Tonkin & Taylor Tar ef: 52118 Luly 2011 Structures td PO ox 26502 Epsom Auckland 1344 _ttetion: Ashley Sith Dear Sirs CTV Building Geotechnical Advice 1 Introduction 1.1 General “This report presents the review of geotechnical contions atthe ste of theCTV building, 249 Madras Steet, Chitehurh, together wth the results ofan assessment ofthe dynamic response parameters {or the foundations of the balding. “This work hasbeen earned out for the Department of Sulang and Housng(OBH) hough he Hyland/Struture Smith Coneuitan Team, responsible forte Investigation ofthe structural performance of the bulding during and folowing the Chilstchurch earthquake of 2 February 2011 1.2 Background The Christchurch area has recently experienced a number of earthquakes and aftershocks, generally Starting withthe magnitude (M,) 7.1 Darfield earthquake on & September, 2010. Whist that event ‘ured extensive damage to unelnfrced masonry bulling, residential aeas ad infrastructure, ‘there were na major bulging clases and no fatale ‘A magnitude 49 aftershack an 26 December 2010 caused some further damage inthe Central Business District (CBD) but the was eclipsed by the 22 February 201 afterseck, now termed the Christchurch earthquake. Ths magntude 6.3 even, with very high level ground motions, fed othe collapse of two multilevel buldings, one being the CTV building “The Department of Guldng and Housing has engaged ajln team of structure Smith and Hyland Fatigue end Earthquake Engineering to carry out the technical investigation into the perfrmance of the CTV buising. 1.3 Objectives and scope “Te OBH Project Plan forthe ChretchrchFarthquake CBD Buldng Performance Investigation sets cout the objectives ofthe investigations fllows cee ee a1+ todetermine the facts about the performance of blings inthe Chrstchuch CBD, establishing the causes of, and contributing factors tothe bul atures + toprovidea comprehensive analysis f these causes and contributing factors, nloding, 88 Conte, the building standards and construction practices when theae buldngs were Constructed or alterations made to them “Tothisend a detaled scope of work hasbeen set on the Project Plan, oF which the following items maybe relevant to the geotechnical and foundation aspects Review and report on: ~The original design and construction, including, the foundations and sls investigations ~The euse(s) ofthe collapse of he buling 1, vestigation to include consideration of “The desgn codes, construction methods, and bling controlsin force at the tne the bnildngs ware designed and constructed and changes over tne as they applied to these builings: Knowledge that a competent structural / geotechnical engineer could reasonably be tapectd to have of the sismic hazard and ground conditions when these buildings were designed; — Changes overtime to knowledge in these areas; and — Any policies or requirements of ny agency to upgrade the strctural performance of the bildgs. fi Reports to include: = Relevant fe about the design = Factors that may have contributed tothe colapse Recommendations on changes needed in codes, standards, design andor construction practices neceszary to achieve level safety in majreartnqakesin New Zealand, [Note:The above are extracts fom the DBH Project Plan and Terms of Reference that are considered relevant to the geotechnical and foundation aspects} 2 Geotechnical information & site conditions 2.1 Geotechnical report | geotechnical eport was prepared by others June 1986, The investiga ons forthe st at that time comprised 8 hand: augered boreholes, supplemented by 3 machine-augered boreholes and two deeper boreholes ied by cable too! methods. Injudging the quality and usefulness ofthe report, the following observations are of intrest: (The hand-augered boreholes (H/As) were all between 3 and 4m depth. Fve ofthese were logged as terminating on gravel but early his horizon was inferedby el asthe gravel was not penetrated. The remaining three Hf were logged a5 terminatng in sand, allin the NE comer ofthe st (i) The tives machine augered boreholes were put dwn specially to prove the gravel but the logs imply na penetration into the gravel {u) The two cable too boreholes (BH1¢ and 1) provide useful deeper information one with 5:7 m thickness of gravel andthe other with just 100 mm of gravel.