Assessment of Settlement Effects Report by City Rail Link Ltd

Auckland City Rail Link In association with:

Assessment of of Settlement Effects Report Assessment Settlement Effects Report Resource Consent Package 2 2 Resource Consent Package Aotea Station to to North Auckland Line Construction Aotea Station North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation and CRL Operation Document Ref: CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Revision: 3.0 30 June 2016

Contents Executive Summary

1.1 Scope

1.2 Settlement Summary

1.3 Settlement Effects Summary

1.4 Monitoring and Mitigation Summary

Introduction

Project Description

2.1 CRL Project Overview

2.2 Vertical Alignment

2.3 Aotea Station and Cut & Cover Tunnel

2.4 TBM Running Tunnels

2.5 Karangahape Station

2.6 Junction Mined (SEM) Tunnels

2.7 Cut and Cover Tunnels at Mt Eden/ NAL Connection

Settlement Assessment

3.1 General Overview

3.2 Derivation of Parameters

3.3 Overview of Settlement Assessment Methodology

3.4 Mechanical Settlements from Tunnelling

3.5 Mechanical Settlements from Deep Excavations

3.6 Consolidation Settlements from De-Watering

3.7 Combination of Settlement

3.8 Cumulative Settlement Effects with Other Granted Consents/ Current Consent Applications

Effects Assessment Methodology

4.1 Overall Methodology

4.2 Methodology for Shallow Founded Buildings

4.3 Methodology for Piled Buildings and Structures

Assessment of Effects on Shallow Founded Buildings

5.1 Summary

5.2 Detailed Evaluations (Stage 3 Assessments)

5.3 Other Sensitive Buildings

Assessment of Effects of Piled Buildings

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Assessment Criteria

6.3 Assessment Summary

Assessment of Effects on Utilities

7.1 Overview

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

i File CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045.docx Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

7.2 Minor Utilities

7.3 Existing Utilities

Other Infrastructure

8.1 NDG Development

8.2 Central Motorway Junction

Proposed Monitoring and Instrumentation

9.1 Introduction

9.2 Ground and Building Monitoring

9.3 Building Surveys

9.4 Groundwater Monitoring

9.5 Utilities Monitoring

9.6 Roads and Infrastructure

Mitigation

10.1 General

10.2 Groundwater

10.3 Settlement from Cut and Cover Structures and Shafts

10.4 Settlements from TBM Tunnels

10.5 Settlements from Mined (SEM) Tunnels

10.6 Mitigation of Settlement Effects

Conclusions

References

Appendices Appendix A Mechanical Settlement Contour Plans Appendix B Combined Settlement Contours and Building Assessment Plans Appendix C Review Levels and Notes Appendix D Geotechnical Parameters Appendix E Shallow Foundation Buildings – Stage 2 Burland Assessment Appendix F Piled Foundation Output Appendix G Infrastructure Assessment Memorandum Appendix H Karangahape Road Further Analysis

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

ii File CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045.docx Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figures Figure 2-1 Indicative CRL Alignment - Plan Figure 2-2 Indicative CRL Alignment – Long Section Figure 2-3 General Layout of Aotea Station Figure 2-4 General Layout of Rail Tunnels from Aotea Station to Karangahape Station Figure 2-5 General Layout of Rail Tunnels from Karangahape Station to Southern Junction Figure 2-6 General Layout of Rail Karangahape Station Figure 2-7 Isometric View Of mercury Lane Entrance Figure 2-8 General Layout of the Southern SEM Tunnels Figure 2-9 Newton Grade Separation Structure Figure 3-1 Settlement trough distribution due to tunnelling (single tunnel) Figure 3-2 Settlement trough distribution due to tunnelling (twin tunnels) Figure 3-3 Axisymmetric Model at Karangahape Station Figure 3-4 PLAXIS Analysis of Escalator Tunnel Figure 3-5 Large Cavern PLAXIS Modelling Sequence (Southern Junction Tunnel SEM Tunnel) Figure 3-6 Typical Excavation Geometry Input into PLAXIS (Aotea Station) Figure 3-7 PLAXIS Analysis of Mercury Lane Shaft Figure 3-8 WALLAP Analysis – Geometry and Wall Deformation for Mt Eden Cut and Cover Tunnels Figure 3-9 Deflection Profile of Excavated Retaining Wall Figure 3-10 One-dimensional Consolidation Settlement Formula Figure 3-11 Approximate radius of influence due to dewatering at Karangahape station Figure 3-12 Example Graph of Superposition of Settlement for Each Settlement Source Figure 5-1 Public Trust Building Footprint at 11 Mayoral Drive (Shown in Red ID#26) Figure 5-2 Mercury Theatre Building Footprint at 9 Mercury Lane Figure 6-1 Building footprint at 63 Albert Street Figure 6-2 Building footprint at 38 Wyndham Street Figure 6-3 Building footprint at 87-89 Albert Street Figure 6-4 Building footprint at 99 Albert Street Figure 6-5 Building footprint at 109-125 Albert Street Figure 6-6 Building footprint at 156 Vincent Street Figure 8-1 CMJ Plan Figure 8-2 Proximity of Tunnels to Newton Bridge No. 1

2 3 3 4 4 5 6 6 7 10 10 11 12 13 15 15 16 16 17 18 19 33 35 39 41 43 45 47 49 53 54

Tables Table 3-1 Summary of Convergence Analysis for Karangahape Station Table 3-2 Summary of Convergence of Newton Y-Junctions Table 3-3 Analysed Sections for Aotea Station Table 3-3 Analysed Sections for Karangahape Station Table 3-3 Analysed Sections for Mt Eden/ NAL Table 4-1 Burland Damage Classification Table 5-1 Summary of Burland Stage 2 Building Damage Assessments Table 5-2 Estimated Effects on 11 Mayoral Drive Table 5-2 Estimated effects on 9 Mercury Lane Table 6-1 Estimated effects on 99 Albert Street Table 6-2 Estimated effects on 38 Wyndham Street Table 6-3 Estimated effects on 87-89 Albert Street Table 6-4 Estimated effects on 99 Albert Street Table 6-5 Estimated effects on 109-125 Albert Street Table 6-6 Estimated effects on 156 Vincent Street Table 7-1 Settlement slopes at selected locations along the tunnel alignment

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

12 14 14 16 17 26 29 34 35 40 41 43 45 47 49 51

iii File CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045.docx Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

List of Abbreviations and Units The following abbreviations have been used throughout this Report and are listed below for reference. Abbreviation

Description

AEE

Assessment of Environmental Effects

Auckland Transport

CMJ

Central Motorway Junction

CPO

Chief Post Office

CRL

City Rail Link

DCR

Design and Construction Report

DSC

Downtown Shopping Centre

ECBF

East Coast Bays Formation

EMU

Electric Multiple Unit

NAL

North Auckland Line

NES

National Environmental Standard

NoR

Notice of Requirement

Principal Advisor

PTA

Principal Technical Advisor

RMA

Resource Management Act 1991

TBM

Tunnel Boring Machine

PDP

Pattle Delamore Partners Ltd

SEM

Sequential Excavation Method

C&C

Cut and Cover

meter

millimeter

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

iv CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Executive Summary 1.1

Scope

The Aotea to NAL section of works consist of Aotea Station, Karangahape Station, the running tunnels between the stations and the redeveloped Mount Eden connections to the North Auckland Line (NAL). This report provides details of the estimated surface settlements, building risk assessments, and proposals for the monitoring and mitigation of the potential effects of construction of the City Rail Link (CRL) Project – Resource Consent Package 2: Aotea Station to North Auckland Line (Aotea to NAL section).

1.2

Settlement Summary

Ground settlement may occur as a result of a combination of:

 Movements of the ground or deflections of ground supports resulting from excavations of tunnels and retaining walls (also known as ‘mechanical settlement’)

 Consolidation settlement of the superficial soils due to changes in groundwater pressures. Analytical sections were determined to provide representative examples of the relevant geology and design and construction methods proposed. Each source of settlement has been calculated separately at these sections and then combined to produce the total estimated settlement effects. Settlement contour drawings showing the estimated settlement effects due to the construction of the Aotea to NAL section are provided in Appendix A.

1.3

Settlement Effects Summary

The risk of adverse effects from settlement is initially based on an internationally accepted method of assessing settlement effects from underground construction (Burland, 1997). This provides a method whereby settlement effects can be referenced and the risk of damage assessed. The Burland damage criteria is based around damage to masonry buildings and the ‘ease of repair’. It does not readily account for effects upon piled building foundations. Accordingly, given the proximity and scale of the CRL excavations at Aotea Station in particular and the degree of interaction with existing buildings the potential risks to piled buildings have been calculated explicitly using finite element analysis. Overall, the assessment concludes that the risk of significant (more than minor) damage to adjacent buildings from the implementation of the design is acceptably small and readily manageable. Potential damage will not impact ‘serviceability’1 of the buildings and can be easily remedied at no cost to building owners. Utility information has been assembled based on a combination of information from utility providers and trenching investigations where possible. Those utilities perpendicular to the predicted settlement ‘trough’ will experience the greatest effects but none are predicted to be at risk of significant damage. All utilities within the construction impact zone shall be reviewed individually with each utility owner to confirm whether utilities will be protected in-situ or diverted. Plans of the settlement contours are provided in Appendix A (mechanical) and Appendix B (mechanical combined with consolidation). Structural deflections (caused by ground settlement) that may lead to structural as opposed to non-structural (cosmetic) damage: i. reduction of operational functionality ii. reduction in weather tightness or service life iii. reduced durability

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

v CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

1.4

Monitoring and Mitigation Summary

Monitoring of construction is essential to confirm that the design is properly implemented, design assumptions are correct and that the construction process is properly controlled. Assessments of building condition before and after construction are used to confirm damage levels from construction in conjunction with comprehensive construction stage monitoring. Deflection and settlement limits and corresponding pre-defined specific actions will be defined within a Response Plan based upon the pre-construction condition surveys that may highlight particular building sensitivity to ground movements. That assessment will form part of the Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP), the preparation of which is required by the proposed conditions of resource consent and will be independently reviewed. Potential mitigation measures that maybe explored further at the detailed design and building consent stage of the Project are described in Section 10.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

vi CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

1 Introduction This report provides an overview of the CRL works between Aotea Station and the North Auckland Line (NAL) including the proposed indicative construction methods, the existing building stock that is potentially affected by the Project, the methodology of the estimation of the ground movement, the potential effects and the minimum level of monitoring required during construction.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

1 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Project Description

2.1

CRL Project Overview

The CRL comprises the construction, operation, and maintenance of a 3.4km underground passenger railway (including two tracks, two new underground stations, modification of Britomart Station and substantial redevelopment of the existing Mt Eden Station) running between Britomart Station and the North Auckland Line (NAL (refer Figure 2-1 below). These works also include an additional 850m of track modification within and adjacent to the NAL. The proposed works include:

 Cut and cover tunnels within Albert Street and Aotea Station;  A mined station (Karangahape Station) accessed from shafts in Mercury Lane and Beresford Street;  Tunnelling by TBM from the southern portal of Aotea Station;  Mined tunnels for the southern Y-junctions (turnouts); and  Cut and cover tunnels and trench excavations near Mt Eden station where the underground tunnels rise to meet the NAL.

Figure 2-1 Indicative CRL Alignment - Plan

2.2

Vertical Alignment

The alignment rises 70m from the Britomart Station end to the connection at the NAL (refer to Figure 2-2 below), taking account of the following requirements:

 Maintaining a vertical gradient (compensated for curvature) for the rail tracks of no greater than 3.5%;

 Maintaining a flat platform within each station (an improvement from the design submitted for the Notices of Requirement);

 Maximising operational line speed and thus reducing journey times; and

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

2 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

 Maximising the overall potential for system reliability. For a more detailed discussion of the tunnel alignment refer to the Design and Construction Report (CRL-SYE-RME-000-RPT-0006) and relevant drawings. Figure 2-2 Indicative CRL Alignment – Long Section

2.3

Aotea Station and Cut & Cover Tunnel

Aotea Station is located between approximate Chainage 800 and 950 of the MC20 alignment. The northern part of the station interfaces with the Albert St cut and cover tunnel at approximate Chainage 610 of the MC30 alignment. The general layout of the Aotea Station is shown in Figure 2-3 below. For further details of the arrangement of the proposed tunnels at Aotea Station and the envisaged construction methods and sequence refer to the Design and Construction Report (CRL-SYE-RME000-RPT-0006) and relevant drawings. Figure 2-3 General Layout of Aotea Station

The Aotea Station Reference Design2 has been developed in the context of the potential effects on surrounding buildings, i.e., the potential settlement effects but also staging and access. The design has also needed to respond to ground conditions which comprise relatively soft fill, alluvium and residual soils with unweathered rock at depth and the variation in natural ground level across the structure. The design therefore incorporates relatively large diameter piled walls and deep reinforced concrete beams to prop the walls, to minimise structural deflections.

2 Reference Design – is a preliminary (i.e., not final) stage of design suitable for procurement of detailed design

and construction services

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

3 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

The design analysis illustrates how certain geotechnical assumptions can have significant effects upon predicted deflections (and thereby settlement effects) and also includes design features that enable such deflections to be controlled.

