions could be drawn from witnesses.

There was a 9kg gas tank and cars in the basement that could have provided fuel for the blaze.

Mr Mills highlighted the building standards that applied at the time of construction in the 1980s for development company Prime West.

The interpretation of the various clauses would be disputed by engineering witnesses, he said. The issues would focus on the extent to which the regulations required ductility to absorb seismic energy in various elements of the building.

A particular focus of the evidence would revolve around the “inexperience” of structural engineer David Harding of Alan Reay Consultants.

Mr Mills said he was inexperienced but would claim that one of the firm’s principals was overseeing his work. Mr Reay would dispute this view.

Mr Harding was inexperienced at designing multi-level buildings and had used a template set up for one of the firm’s earlier projects, Landsborough House.

But Mr Harding did not have access to the handwritten stress calculations of his predecessor.