(i) The interpretation of subsurface colons by the geotechnical engineer, based on (0) & (i) above, was that there sno gravel inthe NE corner ofthe site and elsewhere there is travel ayer of Sto 6m thickness at about 35 tom depth. This was supported by their Feview of adjacent investigation othe south and southeast ofthe ste. (0) Whisethe interpretation of (i) above seems reasonable, there are other possible Interpretation. For example, the W/'s didnot penetrate gravel so may just have terminated ‘ona very tin aera lagged inthe machine borehole BHA, (The logged profies in allthe 1986 investigation points show very sir conltons over the top 350.4 mets. tis therefore just the presence o absence ofthe gravel that makes the ference in foundation conditions and the response characteristics, (vi) Theres some quantitative information on the 2986 logs with regard tothe nature ofthe sands. few Strdard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed inthe shallow machine ‘augered holes ad some in one a he deep cable-*oo hols, summarised as fllows + ea: 1 SPT only atop of rave err {SPT in sand (N= 10) and 1 SPTin gravel + pms: SPT in sand (N=15} and 2 other P's above and below sand + eas: No SPTsin tap my 6 SPs in 6m to 12. depth range, generally n30 + pms Nosers +The signfcance of his ited data is cussed later. (oi) 13986, one water level was measured nthe 13 boreholes set at 2.8m depth below ground level and within the “ly, ie to medium sand” layer consistently logged at his evel inal borehole. 2.2 Site sub-surface conditions ‘he top four metres ofthe sol pole appear very consistent over the whole site wth sit (ols, fu) genealy downto 1m depth, overlying sty fine to medium sand (SM or SW). The water lve ‘swithin this sand ‘The geotechnical report of 1986 interpreted site conditions t dfer below thi eve as folows: + Over the msjor portion ofthe site, thick dense grave yer ofS to 6 m thickness present, ‘overying 2 deep layer of dense san, + Forthe remainder ofthe st, over the NE quadrant, the gravels not present ands replaced bbymore sand ad sit, “The report polnted out that. the transition between the gravel and soft sediments oven the sand.» quite abruptand roses the north-east come ofthe st.” ‘The limited SPT data indicate thatthe sands ofthe top 6m and above the gravel are “medlum dense" in the sands below Gm and below the grave ar “dense to "very dense”. 2,3 Foundation recommendations mnongs ther tems, the 2986 geotechnical port provies criteria for shallow (spread) foundations ‘on the basi of bath bearing capac and settlement. The design information was summarised on & {seul chart proving lowable bearing presses or diferent foting sizes, shapes and depth, for the two characterise areas of the steWe have checked this char and confirm that tis appropriate, helpful and reasonably conservative {or state design of footings at this particular st, “Te cart canbe used to derive spring stiffness under the spread foundations for tatilong term Toadigs. 24 Sufficiency of investigations and geotechnical information ‘he scope and methodology of the investigations appear to have been typical for Christchurch sites ofthe 8s and 90's period. lt isunderstood thatthe geotechicl engineer had extensive experience Inthe are and had considerable knowiedgeof ste conditions which would allow a relatively ‘sconomie approach, For example, because ofthe knowledge of conditions in the surrounding ares, the use ofhand-augeed boreholes was common practic. The characterisation of sub-surface ‘ondtions below hand-auger depth was based on ust two deeper boreholes. ‘he interpretation of site conditions onthe basi ofthe Investigation and regional knowledge appears reasonable and indeed! “most kel” but stillucertaines remain ‘There fe no mention of iquetaction” in the report but there fsa statement nthe 1986 report “the near suface fine sediments have only moderate resistance ro sesmic loading.” “The report twice nudes recommendations for addtional investigation. isnot known such recommendations were implemented, ‘with the benefit hindsight, and with the benef ofa heightened awareness of iquefaction that has gradually developed ave the last two decades, would now seem prudent to cary out more investigation and more testing to gve quantative measures of dest, strength and stfness. the investigation were to be ceed out now, it would likely nce much deeper boreholes with more SPVsand probably a number of Cane Penetration Tess (CPT) 3 Foundation response parameters 3.1 Factors influencing foundation response Inorderto carry ota dynamic analysis ofthe buldng, the structural analysis team requires ‘representation of the sol foundation interaction as "subgrade reaction’ stfneses. nefec these far springs per unt area with units of N/m stifess per metre squared or kN/ eisften Convenient to think of theses in terms of kW/m perm, which Is equialent to MN/n* in deriving these spring stifnesses forthe dynam analyses, the folowing factors need tobe taken 1) Sos arenon-tinear 0 tha tthe very small dynam trans, the dynamic sities is very rueh higher than the more usual state