2.4

TBM Running Tunnels

The bored tunnels will run approximately from CH 963 to CH 2960 of the MC20 alignment. The general layouts of the rail tunnel from Aotea Station to Karangahape Station and from Karangahape Station to the southern Sequential Excavation Method (SEM)3 tunnels are shown in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5 respectively. The tunnels have an internal diameter of approximately 6.2m and are envisaged to be constructed using an Earth Pressure Balance Machine (EPBM) with ground support provided by a precast concrete segmental lining, assembled in the TBM tail shield. The TBM will be launched from Mt Eden will pass through the Karangahape Station platform tunnels and be recovered at the southern end of the Aotea Station excavation. Figure 2-4 General Layout of Rail Tunnels from Aotea Station to Karangahape Station

Figure 2-5 General Layout of Rail Tunnels from Karangahape Station to Southern Junction

The effects of TBM tunnelling are well understood in the East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF) of Auckland as a result of the successful construction of Project Hobson, Project Rosedale and the Waterview Connection.

3 In the SEM method the tunnel is excavated sequentially to minimise the ground movement such that the stress release is

progressive.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

4 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

The most challenging zone for TBM construction is the section of tunnel at the southern end of Aotea Station where the tunnels are to be driven in weathered rock and the TBM bores are located within 2.5m of each other. This will be subject to specific construction monitoring and control procedures, largely to limit the potential adverse effects on the waterproofing system of the first TBM tunnel by construction of the second.

2.5

Karangahape Station

Karangahape Station is located approximately between Chainage 1+840 and 2+016 of the MC20 alignment and the plan layout is shown in Figure 2-6 below. It consists of 2 platform tunnels and a central mined escalator tunnel. Ventilation and passenger adits are also to be constructed as mined tunnels. The platform tunnel design may allow passage of the TBM during construction. Figure 2-6 General Layout of Rail Karangahape Station

Above the station structure, two shafts will be constructed. These are to be located at Mercury Lane (which will serve as the entrance to the station) and Pitt Street.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

5 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 2-7 Isometric View Of mercury Lane Entrance

 2.6

Junction Mined (SEM) Tunnels

The southern mined tunnels consist of two tunnel junctions, located at approximately CH 0+000 to CH 0+140 of the MC50 alignment and CH 0+000 to CH 0+120 of the MC60 alignment, with one section of single mined tunnel, located at approximately CH 0+140 to CH 0+350 of the MC50 alignment. The general layout of the southern SEM tunnels is shown in Figure 2-8 below. Figure 2-8 General Layout of the Southern SEM Tunnels

2.7

Cut and Cover Tunnels at Mt Eden/ NAL Connection

The works in this area consist of the Newton Grade Separation Structure (between the East and West facing CRL lines that are ‘grade separated’) and the cut and cover tunnels and trenches that connect to the NAL. The area has complex geology, including two ECBF ridges, basalt tongues as well as zones of swampy material and volcanic ash. With the exception of potential settlement effects from the interaction of the deep excavations at the crossover shaft and the mined tunnels, settlement effects in this area are buffered by site establishment activities involving the demolition of existing buildings within the CRL Designation to facilitate trench and cut and cover construction.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

6 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 2-9 Newton Grade Separation Structure

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

7 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Settlement Assessment

3.1

General Overview

Construction of the tunnels and stations will inevitably induce surface, subsurface and lateral ground movements and groundwater pressure changes. Ground settlements associated with the construction of CRL therefore have the potential to cause adverse effects upon existing buildings structures and utilities. The objective of this section of the report is to assess the amount of settlement that may occur from the construction of the Aotea to NAL section of the CRL. The effects of settlement upon existing buildings and structures i.e., assessment of the potential for damage, is provided in Section 6.

3.2

Derivation of Parameters

The geological model and parameters used in the settlement analysis are derived from the Reference Design “Geotechnical Engineering Report” (CRL-SYW-GEO-000-RPT-0006) and are provided in Appendix D. Additional sensitivity analysis has also been undertaken, and the geological sections used in the application are given in Appendix D.

3.3

Overview of Settlement Assessment Methodology

The methodology to estimate the potential settlements due to the three sources of settlement effects is conventional and standard industry practise, summarised as follows: 1.

Mechanical settlement due to mined and TBM tunnel excavations – this has been calculated using the three dimensional settlement analysis software called XDisp4 on the basis of 1% volume loss for bored tunnel and 0.3-1.1% for mined tunnel (refer to Section 4.3.4 for more details). The outputs were then checked and compared to hand calculations. The volume loss input is the sum of convergences of the excavation(s). The assumed volume loss for TBM tunnelling is an upper bound assumption considering recently constructed tunnels in the Auckland region which have generally achieved volume losses between 0.3 - 0.5%. For mined tunnel excavation, the volume loss is taken from the equivalent convergence from finite element analysis considering the sequential excavation. It ranges from 0.3 - 1.1% of the tunnel face depending on the size of the excavation and sequence. The trough width factor (K) used for the empirical Gaussian curve calculation for bored and mined tunnel settlement is taken as 0.5. This value is typically adopted in cohesive materials and weak rock and has also been found to correlate well with data from the Waterview Connection tunnels within the ECBF.

Mechanical settlement due to station/ shaft excavation – this settlement was calculated using the software WALLAP5 as well as finite element analysis using PLAXIS6 and an empirically based method published by Bowles (1997, 5th Edition).

4 XDisp is a program that estimate ground movements due to all kinds of excavations, including tunnels, shafts and embedded

walls. The program utilize the Gaussian model empirical method to predict bored and mined tunnelling movements. For shafts and embedded wall it utilize the result from PLAXIS or Wallap. It then uses these soil movements to assess building damage. 5 Wallap simulates the construction staging of the excavation and supports (in this instance a bored pile wall and struts or anchors). The software outputs the displacement of the retaining wall which is then used to estimate settlements by empirical methods. 6 PLAXIS is a finite element modelling software used to determine the movement of the ground, including vertical and horizontal displacements of the retaining walls. PLAXIS simulates the actual excavation and includes the soil stiffness retention system (bored pile wall). The software has the capability to extract settlement contours to be used for assessing the effects on the existing buildings.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

8 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Consolidation settlement due to groundwater drawdown was calculated using Modflow/Seep/W from the “Groundwater Technical Report”, incorporated into a onedimensional consolidation settlement equation. Several key sections have been considered and incorporated into an interpolation program Surfer7.

Superimpose the estimates of ground movement from the above three sources as necessary depending on the location and the design form, to determine overall settlement contours for the zone influence.

3.4

Mechanical Settlements from Tunnelling

3.4.1

Overview - Ground Movement Due to Tunnelling

Settlement of the ground due to physical excavation of the material during tunnel construction is caused by the removal of the supporting ground. It occurs relatively quickly following excavation and will be concentrated above the bored and mined tunnel alignments, depending on the trough width parameter (K) assumed. Ground movement observed at the surface is typically in the form of a settlement trough, which commonly resembles a Gaussian normal distribution. The fundamental assumption in the Gaussian model is that the ground movements occurring from the tunnel activities are equal to the volume of a settlement ‘trough’ that occurs at surface (refer Figure 3-1). The inverted Gaussian curve is expressed as: and

∙

where: S(x) = vertical settlement at some distance x from the tunnel centre line Smax = maximum vertical settlement on the tunnel centre line “x” = horizontal distance from the tunnel centre line K = trough width factor (0.5) D = excavated diameter of the tunnel “i” = horizontal distance from the tunnel centre to the point of inflexion of the settlement trough (equal to = Kz0). VL = volume loss expressed as a percentage of the excavated tunnel face area zo = the axis level of the tunnel to the ground surface The horizontal movement expressed as: ∗

where: h z(x)

= horizontal movement at a distance “x” from the tunnel centreline = distance from the surface level to tunnel axis

Two parameters must be estimated to use this method; the volume loss and the trough width factor. The volume loss parameter accounts for geology, workmanship, primary support (for mined tunnels) and the TBM operation parameters (open or closed mode). For the mined tunnels, an equivalent tunnel diameter was assumed. For excavation of two tunnels, the settlements calculated for the excavation of each individual tunnel are superimposed to give the maximum resultant settlement (refer Figure 3-2). The settlement influence zone is the distance between two zero settlement points.

7 Surfer is a sophisticated interpolation program/engine that transforms XYZ data into a contour map.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

9 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

3.4.2

Bored (TBM) Tunnels

The settlement analysis for the bored tunnels was undertaken using the software package XDisp and then spot checked using hand calculations. This approach has been applied for the running tunnels between the southern junctions through to Aotea Station. The estimates of settlement assumed a volume loss of 1% for a bored tunnel. This volume loss for a bored tunnel is expected to be upper bound and is a conservative. Figure 3-1 Settlement trough distribution due to tunnelling (single tunnel)

Figure 3-2 Settlement trough distribution due to tunnelling (twin tunnels)

Settlement Influence zone (two tunnels), Wt Settlement Influence zone (single tunnel), Ws Ws - i

y i

Ground level

Smax

SR,max Point of inflexion Z D

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

10 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

3.4.3

Sequential Excavation Method (SEM/ Mined) Tunnel

The same assumption as for the Bored Tunnels has been adopted for SEM tunnels for settlement calculation utilising the Gaussian model. The key difference is the volume loss adopted. In this case, the method considers the construction sequence of the excavation that relates to a certain convergence value. The convergence has been converted to an equivalent volumes loss ranging from 0.3-1.1% for the Karangahape Station platform and the southern junction SEM tunnel. The trough width parameter (K) is 0.5 for both types of tunnels.

3.4.4

Karangahape Station Mined Tunnels and Adits

At the Karangahape Station platform tunnels and associated adits, Phase 2 (now RS2)8 finite element software has been used in the analysis. Four axisymmetric models (refer to Figure 3-3) have been setup to determine the convergence value at the perimeter of the tunnel using an equivalent diameter as an input. These models provide the intrinsic response of the excavations and ignore the effects of temporary support therefore they are very conservative. It is assumed that the tunnel is within the 25m depth from the ground surface. Unweathered ECBF (EU2) geological condition is adopted with Youngs’ modulus (E’) of 400 MPa and c’ = 100 kPa and ’= 39 degrees as recommended in the Geotechnical Engineering Report (CRL-SYW-GEO-000-RPT0006). Figure 3-3 Axisymmetric Model at Karangahape Station

R C.L For escalator tunnels in soft ground conditions, a 2-D PLAXIS model has been used as shown in Figure 3-4.

8 Phase2 (RS2) is finite element program similar to PLAXIS but have different features that simplify modelling specific structure

such as tunnel.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

11 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 3-4 PLAXIS Analysis of Escalator Tunnel

The convergence value is converted into an equivalent volume loss for use in the Gaussian model as shown in Table 3-1 for Karangahape Station. Table 3-1 Summary of Convergence Analysis for Karangahape Station

Location

a) Platform Tunnel (Central/ Passenger) b) Escalator Tunnel (Shallow Tunnel) c) Beresford Shaft Ventilation Adit d) Mercury Lane Shaft Adit (enlarged section used) e) Standard Passenger Adit (Central & Beresford)

3.4.5

Excavated Area

Equivalent Diameter, De

Convergence Analysis

Equivalent Volume Loss (%)

(m2)

(m)

(mm)

(used in settlement analysis)

71.2

9.52

0.3

71.2

9.52

0.5

24.5

5.6

4.2

0.3

121.44

12.43

8.2

0.3

19.51

0.3

Newton Turnout Tunnels (Y-Junctions)

To determine the expected volume loss of the junction tunnels, PLAXIS modelling has been carried out to consider the construction sequence, geology and possible support types. The maximum convergence has been recorded and used to calculate the equivalent volume loss. Figure 3-5 is an example of the modelling sequence including temporary support of steel fibre reinforced shotcrete.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

12 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 3-5 Large Cavern PLAXIS Modelling Sequence (Southern Junction Tunnel SEM Tunnel)

1. Top Heading

2. Heading and Bench

3. Invert Excavation

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

13 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

A summary of the analysis is shown in Table 3-2 below. Table 3-2 Summary of Convergence of Newton Y-Junctions

Location

Excavated Area (m2)

Equivalent Diameter, De (m)

Convergence

Equivalent Volume Loss (%)

Large Cavern

172.73

14.83

1.0

Medium

111.22

11.9

1.1

Small

73.0

9.64

1.1

(mm)

3.5

Mechanical Settlements from Deep Excavations

3.5.1

Deformation Movements

The magnitude of ground deformation is dependent on the assumed geotechnical properties of the ground, particularly stiffness and in-situ stress, and the stiffness and timing of installation of the ground support system. Temporary retaining walls are assumed to be constructed using soldier piles, therefore no allowance for settlement from pile installation has been made as the difference to the settlements is very small and within the overall accuracy of the assessment. Should for example, diaphragm walls be adopted at the detailed design stage, additional allowances may need to be made.