stiffness 1) Inaddtion ta) above, the short-term dynamic stifness greater than the longterm stati slffness due ta water nthe pores for whch the pore pressures ae only abe to dsipate patil during apd cyt lding, )_Solstifnessis alo fad dependent. Under higher confining stresses imposed by the bul the incremental stifness significantly higher than the frst-oad stiffness 4) Unit spring stifnesis dependent an footing size. The larger the footing the greater the depth of inuence and hence more compresion per unit ead,Unit spring stirssis also dependent on footing shape. Square footings distribute loadin two lateral dimensions whereas strip footings dstibut none direction. Strip footings, therefore, tend to have greater depth of influence and hence ower stifness. 1) Spring stiffs s depth dependent. Deeper footings in relaton to lateral dimension have higher sites, In summary, he subgrde reaction values forthe dynamic analysis shouldbe expected tobe much {greater thar for stale eadload analysis, ant vary with footing shape size and depth 3.2 Method of determining response parameters To address the factors above, a method specially developed for dynamic situations hasbeen employed that allows for diferent depths and shapes of footing, and Is based onthe dynamic shear ‘modulus (). The method is ven by Baran (1948). “Te dynamic shear modulus was not measured forthe site but a range canbe estimated, based on the few SPT values ad published examples. The shear modulus elated tothe shear wave velocy and density ofthe sit 3.3 Foundation arrangement ‘he foundation detailsof the bulding are given on the original design drawings dated August 1886, Because ofthe diferent shapes sites and depths and because of need to provide detalls forthe two tharacteristi sol profle, the various foundation elements have been asigned Type Numbers, as shown on Figure 2 3.4 Dynamic subgrade reaction stiffness values ‘The results ofthe computation using the Barkan formulae are gen spreadsheets in Appendix A “These spreadsheets are presented, representing probable lone Bound sol stiness parameters, ‘most kely parameters and probable upper bound parameter. ‘The parameters (shear wave velocity, density and Poisons ratio) are considered to be average ‘alues forthe sl profle to depth of tives times the footing width below the bearing surface, The ‘major part ofthe site withthe gravel present termed the si area”, andthe NE quadrant area ‘thout gravels termed the “soft are". 3.5 Static subgrade reaction stiffness values “The static values maybe deduced separately fom published data (eg. Bowes, 1988) Loose sand 5-16 MN? Medium densesand 19-80 MAN/n* + Densesand andgravel_—68~ 128 2AN/n? “Toking acount ofthe byering under the footings an assuming 38 depth of influence where footing width), Footing Type 1 would havea range of subgrade reaction stifnessof 51 to 116 MAN/A? and Type tb oft area of 10 to 80 M/s. Comparing these with the dynamic values, it would seem ‘reasonable to take state valves as equal o haf the lower bound dynamic values. tan 0.0.94 Opa oss foundation, Mew wi (80) Ferny Aas & Dg eco 34 Discussion 41 Practice in 1980's “The computer madelsmay have become more sophisticated and more powerful over the past few ‘decade tthe methods of determining the input subgrade eatin stifnes have changed ite ‘What seems to have changed isthe awareness that normal publshed values of stiffness lgnficanty underestimate the vlues required for dynamic conltions. There sno mention of subgrade reaction stiffness in the 1986 geotechnical report. However, there Ibe chart showing working pressures to iit elements to 25 mm, rom which subgrade rection stffneses for diferent foundation types and sles canbe computed, I ths chart had been used for this purpose, it would have given stifles values at the extreme sot” end ofthe ange, even for stati condtions, Tiss reasonable and conservative forthe normal stati settlement assessment butis not neessaiy conservative forthe dram analysis 4.2 Liquefaction We understand that one area of localised liquefaction was reported onthe abcent empty site to the west, Otherwise there have been no reports of obvious quefcton inthe mmelate vicinity of the CTV Bulding. "Notwithstanding ths, the sands nated in ll the boreholes inthe depth range 15 to 3.5m sy fine to-medium sand) are typical of those sol thatiuefed in the February 22” event. The ground water lvls within hs ayer and the foundations were established just above. For the NE Quadrant (Gh14: tine to mediun sand), the possibly Iauefable material extends to 6m depth “There ae ew quanttatve measurements of dent but the limited SPT resus (N= 101025) indicate that iquefation would have been ily inthe top 