3.5.2

Aotea Station

Seven representative PLAXIS cross-sections of the excavations at Aotea Station, two PLAXIS sections at Karangahape Station and 14 WALLAP sections for the southern shafts and cut-and-cover tunnels at the NAL were analysed (refer to Table 3-3 below). The analysis was carried out in a plane strain condition which assumes an infinitely long wall. The stiffening effect of the corners of the shafts was ignored and therefore for buildings at the ends of the station the assessment are more conservative. The mechanical settlement has been taken directly from the PLAXIS output. Table 3-3 Analysed Sections for Aotea Station

Location

Features

Aotea Station

CH 0+650 CH 0+680 CH 0+730 CH 0+850

AMI Building/Wyndham building Waitemata Power Board/ Financial Centre Building Albert Plaza AA building/NDG Tower

CH 0+900

Sky City Convention Centre /Crown Plaza Hotel

CH 0+950

ASB Centre/City Centre Hotel

CH 0+950

Wellesley Centre

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

14 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

The assumed ground conditions for each design section were selected from geotechnical long sections (refer appendix D). The software can model the staged construction process, the behaviour of the soil and the structure interaction including adjacent building responses (refer to Figure 3-6 below). Settlement predictions are then able to be extracted directly from PLAXIS. Figure 3-6 Typical Excavation Geometry Input into PLAXIS (Aotea Station)

Future development

3.5.3

Aotea Station

Existing building on pile

Karangahape Station

Mechanical settlements for the Mercury Lane and Pitt Street shafts were also analysed using PLAXIS. Vertical and horizontal movement is taken directly from the software output and combined with the tunnel settlement. Figure 3-7 PLAXIS Analysis of Mercury Lane Shaft

ECBF

Mercury Lane Shaft

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

Escalator shaft

15 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Table 3-4 Analysed Sections for Karangahape Station

Karangahape Station CH 1+930

Pitt Street Shaft

CH 2+000

Mercury Shaft

3.5.4

Mt Eden NAL Retaining Walls

WALLAP has generally been used for the Mt Eden/NAL connection cut and cover tunnels to model the retaining wall movements and in turn calculate the vertical ground settlement at the surface behind the wall (refer to Figure 3-8 below). Figure 3-8 WALLAP Analysis – Geometry and Wall Deformation for Mt Eden Cut and Cover Tunnels

The vertical ground settlement profile is calculated as a function of ground loss due to the deflection of the retaining wall, as suggested by Bowles (1997). The calculation of settlements showed a parabolic relationship to the wall with an influence zone defined as 2.5 times the height of the wall (refer to Figure 3-9 below). The sections analysed are noted in Table 3-3. Figure 3-9 Deflection Profile of Excavated Retaining Wall

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

16 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Table 3-5 Analysed Sections for Mt Eden/ NAL

MC20 Sections

Crossover shaft at Newton

CH684790, CH684800, CH684840 MC50 Sections CH420, CH470, CH510, CH550, CH590, CH720, CH760, CH870, CH910 MC20 Sections CH685330,CH684910,CH685020, CH685090, CH685120,CH685140 MC60 Sections CH260, CH340

3.6

Mt Eden/ NAL

Consolidation Settlements from De-Watering

Consolidation is caused by a reduction in pore water pressure and increase of effective stress as water drains toward an excavation. It is time dependant and based on the location and permeability of the ground and support measures relative to the analysis location. For TBM tunnels the speed of TBM excavation and concurrent installation of a watertight lining is such that groundwater lowering within the ECBF is limited. Therefore the potential for consolidation is negligible. For mined tunnels and cross passages, the excavation has been considered to be drained in the short-term (2 to 3 years) with assumed connectivity to the surficial systems above. Given the permeability of the weathered and residual soils that overly the ECBF this is a conservative assumption, therefore consolidation effects may not actually occur as a result of the weathered and residual soils to limiting vertical connectivity. Following completion of the excavation, the permanent structure of the cross passages and platform tunnels at Karangahape Road will be fully tanked and therefore undrained. The shafts at Karangahape Road and the mined tunnels at Newton may remain drained during operation of CRL. Cut-and-cover excavations and shafts may induce settlement effects due to consolidation arising from groundwater pressure changes although the full de-pressurisation assumed in the calculations may or may not occur, particularly given the ‘idealised’ perched systems used in the analysis are conservative. Groundwater pressure changes from dewatering were analysed using a Modflow and Seep/W model developed in the “Groundwater Technical Report”. One-dimensional consolidation settlement analysis was then completed using the formula shown in Figure 3-10 below. Figure 3-10 One-dimensional Consolidation Settlement Formula

The material below the initial groundwater table will consolidate due to the change of effective stress. The only stratigraphic units considered to be impacted are the ECBF residual soil (ECBF-ER) and Tauranga Group alluvium (TA, TG). The moderately weathered and unweathered ECBF units are excluded as they have no consolidation potential.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

17 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

The analysis of the groundwater drawdown is divided into three zones: Aotea Station; Karangahape Station and the Newton/ Mt Eden/ NAL connection. Six sections were taken for Karangahape Station, 10 sections for Aotea station and 14 sections for Newton/ Mt Eden/ NAL to represent each zone for consolidation settlement. The settlement calculations have been interpolated using the program Surfer and the grid to match the mechanical settlement calculated from XDisp for combination settlement. Refer to Figure 3-11 for the outcomes of these calculations. Figure 3-11 Approximate radius of influence due to dewatering at Karangahape station

3.7

Combination of Settlement

The total settlements at the ground surface will result from a combination of values from the three identified settlement sources. Mechanical settlements occur very quickly following excavation (they are also sometimes referred to as ‘immediate’) with consolidation taking longer to occur, depending upon ground permeability and proximity to the source of de-watering. The combination of settlement effects were also assessed as a long term case, i.e. assuming full settlement has occurred for all sources. The method used to combine the settlements is a simple superposition of the settlement values from each individual source.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

18 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 3-12 Example Graph of Superposition of Settlement for Each Settlement Source

Mechanical settlement grid

3.8

Consolidation settlement grid

Cumulative Settlement Effects with Other Granted Consents/ Current Consent Applications

There are six granted consents/ current applications that were lodged in Auckland Council prior to this application, within or in the vicinity of the CRL areas. The cumulative settlement effects are discussed below:

3.8.1

58 Albert Street

58 Albert Street is a mixed development for hotel and office. The site area is 4258 m^2. From the resource consent application document, the estimated maximum settlement due to assessed to be consolidation settlement was 9-15mm at the southern (Wyndham St) and western (Albert St) boundaries. The 5mm settlement was determined to be at about 11m from the site boundary and no adjacent buildings were affected.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

19 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 3-133 58 Albert St

This development will not interact with the CRL structures described in this application although some interaction with the existing CRL Contract 2 cut-and-cover tunnel (refer to Resource Consent Package 1 Britomart Station to Wyndham Street) may occur albeit it is considered a minor impact.

3.8.2

210 Federal Street (ID 26)

210 Federal Street is a residential development. The site area is 1904 m^2. From the resource consent application the estimated settlement (combined mechanical and consolidation settlement) due to excavation for basement (0-4m) near Vincent St is less than 10mm. CRL bored tunnels (along Vincent St) is about 5-15m plan distance away from and about 11m below this development. Due to the conservative approach for estimating settlement for bored tunnels, it is considered the combined settlement effect due to both developments to be negligible and the negligible combined settlement effect will only impact the pedestrian path at Vincent St and no additional buildings will be affected.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

20 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 3-144 210 Federal St

3.8.3

46-50 Upper Queen Street (ID 66-68)

46-50 Upper Queen Street is a residential development with pile foundations, and a site area of 820 m^2. There is no information on groundwater drawdown and settlement in the application.

Figure 3-155 46-50 Upper Queen St

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

21 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

The CRL bored tunnel is about 30m below surface in this area. The cumulative settlement effects between this development and the CRL were assessed with a PLAXIS model. The outputs are summarized in table 3-6 below. The settlements inferred from the settlement contours drawings are also presented for comparison. Table 3-6 Settlement Comparison – PLAXIS vs Volume Loss Induced Settlement

Combined settlement by PLAXIS

Inferred settlement from drawings

Location

Max Settlement (mm)

Offset to 5mm settlement from basement wall (m)

Max Settlement (mm)

Offset to 5mm settlement from basement wall (m)

Uphill side (42 Upper Queen St) Downhill side (52 Upper Queen St)

>10

The settlement analysis used to determine the contours assumed 1% of volume loss from the bored tunnel (refer to Section 3.4.2), which is conservative. Therefore, it is considered the settlement analysis for the bored tunnels using conservative assumptions provides an adequate assessment of the potential cumulative settlement effects of the application.

3.8.4

106 Vincent Street (east side - opposite ID 119)

106 Vincent Street is a residential development. The site area is 1447 m^2. From the resource consent application, the estimated maximum settlement due to excavation of the proposed basement is less than 10mm. It is stated that no dewatering effects are anticipated as groundwater recorded 410m below the lowest basement level as a result of the construction of Rendezvous Hotel in 1989. CRL bored tunnels (along Vincent St) are around 10m away in plan and about 15m below the 106 Vincent Street development. The settlement analysis undertaken for this application will not add to the potential cumulative settlement effects of this development.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

22 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 3-166 106 Vincent St and 224 Hobson St

3.8.5

224 Hobson Street

224 Federal Street is a mixed used building development. The site area is 863 m^2. From the resource consent application, it recommended to design soldier pile walls for the 4.5m depth basement to limit settlement effects. The groundwater drawdown effect was estimated in the application to be minimal. CRL bored tunnels (along Vincent St) are about 30m plan distance away from this development, and about 20m outside the CRL 5mm settlement contour. Therefore, there is no cumulative settlement effects between 224 Hobson St development and the CRL bored tunnels.

3.8.6

26 Poynton Terrace

26 Poynton Terrace is a residential building development with a site area of 334 m^2. The resource consent application estimates that groundwater drawdown due to the development is minimal and the estimated settlement is less than 5mm at 8m distance from the wall. This development is located at greater than 100m plan distance away from the CRL Karangahape Station and the 5mm CRL settlement contour. Therefore, there are no cumulative settlement effects between 26 Poynton Terrace development and the CRL development.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

23 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 3-177 26 Poynton Terrace

3.8.7

Construction Shafts for CRL Contract 2

There are two construction shafts at Victoria St to be excavated first for the CRL Contract 2 utilities diversion (Resource Consent Package 1 refers) and at a later stage as part of Aotea Station. A PLAXIS model simulating the construction sequence to model the Victoria shafts excavation following by the Aotea Station excavation was produced to assess the cumulative mechanical settlement effects. The cumulative settlement was determined from analysis of the Contract 2 shaft mechanical and consolidation settlement and the incremental mechanical settlement of the Aotea Station. The maximum cumulative settlement was determined to be 37mm about 7mm higher than the initial case from construction of Contract 2. The total settlement contours have been presented in the attached drawings.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

24 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Effects Assessment Methodology

4.1

Overall Methodology

The predicted ground movements from the anticipated sources described in the previous sub-sections were superimposed to produce an estimated influence zone from Aotea Station through to the NAL connections. For the purposes of the building damage assessments, the vertical settlement extent was estimated and plotted down to 5mm of settlement, which is considered to be very minor movement. The result of this can be seen on the Settlement Contour Plans which are attached in Appendix A. Generally, the predicted settlement influence zone extends from 30m to 50m from the centreline of the tunnels. The combined settlements were then used to estimate the building damage category. Based on the building Damage Assessment Criteria (Burland, 1997) the effect on surrounding structures is expected to be “Negligible” if the vertical settlement is below 10mm. Therefore, only the buildings where the estimated settlements exceed 10mm were assessed further. This limit must also be seen in the context of Auckland soils that shrink and swell due to variations in ground moisture by up to 15mm, noting the highly modified urban context of the Project. Typically the 10mm assessments includes buildings and structures within approximately 4m to 18m of the outer edges of the tunnels, stations or shafts. It is noted that buildings possessing structural continuity such as those of steel and concrete frame construction are more robust (more flexible in shear) than masonry and brick buildings. It is further noted that differential settlement is the principal cause of damage and may be aggravated where separate individual foundations support a building or where there is a mixture of foundation types (e.g. piles and spread footings). This is especially true for buildings that have been modified creating zones of differing structural stiffness – the junction of which will be more affected by ground movements. In addition, buildings with an axis oriented at a significant skew to the axis to the tunnel may be subject to warping, or twisting effects, such effects may be accentuated if the tunnel axis passes close to the corner of a building. Where applicable, all of these different types of effects have been considered.

4.2

Methodology for Shallow Founded Buildings

4.2.1

Stage 1 Risk Assessment

As stated above, settlements less than 10mm and associated ground slopes of less than 1:500 have negligible damage potential (Burland, 1997). Individual assessments have not been performed for these buildings. Appendix E gives a list of the structures that have been eliminated from further assessment.

4.2.2

Stage 2 Risk Assessment

The second stage of assessment for shallow founded buildings that lie within the 10mm settlement contour (i.e., subject to predicted settlements of greater than 10mm and/ or with a slope of > 1:500) has used the Oasys settlement software XDISP. This is a three-dimensional program that assesses building responses to excavation-induced settlement. Burland and Worth (1974) noted that cracking in cladding and finishes of buildings usually results from tensile strain. Results from large-scale tests on masonry walls and in-filled frames have indicated that

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

25 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

visible cracking first occurs at values of tensile strain of 0.05% and 0.1%. The tensile strength at which the cracking first becomes visible was termed the critical tensile strain. By representing buildings as simple beams it was shown that the concept of critical tensile strength could be used to develop simple criteria for predicting the movements of buildings undergoing settlement. Burland et al (1977) demonstrated that the tensile strain is directly related to the degree of damage and that specific limiting values of tensile strain could be assigned to various categories of damage. Boscardin and Cording (1989) further developed these concepts and showed that the categories of damage proposed by Burland are related to the limiting tensile strength. The Stage 2 Risk Assessment (Burland 1997) assumes the buildings act as simply supported beams and the foundations are assumed to follow the settlement of the ground (the ‘greenfield settlement’ curve with no influence of the building on the ground). The maximum tensile strains are calculated and the corresponding category of damage is obtained. A section line for analysis is selected by examining the settlement contours. A tight grouping of contours indicates a steep slope and will generate higher strains, therefore a section perpendicular to the steepest slope was taken for each structure. The horizontal strain and deflection ratio have been used to determine the maximum tensile strain, and the corresponding category of damage is obtained from Table 4-1 below. Table 4-1 Burland Damage Classification

4.2.3

Stage 3 Assessment

Detailed evaluations, (Stage 3 assessments) maybe required where the predicted damage levels are greater than ‘slight’ (Burland, 1997). The presence and stiffness of the building and its foundations will reduce potential ground movements and thereby building strains. Various attempts have been made to factor this into the analysis of building damage, most notably by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997). The process involves reducing the horizontal and vertical movements that reduce the deflection ratio and horizontal strain, thus reducing the overall strain on the building (refer also Section 5.2 below).