6 mat the accelerations experienced. In borehole BH, there wore Standard Denatraton Tete in dear sand alow Rm dp ut these allndeated a dense state >, not susceptible to liquefaction In surary, thin ayer, between water level at 25—3:m depth and gravel a 35 to 4m depth, may have liquefied during and following the February earthquake. At the NE quadrant, this may have tntended deeper. The ited thickness ofthe layer andthe confining efecto the larger fotings ‘would mean complete bearing future would be unlikely, but "il wth resulting settlement and ferent eetement could have occurred No evidence was found fam the leveling survey, foundation Inspection or pits dug adjacent to the footings that inieated the lean ofthe core tower was due tothe September earthquake and aftershocks 5 Strong ground motion records Assessment ofthe ground motions at the CTV site may be deduced from the four stong-mation ‘ecordngs surrounding the CBD, A fith station to the east may alo be relevant for comparison with {theothers, ae thie would be ofthe grave ares and sat about the same Foca stance. “The fv stations of interest are shown on Figure 2 and ae liste below “+ Botanical Gardens: co8s. + cathedral College: cece © Chestchureh Hospitat cane 1+ Rest Home Colombo Street: REHS+ Page Road Pumping Station: PRPC “The last two ofthese (RENS and PREC) show significantly higher ampiifcation than theaters, both with respect to Peak Ground Acelerations (AGA) and spectral accelerations. ‘borehole (8 103) riled for the Department of Bulding and Housing (OH atthe REHS st logs Sienifcant thickness of “very soft organi sit” and "very sft peat"- Other borehole records near [EHS (ECAN bores 2140 and 2142 sugges the presence of peat or clayey sols of about 6m thickness. These support the general knowledge ofthe area that would pedi ss, clayey st and peat” north of Peterborough Street. “Te PRPC station islocated in a known liquefaction zone, with a nearby borehole ECAN = M35/5124) logging send o 27m depth, overyng sands and gravels. ‘The other three stations (CGBS,CCEC,CHHC) are al expected to have generally similar profiles of ‘viable interbedded sis sity and gravelly sands, over dense sands. “he response characteris aregeneraly governed by the sol profil to rock which would be about 13601 depth and o thin ayers near surface ae not Hikely to make much ference. The exception, ‘of couse, could be the presence of deep iqueiable soils andor the presence of peat. Fr ths feason we consider the REHS and PPPC records shoul be disregarded andthe CTV ste response Should be assured a sir to the average af the other three station. 6 Conclusions and recommendations |. Thegeotechnica vestigation cared outin 1986 was ypeal of the time and appropriate for the expected development. The report contained recommendations for further inesgation ‘Atndern investigation would now likely involve more deeper boreholes with more sampling and SPs Cone Penetration Tests would offer the opportunity of mapping the “transition” between grave/no gravel areas and also quantitate data for fiquetaction analysis. Shear trove measurements would enable szezment of yale responce parameters fr dynamic analyses. | iquefecton was not mentloned inthe 1986 geotechnical report though the potential for liquefaction in Chistchurch was wellknown a he te. Some ofthe soils at depth could have ‘ben subject to quefaction or strength ss. fi, The typeof foundations employed forthe CY buling were typical for the sze of the bulding and the Chretchurch COD, Provided lquefaction was not an sue, the shallow spread footings ‘would seem appropriate and design recommendations were conserva for static conditions Ih. Design cade, constretion methods and buldng controle likly to change in elation to Tiquefaction. Asa minimum, we recommend that any future geotechnical report provide a statement on the potential for quetacton 1% Notthstanding the sue of lauefacton, consideration of other earthquake effect should become part of foundation designs future. This shoul include the provision of dynamic response parameters, bared on ske-specile measurements described in () above7 Applicability ‘This report es been prepared forthe tenet ofthe Department of Building and Housing and the HylndStrucureSmith Constant Team with respect to the particular bi gven to usandit may ‘ot be relied upon in ther contexts orused fr anyother purpose without Our prior review and agreement. ‘This opinion snot intended tobe advice thats covered by the Financial Advisers Act 2010. “Tonkin & Taylor Ld Environmental and Engineering Constants Us Le Technical Drector copyto: Clark Hyland~ sadAy uonepunoy spaunSiy _———' ea Ms Et ar “suoners Suipsovay UoHOW Bu0.3s Jo suoHIeD07 :z BundyAppendix A: Dynamic response parameterseset ust st 60 ors ° sevor woz el fo) ocean 5 eaeyos — ¥6EL sz vt ED to ¢ eost we a ol ete Y eaeyos 6S wt fet oro Tt ee wat me Go. to) at & € eaeyos oT eS are set ve we ate & oss ere er sco sor st z eueyes 3559 we a zo tT ca ew oet ze zn woot ot a wer zz 1 scoot it t uu w/N) sds Tue —opHweG e/a awa aa BURR vo save yos £0 ease ys soney suossiog 1) ost ease os {uy cost ese uns shysueg att 0000 Ps ssrinpou. 