4.3

Methodology for Piled Buildings and Structures

4.3.1

Overview

Piled buildings are not as sensitive to ground settlement as shallow founded buildings. They have a significant influence on the potential ground settlement profile and building settlements are a function of pile settlement/movement. The following steps have been used to assess the risk of buildings founded on piles for the buildings most affected by CRL construction, and these are concentrated around Aotea Station.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

26 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Whilst it is not anticipated that each and every piled building along the application alignment will require a detailed assessment (as they will be ‘screened out’ by the Stage 1 risk assessment described below) ultimately the scope of any further assessments of piled buildings interacting with CRL construction works will be driven by the diligence required of the detailed design and construction entity appointed by Auckland Transport to manage the risk of building damage and repairs, informed by the detailed design settlement envelopes and further investigations of the buildings adjacent. Step 1: Perform Stage 1 Risk Assessment

 Categorise the building using the criteria similar to buildings with shallow foundations (settlement of 10mm, slope of 1:500).

Step 2: Determine the Existing Design Capacity If necessary, i.e., should the pile settlement be greater than 10mm or the ground settlement slope be greater than 1:500 or there is significant pile interaction (such as at Aotea Station) obtain as-built foundation details of the building and estimate the design capacity of each pile using as-built drawings wherever these are available. The following is considered:

 Design bending moment.  Design axial force. If as-built drawings are not available, an estimate will be carried out based on the number of storeys. Step 3: Assess Settlement/ Lateral Movement and Estimate Excavation Induced Forces

 Assess the tunnelling-induced settlement and lateral movements of the piles using PLAXIS or the approach of Loganathan and Poulos (2011) utilising design charts.

 Plot the pile head settlement profile and estimate of the maximum settlement and maximum rotation below the building.

 The piles will be classified as long and short piles where Loganathan and Poulus is used (CMJ only refer Section 8.2). For PLAXIS, the actual information will be used.

 Estimate the tunnelling-induced bending moment and axial down-drag forces for all piles.  The lateral movement of the soil will be used to assess the additional bending moment of the piles

using Lpile or any laterally loaded pile analysis software. This will be checked against the existing structural capacity (M-N diagram).Determine the combined stress on the pile and check this against its capacity.

Step 4: Perform Detailed Assessment/ Explicit Analysis

 Perform detailed numerical modelling if necessary. For this application, six analytical sections have been undertaken in the vicinity of Aotea Station to represent the potential effects. Further explicit analysis has also been undertaken for 152-156 Vincent Street to enable a comparison with the Burland screening and due to the proximity of the existing building piles to the alignment.

4.3.2

Structural Assessment Methodology (Refer also section 6)

Pile Capacity 1. Provide sketch of typical section of buildings and tunnel to provide geometry and member sizes for PLAXIS modelling. 2. Undertake column load rundown for relevant columns using drawings (or NZS 1170) to obtain gravity axial loads (note gravity loads not included in PLAXIS). Apply ULS load case of 1.2G+1.5Q and SLS load case of G+0.4Q. Use pile loads given on drawings when available or where column load rundown is difficult due to missing drawings/information.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

27 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

3. Obtain soil settlement loads on piles from PLAXIS output. Apply load factors from NZS3101 (SLS/ULS) and multiply loads by spacing that stiffness of piles where averaged over in PLAXIS to obtain design loads. 4. Combine existing gravity loads and PLAXIS outputs. Assess moment, shear and axial capacity for each pile using information from existing drawings against NZS3101. 5. Assess crack widths. 6. Check bearing capacity where available on drawings. Apply a capacity reduction factor of 0.45 to ultimate bearing capacity to obtain allowable bearing capacity. Column Capacity 7. Repeat steps 3 – 5 for columns. Ground Beam/Slab on Grade Capacity 8. Repeat steps 2 - 5 for ground beam. Consider beam as a column with either tension/ compression and bending. Level 1 Beam Capacity 9. Calculate gravity load on beam based on tributary width 1.2G+1.5Q for ULS, G+0.7Q for SLS. 10. Repeat steps 2 - 5. Comparison with existing loads 11. Compare the new loads generated by settlement to current loads on the structure to determine where increases and possible damage may occur.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

28 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Assessment of Effects on Shallow Founded Buildings

5.1

Summary

In accordance with the methodology described in Section 4 above Table 5-1 below summarises the results of the building assessments for all of the buildings on shallow foundations. All of the buildings have been classified in the less severe “aesthetic” categories of “Slight”, “Very Slight” and “Negligible” on the basis of estimated ground movements. Table 5-1 Summary of Burland Stage 2 Building Damage Assessments ID No.

St No.

Street

Settlement, mm

Slope

544

Max. Tensile strain (%) 0.055

65‐69

Albert Street

6‐12

Kingston Street

Albert Street

Damage Category

Very Slight

1507

0.042

Negligible

602

0.038

Negligible

1698

0.074

Very Slight

Albert Street

655

0.055

Very Slight

Victoria Street West

5135

0.043

Negligible

Victoria Street West

1232

0.057

Very Slight

Victoria Street West

1232

0.061

Very Slight

51‐63

Victoria Street West

545

0.072

Very Slight

98‐102

Albert Street

1239

0.031

Very Slight

Victoria Street West

1029

0.049

Negligible

947

0.083

Slight

37‐41

Victoria Street West

32‐42

Wellesley Street West

Identified as Historic Heritage in PAUP(Y/N

Pre & Post Condition Assessment & Monitoring

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

To be demolished for the Project

Mayoral Drive

459

0.073

Very Slight

Wellesley Street West

1925

0.065

Very Slight

299

Queen Street

518

0.035

Negligible

67‐101

Vincent Street

910

0.034

Negligible

105

Vincent Street

12.0

716

0.058

Very Slight

113

Vincent Street

545

0.049

Negligible

117

Vincent Street

17.0

576

0.066

Very Slight

125

Vincent Street

600

0.058

Very Slight

127

Vincent Street

641

0.060

Very Slight

133

Vincent Street

678

0.057

Very Slight

139

Vincent Street

802

0.038

Negligible

29‐39

Pitt Street

1644

0.005

Negligible

Pitt Street

1732

0.018

Negligible

Beresford Square

2154

0.023

Negligible

Pitt Street

2266

0.016

Negligible

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

Yes

Yes Yes

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

29 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Pitt Street

2258

0.017

Negligible

211‐ 235 16‐18

Karangahape Road

3478

0.012

Negligible

Beresford Square

2743

0.012

Negligible

259‐ 281 251‐ 253 61‐65

Karangahape Road

3824

0.015

Negligible

YES YES

Karangahape Road

4137

0.013

Negligible

YES

Pitt Street

4713

0.016

Negligible

Karangahape Road

4255

0.016

Negligible

YES YES

259‐ 281 243

Karangahape Road

8214

0.007

Negligible

214

Karangahape Road

5156

0.009

Negligible

238

Karangahape Road

2063

0.005

Negligible

246‐ 254 256

Karangahape Road

2859

0.005

Negligible

Yes Yes

Karangahape Road

1900

0.007

Negligible

Yes

Karangahape Road

3537

0.002

Negligible

258‐ 264 268

Karangahape Road

3701

0.002

Negligible

270

Karangahape Road

3815

0.008

Negligible

Mercury Lane

636

0.047

Very Slight

East Street

439

0.050

Very Slight

13‐15

Mercury Lane

East Street

23‐31

Mercury Lane

Cross Street

965

0.025

Negligible

46‐50

Upper Queen Street

1479

0.010

Negligible

Upper Queen Street

3220

0.004

Negligible

47 48 49 50 51

56 57

Yes Yes

Yes

YES YES

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

To be demolished for the Project

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

St Benedict’s Street

2072

0.013

Negligible

St Benedict’s Street

2654

0.007

Negligible

St Benedict’s Street

3276

0.005

Negligible

St Benedict’s Street

2731

0.005

Negligible

St Benedict’s Street

7033

0.005

Negligible

149

Symonds Street

3393

0.007

Negligible

St Benedict’s Street

3096

0.004

Negligible

Symonds Street

3081

0.005

Negligible

161‐ 165 173

Symonds Street

3662

0.006

Negligible

Stable Lane

2959

0.002

Negligible

177a

Symonds Street

13.0

4246

0.006

Negligible

177‐ 185 187‐ 191 193

Symonds Street

5938

0.006

Negligible

YES YES YES YES

Symonds Street

3465

0.005

Negligible

YES

Symonds Street

3354

0.005

Negligible

195‐ 199 201

Symonds Street

3551

0.005

Negligible

YES YES

Symonds Street

3247

0.004

Negligible

Symonds Street

3100

0.004

Negligible

YES YES

Symonds Street

2859

0.005

Negligible

YES

Symonds Street

2611

0.006

Negligible

YES

Symonds Street

1696

0.008

Negligible

YES

83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90

203‐ 205 207‐ 209 211‐ 213 215

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

Yes Yes

Yes

30 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

221

Symonds Street

1402

0.012

Negligible

223‐ 231 204‐ 218 233

Symonds Street

1432

0.016

Negligible

YES YES

Symonds Street

1432

0.016

Negligible

YES

Symonds Street

1369

0.015

Negligible

235‐ 237 239

Symonds Street

33.0

1223

0.019

Negligible

YES YES

Symonds Street

1142

0.019

Negligible

Symonds Street

865

0.053

Very Slight

93 94 95 96 97

YES YES

241‐ 255 8

Dundonald Street

833

0.043

Negligible

Dundonald Street

1023

0.024

Negligible

100

Dundonald Street

16.0

977

0.045

Negligible

102

1‐13

Mt Eden Road

20.0

2241

0.008

Negligible

103

New North Road

2014

0.004

Negligible

104

New North Road

1799

0.016

Negligible

105

10‐14

New North Road

929

0.015

Negligible

106

16‐20

New North Road

1620

0.004

Negligible

107

22‐26

New North Road

1955

0.002

Negligible

108

Nikau Street

1048

0.018

Negligible

109

Flower Street

712

0.023

Negligible

110

10‐14

Nikau Street

402

0.105

Slight

112

Flower Street

890

0.073

Very Slight

113

Flower Street

887

0.014

Negligible

114

Albert Street

3444

.034

Negligible

115

Albert Street

10.0

8275

0.005

Negligible

116

120‐ 130 103

Albert Street

37.0

1396

0.096

Slight

117

13‐15

Wellesley Street West

520

0.084

Slight

118

103

Vincent Street

15.0

558

0.079

Slight

119

109

Vincent Street

11.0

632

0.074

Very Slight

120

150

Vincent Street

12.0

872

0.046

Negligible

121

50‐60

Pitt Street

1975

0.022

Negligible

122

Pitt Street

1744

0.023

Negligible

123

1‐7

Pitt Street

11.0

1969

0.021

Negligible

124

Upper Queen Street

11.0

1703

0.023

Negligible

125

St Benedict’s Street

2770

0.020

Negligible

126

St Benedict’s Street

2563

0.016

Negligible

127

16‐24

Symonds Street

1529

0.015

Negligible

130

257

New North Road

1437

0.010

Negligible

131

Federal Street

2857

0.037

Negligible

132

Victoria Street West

3063

0.059

Very Slight

133

Victoria Street West

2033

0.072

Very Slight

134

Victoria Street West

1967

0.074

Very Slight

135

99 (back) 15‐31

Albert St (carpark)

5083

0.043

Negligible

YES YES YES YES

Wellesley Street West

0.006

Negligible

YES YES YES YES

136 138

Mt Eden Road

1287 5 1360

0.030

Negligible

139

Mt Eden Road

2900

0.025

Negligible

140

16‐18

Mt Eden Road

7319

0.033

Negligible

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

31 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

141

Nikau Street

3625 9 1795 9 2392

0.023

Negligible

YES

142

6‐8

Ruru Street

0.030

Negligible

YES

143

Ruru Street

0.030

Negligible

144

Ruru Street

0.030

Negligible

YES YES

1853 2 1932

145

Enfield Street

146

Enfield Street

0.027

Negligible

1874

0.039

Negligible

147

25‐27

Enfield Street

7907

0.011

Negligible

148

Normanby Road

2965

0.065

Very Slight

5.2

Detailed Evaluations (Stage 3 Assessments)

5.2.1

Overview

YES YES YES YES

Detailed evaluations, (Stage 3 assessments) maybe required where the predicted damage levels are greater than ‘slight’ (Burland, 1997). For this application the predicted settlements are such that a Stage 3 assessment is not required. However, the influence of building configuration has been undertaken for two buildings, to further illustrate the beneficial actions of the building and also to illustrate how the influence of building configuration may be significant.

5.2.2

11 Mayoral Drive – Former Public Trust Building

5.2.2.1

Building Description

11 Mayoral Drive, formerly the Public Trust Office, is a four-storey building comprising a basement level, ground floor and two upper levels. The original building was constructed in or about 1912. The building has been identified as a built heritage structure as part of the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA). A number of alterations have been undertaken over the building’s life. These include the addition of storerooms and strong rooms in 1930 and other non-structural changes and interior fit outs. No evidence of global strengthening to the structure since its original construction was identified as part of the investigation. The basement floor comprises a 150 mm thick concrete slab on grade with 150 mm thick concrete floor slabs to the upper floor level and roof level spanning on to concrete-encased steel beams and gravity frames in both directions. The building’s façade is of masonry construction. Foundations to the structure are inherently shallow founded, comprising concrete strip and pad footings. Lateral stability to the building is considered to be provided predominantly by the masonry walls to the building’s exterior, supplemented by the internal concrete walls around the lift and stair core. In plan and elevation, the building appears to have three significant changes in stiffness. In elevation the building steps up the hill away from the alignment with 4-storeys to the front reducing to 2-storeys to the rear. In plan, the building reduces in width by roughly half as the building steps up the hill resulting in a change in relative stiffness. 5.2.2.2

Availability of Information

Very limited numbers of existing record drawings were able to be sourced from Auckland Council’s archives. The following drawings were obtained and reviewed from the Architecture Archive at the University of Auckland Library:

 Original Structural and architectural, titled “New Public Trust Building Albert Street Auckland”, produced by Hoggard and Prouse Architects.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

32 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

5.2.2.3

Existing Building Condition

On inspection, localised cracking to the building’s façade was evident. It is likely that strains induced from previous ground movement have contributed to the cracking. Externally the building appeared to be constructed in accordance with the drawings obtained from the University of Auckland Architecture Archive. 5.2.2.4

Potential Effects

The building is adjacent to the alignment that passes directly past the NE corner of the building and is predicted to be potentially affected by the TBM tunnel works and Aotea Station excavation as shown in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-1 Public Trust Building Footprint at 11 Mayoral Drive (Shown in Red ID#26)

ID #: 26

TBM Tunnel

Greenfield ground strain plots have been generated along three external wall lines and across two internal sections perpendicular to each other. These show that the ground surface strains at all the considered sections are tensile. Parameters derived from the ground profile curves are applied to an empirical analysis procedure to determine the impact of the altered ground profile on the specific building. The results are presented as strains induced in the building. These strains are compared to the Damage Classification outlined in Table 5-1.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

33 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Table 5-2 shows the expected damage to be negligible for all sections considered in this building as part of the Stage 3 Assessment. Table 5-2 Estimated Effects on 11 Mayoral Drive

Estimated Effect Tensile Strain Building Classification 5.2.2.5

<0.01% Negligible

Conclusions

Based on the estimated settlement induced tensile strains on the building the effects are considered to be less than minor and limited to the potential for aesthetic damage.

5.2.3

9 Mercury Lane – Mercury Theatre

5.2.3.1

Building Description

9 Mercury Lane is an old theatre building constructed in or about 1910. The main area of the building comprises a single-story full height auditorium incorporating mezzanine tiered seating with two threestory access areas to the front and eastern side and a two-story stage area to the rear. The building includes a basement. The building has been identified as a built heritage structure as part of the HIA. Various alteration and securing works have been undertaken over the building’s life including works for the Mercury Theatre Company in 1967 and more recently for Equippers Church in 2005. The building is predominantly of unreinforced brick masonry wall construction with timber framed upper floors and a lightweight roof also of timber construction. The perimeter masonry walls widen at their base to form brick footings. Concrete pad footings support jack studs to the timber flooring. The ground floor appears to be a combination of concrete slab on grade to the ends of the building and suspended timber construction to the auditorium. The roof is supported by traditional timber Queen Post Trusses spanning full width and supported on steps in the wall where it thickens at floor levels. The timber mezzanine and floor levels are similarly supported on brick walls with supports internally. The roof trusses were secured to the brick walls with rose heads as part of the repair work in 1967 however no evidence of similar connections was available for the lower levels. The timber stage floor was secured as part of the 1967 work comprising steel framing and additional pad footings. No evidence of global out-of-place strengthening to the brick walls was observed as part of the building investigation. 5.2.3.2

Availability of Information

The following drawing sets were obtained and reviewed as part of the building assessment:

 Original drawings constructed in 1910, titled “New Theatre in Upper Pitt Street, Auckland” by Edward Bartley Architect;

 Repair and modification drawings for the Mercury Theatre Company constructed in 1967, title “Playhouse Theatre” by Gray, Watts & Beca Consulting Engineers; and

 Alteration drawings for Equippers Church constructed in 2005, titled” Proposed New Floor Layout”. 5.2.3.3

Existing Building Condition

On inspection, 9 Mercury Lane appeared to be in relatively good condition with limited significant cracking to the brick and mortar. Cracking has occurred where the more modern reinforced concrete lintels connect to the brick walls. To the south of the building the ground sloped away towards the location of the proposed station access shaft. Externally the building appeared to be constructed in accordance with the drawings obtained from Auckland Council Records.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

34 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

5.2.3.4

Potential effects

The building is adjacent to the proposed Karangahape Station and is potentially affected by both the construction of the mined tunnel and access shaft of the station as shown in Figure 5-2. Figure 5-2 Mercury Theatre Building Footprint at 9 Mercury Lane

K Road Station Access Shaft

Detailed evaluations allowing for the configuration of the building were undertaken allowing for additional stiffness arising from the ground floor slab and masonry walls. These elements provide additional resistance to the western façade but offer minimal out-of-plane support (and thereby no additional stiffness) to the northern and southern boundary walls. Therefore, the northern and southern wall foundations and walls may rotate in proportion to adjacent ground settlements. Given the unreinforced masonry construction of the wall, the southern wall in particular is considered very sensitive to the excavation of the shaft and any ensuing ground movements. The building has been assessed for both a fully-top-down scheme and a bottom-up scheme incorporating elements of top-down construction. Overall the effects based on Burland’s classification are slight. Table 5-3 Estimated effects on 9 Mercury Lane

Estimated Effect Tensile Strain

<0.075%

Building Classification

Very Slight

5.2.3.5

Conclusions

The building is considered very sensitive and vulnerable to any ground movements. From experience of similar wall types, wall instability may occur rapidly in response to potential construction movements. It is recommended that the southern wall and its likely response to construction needs to be investigated in more detail as part of the detailed design. However, the risk of wall instability is such that preventive stabilisation works of the southern wall are expected to be necessary. This may take several forms, such as external bracing but would be subject to both Building Consent and Built Heritage approval and discussion and agreement of the building owner. A detailed pre-construction structural survey should also be undertaken, with the building closely monitored during construction.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

35 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

5.3

Other Sensitive Buildings

5.3.1

Introduction

The following buildings have also been identified as particularly sensitive to ground movements given their configuration and existing conditions (assessed externally and from building record drawings). We recommend that particular attention is given to the following buildings during the next phase of project development with further detailed assessments (including further consideration of the design or stage 3 assessments of the buildings) undertaken as part of the detailed design phase of the project. It is noted that the additional resources, and with the benefit of further investigations arising from preconstruction condition surveys at the detailed design stage further sensitive buildings may be identified within the application corridor.

5.3.2

61-65 Pitt Street (ID 50)

The building located at 61-65 Pitt Street is a 2-storey shallow founded building that was constructed in the early 1900s. Based on the limited drawings available and an external inspection of the building it appears to be constructed primarily of unreinforced masonry brick walls and supporting timber flooring. It appeared that the front brick walls of the building were removed at some time to give way to windows, with support to the upper floor provided by reinforced concrete beams spanning between the masonry columns. Internal and possibly intrusive investigations may also be required to obtain a better understanding of the building’s inherent stiffness given the lack of drawings.

5.3.3

2 Flower Street – TV3 Carpark (ID 109)

This is a 2-storey carpark building that was constructed 1967. The existing structural drawings show reinforced concrete frames supporting a reinforced concrete ramp and slabs. The foundations comprise shallow founded pad and strip footings. Brick infill is evident to the southern corner of the building adjacent to the tunnel shaft. The proposed mined tunnels run directly beneath the building site resulting in a ‘slight’ damage assessment according to the Burland methodology (based on construction of the single ‘up main turnout cavern).

5.3.4

10-14 Nikau Street (ID110)

The Building located at 10-14 Nikau Street is a typical 3-storey industrial style building constructed in the 1980s. The existing structural drawings show reinforced concrete frames supporting reinforced concrete slabs with reinforced construction block infill. The foundations comprise shallow founded pad footings to the columns and strip footings to the walls stepped down the sloping site. The proposed mined tunnels run directly beneath the building. A stage 2 Burland assessment classification corresponds to Slight Damage based on the estimated ground movement.

5.3.5

16 Nikau Street (ID 111)

The Buildings located at 16 Nikau Street has been modified repeatedly since construction in the 1930’s. The existing structural drawings show reinforced concrete frames supporting reinforced concrete slabs with reinforced construction block infill. The foundations comprise shallow founded pad footings to the columns and strip footings to the walls stepped down the sloping site. The proposed mined tunnels run directly beneath the building and it is adjacent to the head wall of the cut and cover excavations at Mt Eden. A stage 2 Burland assessment classification corresponds to Slight Damage based on the estimated ground movement.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

36 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

6 6.1

Assessment of Effects of Piled Buildings Introduction

The sections of analysis are described in Section 4.5 above. The sections have been selected to illustrate likely effects of construction of Aotea Station in particular given the depth of rock and the scale and proximity of the cut and cover excavation and the potential interaction with the piled foundations. The assessment has also included the Eclipse Apartments as these have piled foundations that are relatively close the alignment. The building assessments include an evaluation of both the serviceability and ultimate limit state capacities of the foundations and superstructure in relation to the additional demands from CRL construction.

6.2

Assessment Criteria

Ultimate Limit State The following standards were adopted to assess the existing design actions on the building and to determine the building member capacities:

 NZS1170 – Existing Loads; and  NZS3101 – Member Capacities. Serviceability Limit State The following criteria from NZS 3101 were adopted to assess the serviceability limit for each concrete element:

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

37 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

38 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

6.3

Assessment Summary

6.3.1

63 Albert Street – AMI House

6.3.1.1

Building Description

The AMI Building is 15 storeys tall with a basement level, ground level and 13 upper floor levels to the main building with a three storey carpark to the rear. The building was originally constructed in or about 1986. The building is constructed predominantly of reinforced concrete comprising reinforced concrete frames in both directions supporting precast concrete floor slabs. The building is founded on 1050mm diameter belled piles that are at a minimum offset of 7500 mm from the tunnel excavation. The piles' embedment depth into the ECBF (East Coast Bay Formation) varies across the site but is typically 1800 mm. The piles are restrained laterally at basement level by the reinforced concrete ground beams. Reinforced concrete ground beams are located on the perimeter of the building and run parallel to the excavation along the buildings frontage. Lateral stability to the building’s superstructure is provided by reinforced concrete moment frames in both principal directions. 6.3.1.2

Availability of Information

The following structural drawings were obtained from the Auckland Council archives and reviewed:

 Original structural drawings dated 1986, titled “Wyndham Place”, and produced by Fletcher. 6.3.1.3

Existing Building Condition

On inspection, no significant existing damage to the façade was noted. Externally the building appeared to be constructed in accordance with the drawings obtained from the Auckland Council Records. 6.3.1.4

Potential Effects

The building is adjacent to the proposed Aotea Station as shown in the Figure 6-1 below. Figure 6-1 Building footprint at 63 Albert Street (Note Aotea Station shown indicatively)

ID #: 1

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

39 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

A typical section of the building and station was modelled using PLAXIS to estimate the demands on the structure. The section was modelled perpendicular to Albert Street and included the foundations, basement floor, the ground floor and the first level. Due to the irregular shape of the building the stiffness of the piles was averaged based on their varied spacing. The station tends to rack away from the building due to the difference in level between the eastern and western sides of Albert Street resulting in additional loads on the building. The subsequent construction-induced settlement on the building has been tabulated in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Estimated effects on 99 Albert Street Item

Ground at Building Frontage (Ground Level)

Frontage Piles (Top of Pile)

Vertical Movement

0.33mm (downwards)

Horizontal Movement

3.66mm (Towards tunnel)

3.61mm (Towards tunnel)

A nominal increase in the demands on the building columns, piles and ground and upper beams is expected. These additional demands have been checked and are within the serviceability and ultimate limit state capacities of each element as assessed in accordance with current design standards. Cracking to the basement beams may occur due to the combination of existing loads and the addition of stresses induced by the ground movements. The cracking may occur near grid C5 (C4 side) and on the upper side of the beam. However, predicted crack widths are within the durability criteria of NZS3101. 6.3.1.5

Conclusions

The piles and column are expected to remain uncracked under the additional construction induced loads. Minor cracking within the serviceability limits of NZS3101 is expected in the basement floor beam and suspended ground floor beam. Given the limited ground movement it is expected that these effects can be minimised with active management during construction. It is also recommended that a detailed pre-construction structural survey is undertaken and that the building is monitored during construction. The potential for damage is expected to be no more than minor and non-structural. Should damage occur this is likely to manifest as fine cracks easily addressed during normal redecoration. Cracks to the floor slab finishes may be visible upon close inspection. In accordance with the consent conditions such repairs would be undertaken at no cost to the building owner.

6.3.2 6.3.2.1

38 Wyndham Street – Wyndham Towers Building Description

The Wyndham Towers Building is a 19-storey building comprising a basement floor, ground floor and 10 upper floor levels. The building was originally constructed in or about 1972. The building is constructed predominantly of reinforced concrete comprising reinforced concrete frames in both directions supporting concrete floor slabs. The building is founded on 900 mm and diameter belled piles that are at a minimum offset of 6500 mm from the tunnel excavation. The piles embedment depth into the ECBF is 1800 mm. The piles are restrained laterally at ground level by the reinforced concrete ground beams. Reinforced concrete ground beams are located to the perimeter of the building and run parallel to the excavation along the buildings frontage. Lateral stability to the building’s superstructure is provided by reinforced concrete moment frames in both principal directions.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

40 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

6.3.2.2

Availability of Information

The following structural drawings were obtained from the Auckland Council archives and reviewed:

 Original structural drawings dated 1972, titled “U.D.C HOUSE”, and produced by Tapper, Cotter, Brown & Partners Consulting Engineers.