5) oo ease os 008 eave yas ‘ypoyon aver 04S ‘SS3N4SILS ONIUdS NOLLVANNOG SNICTING ALDsever st Ce a 8 roe set fo ore Te « s soeyes or 9e vr oro St SE sz Ca wer vt oro we TO sz ’ eueyos —aYBE et rose ee ee 006 et oro eT ee © eaeyos 1092 set eT ak ys & ws et oro ce st ca ee z eoeyes oF te ut wo | wt so a ts00t wt zo | wT sy er 206. 1 scoot ” 1 ume (aay) funds “Swenea—sOPGWOG e/a —~BA we ‘ah Bu00 so sue yos sco eases soyey suessiog fost ease os w/R ooct eae uns sysue0 caw evee ene yes ssnyppou sous ju ost eave yos sp ose eave ns ‘apoyen sem 2945 osypuNa OT coor rroz/so/te SS3NJ4US ONTNdS NOLLVANNOd SNIATING ALDwt st oso oor te ° 97 st ores aT 5 ease os es? vr oe ears = | ari ’ we er oo owe |r ° ease yos zz er oro wT ts " we fet oro TE € eave yos sz ey rl ed ca az et eras ee ail = ca z eave yos ue ut roe Orel ee a) a wt zt zo ot ot Sy er uz : scoot ¥ ’ 1 Woe) (aay) ound Guenee —soPqweeG ea an (wa wT wa aah Buna0s svo ease yos seo 3s roneu suossieg 34/% osar eareyes ‘84% 0002 ravens sAysu0g any gost eave yos ean or v0 eave ns ssnyppou seus sere syu ose sn ove sgpoyon ae 2945 UE PHeT aT co's rr0z/soyte ‘SS3NdJILS ONIUdS NOLLVONNOS SNIGTING ALD‘iar Tonkin & Taylor TarRets2118 23 January 2012 “Structure iit td PO B0«26-502 Epsom ‘ucland 2344 Attention: tshey Smith Dear Sirs CTV Building Geotechnical Advice - Addendum ‘This addendum presents ational information in elation tothe geotechnical advice ghen in our leter report Ret $2118 of 1" uly 2011. Section 5.0 of that report considered the ground condtons ‘offi strong motion recording stations surrounding the CBD. We understand tht records rom two ‘other recording stations have subsequently become avaible. The two stations of ntrest, namely 2 the Westpac Bulg (Station 503) and the Pole Station (Station 801), are close tothe CTV Bling ste, ‘To determine whether the locations ofthese atonal recording stations are sar tothe CTV sit, we have examined the avaliable ubeurfaca information and comment ae fllowe 1. Westpac Building (503) 1. Theocations forte st investigation pins surrounding the Westpac Buling ae shown on Figure at attached, (Not: Station 503 ls marked on ths plan but nt inexact loeaton due to.co-rdinate diserepaney) i, One EAN borehole logis avalble at this location (M35 ~7403, attache or informaton as Fre a2 ii, Tonkin & Taylor have cated out investigation forthe Triangle Centre (T&T Ref No 52357) immediately north west ofthe Westpac Bung, The gs of boreholes pe detailed Subsurface Information to about 27 m depth. Whist not beng able t include the logs of boreholes and cone penetration test (CP, the formation enables us tohaveconidence in inerretation ofthe subsuroce prfe WV. The GeoNet DELTA it ges descriptive information nung assumed ler thicknesses, which agree with he above information. ¥. Coneusion: The site condtions here are very salar to theconton for the major portion of the CT Building ste over which the gravel ayers preset. Tonkin Tar Lt-Eiosentlan Eginesing ons, 05 Caton Gre Road Newmar, cand New Zend rotor 327, eles St, AucHnd 4s, M6495 on, Feb }07 026, Ele Auchan coms, este monon a.2. Police Station (501) |. Thelocatons af the ste investigation pont surrounding the Police Stationare shown on Figure A attached. The recording sation CCPS (8) is aso marked. i Several ECAN borehole os ae avalabefor the inmediatevcity of he Folie Station, Log forM35-2148 and M5097 at attached for information a Figures At an8 AS (1.8 2} W.Recent CBO investigations ge detaled near-surface nfrmation (et CPT C808 attached as Figure A6- 18.2) Iv, ‘The GeoNet DELTA te ghes information tha reasonably consistent withthe other sources. 1% Concasion: The ste conltons atthe Pole Station are smart those at TV Bulg ste, though sighty more fevourble/stifer de to greater depth near-suac gravel In general for the purpose of semi ste as characterisation, I consider both o these recording stations have sufficiently similar conditions to the CT site to warant use of time histories for , creer ree Proecna [Locator CBD- Chitchureh City (crtna. = CBD-S8a| 16 Figure A6-1[= Dpanicpompeeeue Zina — a1 00 01 02093 0d 08 06 G7 08 08 4a 14 933) = tahae eee eae Tihsnston eae Proecna. Of (orto, CBD-68a] 214 Poet = Sie vestigations kecoton CBD Chithure City Figure A6-2