6.3.2.3

Existing Building Condition

Potential Effects

The building is adjacent to the proposed Aotea Station as shown in Figure 6-2. Figure 6-2 Building footprint at 38 Wyndham Street

ID #: 2

A typical section of the building and station was modelled using PLAXIS to estimate the demands on the structure. The section was modelled perpendicular to Albert Street and included the foundations, basement floor, the ground floor and the first level. The station tends to rack towards the building (away from the tunnel) due to difference in level between the eastern and western side of Albert St resulting in additional loads on the building. The subsequent construction-induced settlement on the building has been tabulated in Table 6-2. Table 6-2 Estimated effects on 38 Wyndham Street Item

Ground at Building Frontage

Frontage Piles

Vertical Movement

0.09mm (upwards)

Horizontal Movement

1.37mm (Away from tunnel)

1.26mm (Away from tunnel)

A nominal increase in the demands on the building columns, beams and piles is expected. These additional demands have been checked and are within the existing serviceability and ultimate limit state capacities of each element as assessed in accordance with current design standards. Minor cracking to the level one 300 thick slab and ground beam may occur due to the combination of existing loads and the addition of stresses induced by the ground movements. Any such cracking would be within the durability criteria of NZS3101.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

41 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

6.3.2.5

Conclusions

The piles and column are expected to remain uncracked under the new loading. Minor cracking within the serviceability limits of NZS3101 is expected in the ground beam and suspended Level 1 floor slab. Given the limited ground movement it is expected that these effects can be minimised with active management of construction. It is also recommended that a detailed pre-construction structural survey is undertaken and that the building is monitored during construction. The potential for cracking is expected to be no more than minor resulting in fine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration. Cracks to the floor slab finishes may be visible upon close inspection and will be fixed at no cost to the owner should these occur.

6.3.3 6.3.3.1

87-89 Albert Street – Albert Plaza Building Description

The Albert Plaza Building is a 14-storey building comprising two basement levels, a ground floor and 11 upper floor levels to the main building. The building was originally constructed in or about 1984. The building is constructed predominantly of reinforced concrete comprising reinforced concrete frames in both directions supporting precast concrete floor slabs. The building is founded on 900 mm and 1000 mm diameter belled piles that are at a minimum offset of 15500 mm from the tunnel excavation. The piles embedment depth into the ECBF varies across the site but is typically founded with a minimum embedment of 1100 mm. The piles are restrained laterally at ground level by the reinforced concrete ground beam. Reinforced concrete ground beams are located to the perimeter of the building and run parallel to the excavation along the buildings frontage. Lateral stability to the building’s superstructure is provided by reinforced concrete moment frames in both principal directions 6.3.3.2

Availability of Information

The following structural drawings were obtained from the Auckland Council archives and reviewed:

 Original structural drawings dated 1984, titled “Office Building 87 Albert Street Auckland”, and produced by Worley Consultants Limited.

6.3.3.3

Existing Building Condition

Potential Effects

The building is adjacent to the proposed Aotea Station as shown in the Figure 6-3.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

42 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 6-3 Building footprint at 87-89 Albert Street

ID #: 10

A typical section of the building and station was modelled using PLAXIS to estimate the demands on the structure. The section was taken through the longitudinal frame which included the foundations, basement floor 1, basement floor 2, ground floor and Level 1. Due to the hexagonal shape of the building the stiffness of the piles was averaged based on their varied spacing. The station tends to rack away from the building due to difference in level between the eastern and western sides of Albert Street resulting in additional loads on the building. The subsequent construction-induced settlement on the building has been tabulated in the Table 6-3. Table 6-3 Estimated effects on 87-89 Albert Street Item

Ground at Building Frontage (Ground level)

Frontage Piles (Top of pile)

Vertical Movement

0.04mm (downwards)

Horizontal Movement

1.81mm (towards tunnel)

Conclusions

The piles and column are expected to remain uncracked under the new loading. Minor cracking within the serviceability limits of NZS3101 is expected in the ground beam. Given the limited ground movement it is expected that these effects can be minimised with active management during construction. It is also recommended that a detailed pre-construction structural survey is undertaken and that the building is monitored during construction.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

43 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

The potential for damage is expected to be no more than minor and non-structural. Should damage occur this is likely to manifest as fine cracks easily addressed during normal redecoration. Cracks to the floor slab finishes may be visible upon close inspection and will be fixed at no cost to the owner should these occur. In accordance with the consent conditions such repairs would be undertaken at no cost to the building owner.

6.3.4 6.3.4.1

99 Albert Street – AA Building Building Description

The AA Building is a 19-storey structure comprising a ground floor and 18 upper floor levels to the main building with a four storey carpark building to the rear. The building was originally constructed in or about 1986. Various alteration works have been undertaken during the building’s life however no evidence of global strengthening to the structure since its original construction was identified as part of the investigation. The building is constructed predominantly of reinforced concrete comprising reinforced concrete frames in both directions supporting precast concrete floor slabs. The building is founded on 1200 mm and 1800 mm diameter belled piles that are at a minimum offset of 18500 mm from the tunnel excavation. The piles embedment depth into the ECBF varies across the site but is typically founded just above the tunnel founding level with a minimum embedment of 4000 mm. The piles are restrained laterally at ground level by the reinforced concrete ground floor slab on grade. Reinforced concrete ground beams are located to the perimeter of the building and run parallel to the excavation along the buildings frontage. Lateral stability to the building’s superstructure is provided by reinforced concrete moment frames in both principal directions. 6.3.4.2

Availability of Information

The following structural drawings were obtained from the Auckland Council archives and reviewed:

 Original structural drawings dated 1986, titled “99 Albert Street”, and produced by Fletcher; and  Various alteration drawings. 6.3.4.3

Existing Building Condition

Potential Effects

The building is adjacent to the proposed Aotea Station as shown in the Figure 6-4.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

44 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 6-4 Building footprint at 99 Albert Street

ID #: 19

A typical section of the building and station was modelled using PLAXIS to estimate the demands on the structure. The section was modelled perpendicular to Albert Street which included the foundations, basement floor, first level floor and second level floor. The construction of the NDG building was also included within the PLAXIS model. This accounts for roughly half the demands on the AA Building. The station tends to rack away from the building due to the difference in level between the eastern and western sides of Albert Street resulting in additional loads on the buildings. The subsequent construction-induced settlement on the building has been tabulated in Table 6-4. Table 6-4 Estimated effects on 99 Albert Street Item

Ground at Building Frontage (Ground level)

Frontage Piles (Top of pile)

Vertical Movement

6.2mm (downward)

0.24mm (upwards)

Horizontal Movement

30.51mm (towards tunnel)

8.4mm (towards tunnel)

A nominal increase in the demands on the building columns, piles and level 1 beams is expected. These additional demands have been checked and are within the existing serviceability and ultimate limit state capacities of each element as assessed in accordance with current design standards. Minor cracking to the ground floor slab is expected due to the combination of existing loads and the addition of stresses induced by the ground movements. The cracking is within the durability criteria of NZS3101. The load carrying capacity of the slab is well within its ultimate limit state for both scenarios. A sensitivity analysis was carried out with the assumed geological parameters by decreasing the Ko values to 1 for the upper soil layers. This resulted in a slight decrease in the loads inside the building’s elements. A further sensitivity analysis was carried out with the station piles assumed as cracked, again the resulting loads decreased slightly.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

45 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

6.3.4.5

Conclusions

The piles and column are expected to remain uncracked under the new loading. Minor cracking within the serviceability limits of NZS3101 is expected in the ground beam. The assessment includes the ground movement from the construction of the NDG basement the buildings effects are expected to reduce if the construction of Aotea Station is considered only. Given the limited ground movement it is expected that these effects can be minimised with active management of tunnelling works during construction. It is also recommended that a detailed preconstruction structural survey is undertaken and that the building is monitored during construction. The potential for damage is expected to be no more than minor and non-structural. Should damage occur this is likely to manifest as fine cracks easily addressed during normal redecoration. Cracks to the floor slab finishes may be visible upon close inspection and will be fixed at no cost to the owner should these occur. In accordance with the consent conditions such repairs would be undertaken at no cost to the building owner.

6.3.5 6.3.5.1

109-125 Albert Street – Sky City Grand Hotel and Convention Centre Building Description

The Sky City Grand Hotel and Convention Centre is a 24-storey building originally constructed in or about 2003. Various alteration works have been undertaken over the building’s life. There is no evidence of global strengthening to the structure since its original construction was identified as part of the investigation. The building is constructed predominantly of reinforced concrete comprising a combination of reinforced concrete frames and shear walls supporting precast concrete floor slabs. The building is founded on pile groups consisting of 900 mm diameter piles that are offset at a minimum of 6000 mm from the tunnel excavation. The piles embedment depth into the ECBF varies across the site but is typically founded below the tunnel founding level with minimum embedment of 9500 mm. The piles are restrained rotationally by a thick pile cap and laterally by a 150 mm thick floor slab constructed on top of the pile caps. Lateral stability to the building’s superstructure is provided by reinforced concrete moment frames and reinforced concrete shear walls in both principal directions. 6.3.5.2

Availability of Information

The following structural drawings were obtained from the Auckland Council archives and reviewed:

 Original structural drawings dated 2002, titled “Sky City Auckland Convention Centre”, and produced by BECA;

 Original structural drawings dated 2003, titled “Sky City Auckland Convention Hotel”, and produced by BECA; and

 Various alteration drawings. 6.3.5.3

Existing Building Condition

Potential Effects

The building is adjacent to the proposed Aotea Station as shown in Figure 6-5.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

46 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Figure 6-5 Building footprint at 109-125 Albert Street

ID #: 21

A typical section of the building and station was modelled using PLAXIS to estimate the demands on the structure. The section was taken perpendicular to Albert Street which included the foundations, ground floor, level 1 floor and the level1 floor. The station tends to rack away from the building due to the difference in level between the eastern and western sides of Albert Street resulting in additional loads on the building. The subsequent construction-induced settlement on the building has been tabulated in Table 6-5. Table 6-5 Estimated effects on 109-125 Albert Street Item

Ground at Building Frontage (Ground level)

Frontage Piles (Top of pile)

Vertical Movement

3.42 mm (downward)

0.07 mm (downward)

Horizontal Movement

15.92 mm (towards tunnel)

3.92 mm (towards tunnel)

A nominal increase in the demands on the building columns, piles and slabs is expected. These additional demands have been checked and are within the existing serviceability and ultimate limit state capacities of these elements as assessed in accordance with current design standards. Minor cracking to the ground floor slab is expected due to the combination of existing loads and the addition of stresses induced by the ground movements. The cracking is within the durability criteria of NZS3101. 6.3.5.5

Conclusions

The piles and column are expected to remain uncracked under the new loading. Minor cracking within the serviceability limits of NZS3101 is expected in the ground floor slab.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

47 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Given the limited ground movement it is expected that these effects can be minimised with active management of tunnelling works during construction. It is also recommended that a detailed preconstruction structural survey is undertaken and that the building is monitored during construction. The potential for damage is expected to be no more than minor and non-structural. Should damage occur this is likely to manifest as fine cracks easily addressed during normal redecoration. Cracks to the floor slab finishes may be visible upon close inspection and will be fixed at no cost to the owner should these occur. In accordance with the consent conditions such repairs would be undertaken at no cost to the building owner.

6.3.6 6.3.6.1

152-156 Vincent Street – Eclipse Apartments Building Description

The eclipse apartment is a 15-level residential building comprising a single basement level carpark on grade and 14 upper suspended levels of apartments. The building was constructed in or about 2007. On plan the building is circular in shape with an approximate diameter of 30 metres, corresponding to a floor plate area of roughly 710 square metres. No alteration works have been undertaken since construction. The building is constructed of predominantly insitu and precast reinforced concrete with Shotcrete walls to the basement and retaining structures. The floor structure to the upper floor levels is a combination of precast Flat Slab and Double Tees with concrete toppings to the outer section and Tray Deck flooring to the inner core. The roof structure comprises timber purlins supporting lightweight roofing. The concrete floor slabs are supported by reinforced concrete shell beams span between reinforced concrete columns to the perimeter and precast concrete walls radially and to the inner core. The foundation structure consists of an inner circle of piles to the base of the concrete shear walls and an outer circle of piles to the base of the columns. These piles are reinforced concrete friction type piles with a typical embedment depth into ECBF of 5 - 8 metres. The inner core and outer section piles appear to be nominally tied at foundation level by a 120 mm thick concrete basement floor slab on grade. The piles are offset a minimum of 1700 mm from the tunnel excavation. The upper eight levels cantilever on the northern side and are supported on a fin column, transferring the load directly into the ground through a single pile between the outer and inner pile networks. This pile is the deepest pile and is in proximity to the alignment. Resistance to lateral loads is provided by the precast core walls and the outer precast shell beams and column frame in all principal directions. The loads appear to transfer into the ground beams and into the outer and inner piles. 6.3.6.2

Availability of Information

The following information was obtained from the Auckland Council archives and reviewed:  Structural drawings for the building constructed in or about 2007, titled “Eclipse Apartments 152-156 Vincent Street for Conrad Properties”, and produced by Stephen Mitchell Engineers Limited;

 Original design calculations produced by Stephen Mitchell Engineers Limited; and  As-built pile log records. 6.3.6.3

Existing Building Condition

On inspection, no significant existing damage to the façade was noted. Externally the building appeared to be constructed in accordance with the drawings obtained from the Auckland Council Records.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

48 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

6.3.6.4

Potential Effects

The eastern tunnel of the CRL passes adjacent to the zone of influence of the piled foundations to the Eclipse Apartments building as shown in Figure 6-6

Figure 6-6 Building footprint at 156 Vincent Street

Vincent Street TBM

ID #: 38

A 2D PLAXIS model of the Eclipse Apartment piles was developed to estimate the demands on the structure from the TBM tunnel. Volume loss resulting from the TBM excavation causes downward movement of the soil underneath the building. This results in additional loads on the building as the piles settle. The subsequent construction-induced settlement on the building has been tabulated in Table 6-6. Table 6-6 Estimated effects on 156 Vincent Street Item

Ground at Building Frontage (Ground level)

Frontage Piles (Top of pile)

Vertical Movement

10.5 mm (downward)

Horizontal Movement

2.8 mm (towards tunnel)

3.2 mm (towards tunnel)

A nominal increase in the demands on the building piles is expected. These additional demands have been checked and are within the existing serviceability and ultimate limit state capacities as assessed in accordance with current design standards. 6.3.6.5

Conclusions

Given the expected limited ground movement it is expected that these effects can be minimised with active management of tunnelling works during construction. It is also recommended that a detailed pre-construction structural survey is undertaken and that the building is monitored during construction. The potential for damage is expected to be no more than minor and non-structural. Should damage occur this is likely to manifest as fine cracks easily addressed during normal redecoration. Cracks to

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

49 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

the floor slab finishes may be visible upon close inspection and will be fixed at no cost to the owner should these occur. In accordance with the consent conditions such repairs would be undertaken at no cost to the building owner.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

50 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Assessment of Effects on Utilities

7.1

Overview

Damage to utilities due to settlement is considered less likely than damage to buildings as the allowable slopes are much lower for buildings although they may be closer to or even cross excavations. The utilities which have the highest risk of damage are utilities which run at a 90° angle to the cut and cover excavation (i.e. perpendicular to the settlement contours). As the slope of settlement increases as distance from the piled wall decreases, damage to utilities is most likely in the area closest to the piled wall. Damage mechanisms typically manifest as either opening of joints (for jointed pipes/ducts) or cracks in the cables or ducts.

7.2

Minor Utilities

While many of the utilities will be able to accommodate high levels of deflection, others will be more susceptible to damage. This assessment has been based on a maximum allowable slope value which is applicable for the utilities most susceptible to damage and which will be conservative for other utilities. The paper by O’Rourke & Trautmann (1985) recommends a maximum slope of 1:140 for cast iron pipes and brittle utilities with a diameter of 200mm or greater. While cast iron is considered the material most susceptible to damage, some of the utilities are expected to be very old and as such a safety factor has been applied to give a maximum allowable slope of 1:200. This value has been applied to all utilities within the Aotea Station and Karangahape Station works area. Most utility services are expected to be able to accommodate ground movement slopes of up to 1:500, with the possible exception of particularly fragile services such as old, cast iron gas mains. The maximum ground movement slopes were determined from the settlement contours at selected locations and these are tabulated in Table 7-1. Table 7-1 Settlement slopes at selected locations along the tunnel alignment

Location

Description

CH 1+040

South of Aotea station and close proximity to tunnelling

1:235

CH 1+500

TBM typical section of average depth

1:544

CH 2+050

Platform tunnel of Karangahape station

1:617

CH 2+200

TBM of tunnel beneath Central Motorway Junction

1:217

CH 2+360

TBM under clusters of buildings

1:1812

CH 2+620

TBM at Newton and mined tunnel interface

1:2564

CH 2+660

Average diameter mined tunnel and TBM

1:1233

CH 2+700

Large diameter mined tunnel and TBM

1:807

CH 2+740

Mined tunnel

1:636

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

Slope, mm/mm

51 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Based on these results, utilities located in the vicinity of Chainages 1+040 and 2+200 should be further investigated in the detail design stage to determine their risk of damage and/or impaired performance (in addition to utilities in close proximity to station and cut-and-cover tunnel excavations).

7.3

Existing Utilities

Significant utilities that lie within the settlement contours are identified as follows:

7.3.1

Watercare Orakei Main Sewer

The Orakei Main Sewer runs along Victoria Street and will be strengthened as part of the current CRL construction works (underway, consented as part of the Albert Street Stormwater Pipe Realignment).

7.3.2

Auckland Council Stormwater Mains

The stormwater main located in Nikau Street is a 1950mm diameter reinforced concrete. Both mains will be diverted and protected as part of the Mt Eden Station / NAL Connections works (a component of this application).

7.3.3

Vector Gas and Electricity Cables

High voltage oil-filled Vector electricity lines run diagonally across then along the northern side of Beresford Square then into Pitt Street. It will be protected in-situ. The Vector tunnel passes beneath CRL at Mayoral Drive with a separation of over 10m. This has been previously assessed under the CRL NoR and the effects are considered to remain negligible.

7.3.4

Watercare Watermains

The 1300 diameter Huia No.2 Water Main will be diverted and protected as part of the Mt Eden/ NAL Connections works (a component of this application) A 375mm diameter potable water supply, managed by Watercare forms part of the CBD ring main and is very close to the Karangahape Station Pitt Street shaft. It will also be protected in-situ.

7.3.5

Other Utilities

A number of existing utilities pass through the proposed CRL alignment. Through discussions with utility operators, outline plans have been developed for the management of these utilities throughout construction. These utilities (with the exception of the above mentioned) are all expected to be at a depth of less than 2m below ground level. The general approach for these utilities is:

 Support utilities in their current location where practicable in relation to access and safety;  Where support is not an option, utilities shall be diverted outside the proposed shaft locations prior to construction; and

 Out-of-service utilities shall be removed during construction and ducts replaced where specifically required by the utility operators.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

52 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Other Infrastructure

8.1

NDG Development

The NDG development at 35 Albert Street will include a deep excavation very close to Aotea Station. It is understood that NDG are yet to apply for their dewatering resource consents. The timing of this excavation is uncertain, but may be concurrent with CRL or may occur after CRL construction. Analysis was undertaken to assess the effects of the NDG works based on preliminary design from NDG. The analysis indicates that the NDG excavations to marginally increase the potential ground movements in the area. Further coordination is required with NDG to determine the sequence of construction and influence of the two excavations and their separate and combined effects upon existing buildings and infrastructure. The base case of application is based upon CRL being constructed first.

8.2

Central Motorway Junction

8.2.1

Overview

The effects of CRL upon the Central Motorway Junction (CMJ) have been considered from the outset of the concept design and described in the CRL NoR application (now Designation). Refer also 228072-AC-MEM-034, updated CRL-KTN-STR-000-MEM-0008 August 2015 of Appendix G. Key structures are identified on Figure 8-1 below. The rail alignment has been modified since the concept design put forward with the NoR and this has marginally reduced the effects upon the CMJ. In addition, as the ground conditions interpreted from several phases of site investigation are relatively benign (unweathered ECBF) and as settlement effects of TBM construction may be minimised at this location using ‘closed mode operation’ means that effects upon the CMJ will be minor and manageable. (Refer to Section 10.4) However, the importance of continued operation of the State Highway network means that the operations will be closely monitored and controlled during construction of the TBM tunnels that pass beneath the CMJ. Further assessment and analysis along with engagement with the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) and the Auckland Motorway Alliance is required through detailed design and construction. Figure 8-1 CMJ Plan

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

53 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Key: 1) Newton Bridge 2) CMJ Retaining Walls 3) Upper Queen St Bridge

8.2.2

Newton Bridge

The structural assessment has assumed the minimum horizontal clearance between the Up-Main tunnel and the closest of the three bridge abutment piles of just over 2.5m, with top of rail level at RL 37.746m. The assessment determined settlements would be approximately 6mm at the bridge abutment and 5mm at the first pier. This represents a differential settlement of 1mm over the 24.4m span and 5mm over the adjacent 30.5m span which is considered acceptable for the existing continuous structure, although some minor resurfacing works might be required locally to the abutment. Figure 8-2 Proximity of Tunnels to Newton Bridge No. 1

8.2.3

Central Motorway Junction Retaining Walls

Estimated maximum settlement slopes at surface are less than 1:500 and the bored tunnels will pass directly beneath the retaining wall piled foundations. A geophysical survey to determine the as-built depth of a sample of these piles was undertaken in February/March 2015 (refer CRL-SYW-GEO-000-RPT-0009, Stage 3 Ground Investigation Factual Report). This inferred that the crown of the bored tunnels, on the current design alignment, will lie approximately 4m below the level of zero magnetic interference that the survey detected which is inferred to be the base level of the piles. A structural assessment was previously undertaken for this retaining wall which assumed the Up Main tunnel would be approximately 4.6m below the base of the wall’s non-belled piles and approximately 3.3m laterally from the first belled pile (refer 228072-AC-MEM-034, CMJ Structural Assessment, dated 8 November 2013, updated CRL-KTN-STR-000-MEM-0008 Aug 2015 – See Appendix G). The assessment concludes that the potential effects are minor.

8.2.4

Upper Queen Street Bridge

Estimated maximum settlement slopes at surface are less than 1:500 and the bridge is on deep piled foundations. The assessment concludes that the potential effects are minor.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

54 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Proposed Monitoring and Instrumentation

9.1

Introduction

This section provides an overview of the proposed monitoring scheme to be implemented during construction to verify design assumptions and construction performance.

9.2

Ground and Building Monitoring

Monitoring will be required before construction commences, during construction and following completion to confirm the effects of CRL construction. Ground settlement markers will be installed at specified intervals radiating out from the excavations and regularly monitored so surface settlements can be quantified and compared against the estimated settlements. The markers will generally be set out in an array along the tunnel route, adjacent to sensitive structures and along the streets intersecting the excavation to match the cross sections that have been used for the settlement analysis (refer drawing CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2630 to 2635 in Appendix C). In addition to the ground markers, survey monitoring markers will be placed at the base of sensitive buildings and at points along their facades and columns as shown in the attached drawings. This will allow the actual building movement to be monitored and compared with the estimated potential effects at each stage of construction (refer drawing CRL-SYW-RME-000 DRG-2600 in Appendix A). Should there be deviations from the expected system behaviour adjustments can be made that may include increased support measures and a more intense monitoring regime. A staged approach to confirming the system response to excavation in relation to design predictions enables timely interventions that minimise the potential for significant damage. This philosophy is reflected in the draft resource consent conditions and was also adopted for the recent CRL applications in Albert St. For the buildings in close proximity of the Aotea to NAL section and buildings near the shaft and station specific monitoring instruments will be installed. The details for the monitoring of these buildings are described on drawing CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2630-2635 (refer to Appendix C) and includes installation of inclinometers and survey targets on the buildings and piles. For the purposes of this report, ‘active construction’ means activities of dewatering or excavation with the potential to induce settlement. Active construction ceases when further excavation or dewatering activities cease and when monitoring data confirms that no further movements are anticipated. This is typically a consent condition and must be confirmed and accepted by Auckland Council.

9.3

Building Surveys

9.3.1

Pre-construction

Individual pre-construction structural condition surveys will be carried out on buildings within the estimated 5mm settlement contour. This scope is intentionally more extensive than the schedule of buildings considered to be at risk to provide greater data coverage and to be conservative. The initial survey is expected to provide an inspection of each building to establish and record its existing condition. Each survey will produce a written description including photographs of any identified existing damage. These surveys will be carried out prior to the active construction to provide a baseline of the condition of each building.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

55 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Buildings identified as being in a state of dilapidation may require further engineering involvement in the form of detailed assessments and/or specific monitoring of features.

9.3.2

Post-Construction

Within 3 months of the completion of construction, post-construction building condition surveys shall be carried out on buildings where a building condition survey was undertaken prior and during the construction phase and when consented by the building owners. The survey report shall include an assessment of any change in observed building damage. Where a post-construction building condition survey confirms that the building has deteriorated as the result of construction, remedial work will be required to rectify the damage. Such repairs shall be undertaken as soon as practicably possible and in consultation with the owner of the building.

9.4

Groundwater Monitoring

Groundwater monitoring is proposed to monitor groundwater drawdowns in the vicinity of the tunnel and compare these against the predicted values. The monitoring network will comprise piezometers within the expected zone of influence and reference monitoring points outside that zone of influence. It is expected that the existing network of monitoring wells will need to be supplemented. Further details and proposed monitoring network is outlined in the Groundwater Technical Report by PDP (Feb 2016).

9.5

Utilities Monitoring

No additional monitoring is proposed for utilities with monitoring implemented for surface movements being used to check that the deflection of utilities is within the range estimated by the analysis.

9.6

Roads and Infrastructure

It is anticipated that monitoring of the infrastructure will be on a case to case basis by agreement with AT operations and the NZTA.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

56 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

10 Mitigation 10.1

General

The mitigation options discussed in this section are general recommendations based upon the work undertaken for Reference Design. It is noted that the design will be developed into a detailed design (suitable for building consent applications) incorporating inputs from the construction teams that will build CRL. This may lead to changes of the design in view of a) further ground investigations, b) building condition assessments, and c) constructability and staging developments. The Reference Design assessment is based on a conservative geotechnical profile with similarly conservative hydrogeological assumptions. Monitoring data will be used to confirm that these assumptions remain valid through detailed design and construction and thus that the potential for any damage does not increase. The assumptions that were used in the analyses that support the application are reflected in the Conditions that accompany the application, albeit with a structured process to reflect the potential for change from ground investigations and building condition assessment and design development. These conditions, and their function within an adaptive management regime have been discussed with Council specialists as part of the pre-application process.

10.2

Groundwater

No measures to limit drawdown during construction are proposed as groundwater drawdown is not an effect in and of itself in the application context. However, changes in groundwater levels and pressures have the potential to cause consolidation settlement and therefore the effects of groundwater drawdown are captured by the building and infrastructure monitoring (deflections and ground settlement). For this reason ‘alert level’ triggers are included within the conditions for groundwater levels that enable a formal review of the settlement occurring, and trends within the monitoring data in relation to the construction stage and when appropriate, the building and/or structure response. This is consistent with the approach taken for the recent CRL applications within Albert St. It is noted that the vast majority of consolidation effects, should they occur, would do so during the period of construction. However, most of the CRL structures9 are proposed to be ‘undrained’ for asset management purposes. At the undrained locations it is expected that groundwater levels should return to preconstruction levels.

10.3

Settlement from Cut and Cover Structures and Shafts

The Reference Design has explicitly considered how the structural elements of CRL will interact with the ground and limit settlements. At Aotea Station in particular the design incorporates elements of ‘top-down’ construction extending between Victoria and Wellesley St, i.e., where stiff permanent works props are installed as the excavation proceeds. The Reference Design for Aotea also assumes that the roof props are preloaded to account for subsequent deflection of the walls and reduce potential settlements.

9 (with the exception of the Newton Turnout caverns and the K-Road Shafts)

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

57 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

10.4

Settlements from TBM Tunnels

The ground deformation from excavation of the TBM can be controlled during construction as necessary by the use of face pressure, in ‘closed mode’. This is not expected to be required to minimise surface settlements except in the section of tunnel close to Aotea Station where the tunnel passes through weathered rock, close to the second TBM bore and as the tunnels pass beneath the CMJ. However it is noted that closed mode may be used elsewhere if settlement monitoring indicates this is required.

10.5

Settlements from Mined (SEM) Tunnels

The sequential excavation for mined tunnels will adopt an observational approach to suit the encountered ground conditions. If ground conditions require, pre-support ahead of the tunnel face may be used, the excavation advance length can be reduced, temporary support measures can be increased or the tunnel face area can be reduced in each excavation heading.

10.6

Mitigation of Settlement Effects

10.6.1

Overview

Monitoring of construction is essential to confirm that the design is properly implemented, design assumptions are correct and that the construction process is properly controlled. Assessment of the building condition before and after construction is used to confirm damage levels from construction in conjunction with comprehensive construction stage monitoring. Deflection and settlement limits and corresponding pre-defined specific actions will be defined within a Response Plan which will form part of an independently reviewed Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP). This will be reviewed by an Independent Buildings Assessor (along with building condition surveys) and certified by Auckland Council. It is noted that the detailed design and construction stage observations of the overall system response (ground, introduced CRL structures and existing building or structure interaction) will take precedence over the pre-construction predictions.

10.6.2

Buildings

Where a post-construction building condition survey confirms that the building has been damaged as the result of construction, remedial work will be required to rectify the damage. General repairs may include repainting and redecoration and will be undertaken at no cost to the building owner. The timing and extent of the repairs will depend on the owner’s requirements, stage of construction and degree of damage.

10.6.3

Utilities

Settlement effects on utilities are not expected to be a critical matter during construction. However, the presence of proximal utilities generally is a significant construction constraint particularly for shafts and cut and cover excavations. Significant pre-construction utility investigation will be undertaken to confirm the position of utilities (in conjunction with utility providers) and this will confirm either diversion or protection strategies for utilities. If utilities are protected in-situ, specific monitoring regimes will be developed as necessary and detailed in the GSMCP.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

58 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

11 Conclusions This assessment has conservatively assessed the scale of potential settlement effects arising from CRL construction between Aotea Station and the North Auckland line. The risk of damage to buildings will be actively managed through detailed design and construction through the use of ‘before and after’ construction building condition surveys, and monitoring during construction to validate design assumptions and the performance of ground support. A comprehensive monitoring scheme shall be implemented to confirm the actual settlements and to define and enforce specific actions at respective trigger levels. In presenting the assessment the sensitivity of the analyses to various assumptions related to the geotechnical conditions, the influence of the ground support and the timing of installation as well as the potential interaction of buildings with the estimated settlement curves has been considered. The assessments have determined that the predicted adverse settlement effects on buildings are minor, in that cosmetic damage may occur to some buildings. However, these potential effects, should they occur, can be easily remedied at no cost to building owners. The obligation to remedy any damage caused by the construction of CRL will be included by consent conditions. The Mercury Theatre is recommended for specific preventive mitigation works. This is because, despite the assessment of 'very slight' potential building damage from ground movements from CRL, the building is particularly sensitive to ground movement. The analysis indicates that the impact of settlement on utilities and other infrastructure as a result of settlement will be within an acceptable range. However, the condition of the utilities will be investigated in detailed design. Overall, it is considered that potential settlement effects can be adequately assessed, monitored and managed.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

59 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

12 References Aye Z Z, Karki D and Schulz C (2006), “Ground Movement Prediction and Building Damage Risk-Assessment for the Deep Excavations and Tunnelling Works in Bangkok Subsoil”, International Symposium on Underground Excavation and Tunnelling, Bangkok. CIRIA publication C580 (2003), Embedded retaining walls: Guidance on economic design, by AR Gabba , B Simpson, W Powrie and DR Beadman. Bowles J E (1997), Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, McGRAW-Hill International Book Company, Singapore, 1997. BP 2009 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 25 “An Innovative Method for Assessing Tunnelling- Induced Risks to Adjacent Structures” by Nagen Loganathan. Burland J B (1997), Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling and excavation, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Ishihara (ed), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.1189-1201. Burland J B and Wroth C P (1974), Settlement of buildings and associated damage. State of the Art Review, Proceedings, Conference on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge, Pentech Press, London, pp. 611-654. Burland J B , Broms J B and de Mello VFB (1977), Behaviour of Foundations and Structures, SOA Report Session 2, Proceedings of 9th International Conference, SMFE, Tokyo, 2:495546. Burland J B (1995), “Closing Ceremony”, Proc. 1st S-Hokkaido’ 94, 2, pp. 703-705. CIRIA Project Report 30 “Prediction and Effects of Ground Movement Caused by Tunnelling in Soft Ground Beneath Urban Areas” by LM Lake, WJ Rankin & J Hawley. O’Rourke T D and Trautmann C H (1985), Lateral force displacement response of buried pipe. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 9, pp. 1077-1092 Rankin WJ (1988) Engineering Geology of Underground Movements Geol Soc Eng Geol Special Publication No.5 pp 79-92.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

60 CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045 Project 239933 | 30 June 2016 | Revision 3.0

Appendices

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

Appendix A Mechanical Settlement Contour Plans

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

ON T

NA L O

5mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

10mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

20mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

30mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

40mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

50mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL

KI N

CT O

RI A

G ST

DH YN W

LEGEND

Q UE

AO TE A

ALBERT ST TUNNEL

CR L

W ES

RA CT

W ES

SW AN

CR LC

"THESE DRAWINGS PRESENT REFERENCE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY INFORMATION TO ENABLE TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS TO ASSESS POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS PART OF A REGIONAL CONSENT APPLICATION. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED FOR ANY OTHER USE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE DESIGN WILL BE DEVELOPED FURTHER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO SUIT FINAL CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGIES"

PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL

10 5 10

PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

NOTES:

1. FOR ASSUMPTIONS REFER TO SETTLEMENT REPORT 2. SETTLEMENT SHOWN ASSUMES GOOD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES BY AN EXPERIENCED CONTRACTOR.

AO TE

4. ALIGNMENT IS BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN DR8D.

DE R

CT I

CRL UP MAIN MC30

10 TR AV EL

W ST

AL FE

LE S

VI C

LI N

5 10

C3 0

CRL DOWN MAIN MC20

HO BS O

ES T

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2601.dwg

KI NG

ST O

3. BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.

12/05/2016 7:59:21 p.m.

Auckland

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS MECHANICAL SETTLEMENT PLAN SHEET 1 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2601

1.0

700

800

30 20

LEGEND

5 10

5mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

10mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

20mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

30mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

40mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

50mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL

PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL

PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT CRL UP MAIN MC30

NOTES: 1. FOR ASSUMPTIONS REFER TO SETTLEMENT REPORT CRL DOWN MAIN MC20

2. SETTLEMENT SHOWN ASSUMES GOOD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES BY AN EXPERIENCED CONTRACTOR.

C RE DI

3. BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.

O TI

4. ALIGNMENT IS BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN DR8D.

N O F AV TR EL

5 10

20 10 5

30 20

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2602.dwg

20 5

KARAN

GAHAP E

STATIO

Auckland

12/05/2016 7:59:53 p.m.

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS MECHANICAL SETTLEMENT PLAN SHEET 2 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2602

1.0

700

800

LEGEND 5

5mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

10mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

20mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

30mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

40mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

50mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

NOTES: 1. FOR ASSUMPTIONS REFER TO SETTLEMENT REPORT 2. SETTLEMENT SHOWN ASSUMES GOOD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES BY AN EXPERIENCED CONTRACTOR. 3. BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION. 4. ALIGNMENT IS BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN DR8D.

KAR ANG STAT AHAPE IO N

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2603.dwg

CRL UP MAIN MC30

5 10

DIREC TI

ON OF

TRAVE

10 5

10 10

12/05/2016 8:00:24 p.m.

Auckland

CRL DOWN MAIN MC20

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS MECHANICAL SETTLEMENT PLAN SHEET 3 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2603

1.0

700

800

LEGEND 5

5mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

10mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

20mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

30mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

40mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

50mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL

DIR

PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL

EC TIO N

PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

OF TR AV EL

NOTES: 1. FOR ASSUMPTIONS REFER TO SETTLEMENT REPORT 2. SETTLEMENT SHOWN ASSUMES GOOD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES BY AN EXPERIENCED CONTRACTOR.

CRL UP MAIN MC30

3. BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.

CRL DOWN MAIN MC20

4. ALIGNMENT IS BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN DR8D.

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2604.dwg

EAST LINK UP MAIN MC60

H PO SOUT RTAL

EAST LINK DOWN MAIN MC50

12/05/2016 8:00:52 p.m.

OF TRAVEL

Auckland

DIRECTION

EXISTING NORTH AUCKLAND LINE (NAL)

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS MECHANICAL SETTLEMENT PLAN SHEET 4 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2604

1.0

700

800

LEGEND 5

5mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

10mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

20mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

30mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

40mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

50mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

NORTH AUCKLAND LINE (NAL) DOWN MAIN MC10

12/05/2016 8:01:18 p.m.

Auckland

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2605.dwg

NORTH AUCKLAND LINE (NAL) UP MAIN MC40

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS MECHANICAL SETTLEMENT PLAN SHEET 5 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2605

1.0

700

800

LEGEND NORTH AUCKLAND LINE (NAL) DOWN MAIN MC10 CRL UP MAIN MC30

CRL DOWN MAIN MC20

NORTH AUCKLAND LINE (NAL) UP MAIN MC40

5mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

10mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

20mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

30mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

40mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR

50mm SETTLEMENT CONTOUR PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

NOTES: 1. FOR ASSUMPTIONS REFER TO SETTLEMENT REPORT 2. SETTLEMENT SHOWN ASSUMES GOOD CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES BY AN EXPERIENCED CONTRACTOR. 3. BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION.

12/05/2016 8:01:45 p.m.

Auckland

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2606.dwg

4. ALIGNMENT IS BASED ON REFERENCE DESIGN DR8D.

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS MECHANICAL SETTLEMENT PLAN SHEET 6 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2606

1.0

700

800

Appendix B Combined Settlement Contours and Building Assessment Plans

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

5 C2

ST N

10 20

NE W ES T

5mm CONTOUR

10mm CONTOUR

20mm CONTOUR

30mm CONTOUR

40mm CONTOUR

50mm CONTOUR

SW AN

ALBERT STREET TUNNEL

LEGEND

PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL

VI C

PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL

PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT 17

20 30 40

TE A

ST AT

CRL UP MAIN MC30

20 10

133

116

W EL

136

AL 21

ST 23

TYPE 1 MONITORING POINT LAYOUT

ST RS

ER AL

A CT O RI

FE D

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2610.dwg

EXTENSOMETER

SL EY

134 MONITORING POINT

TYPE 3 PILE INCLINOMETER AND STRUT MONITORING ZONE

115

TYPE 2 GROUND MONITORING LOCATION

KI N

ST N G ST O

LI O

12 11

TYPE 1 BUILDING/COLUMN MONITORING LOCATION

13 132

BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED

131

LEGEND

10 MONITORING POINT

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID

113

10 20 30

RA L

114

BUILDING OUTLINE

EDGE OF TUNNEL EXCAVATION

MONITORING POINT TO BE LOCATED TO FRONT OF BUILDING ( TYPE 1)

EDGE OF TUNNEL EXCAVATION

MONITORING POINT AT 2.5m INTERVALS ACROSS FIRST 10m OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT

PROPERTY BOUNDARY

MONITORING POINT AT 5m INTERVALS ACROSS BUILDING.

26 117

28 30 30 FE

DE RA

BOR

Auckland

WITHIN 2.0m

29/06/2016 2:13:47 p.m.

MONITORING EXTENT UP TO 50m OFFSET FROM EXCAVATION ALONG INTERSECTING ROADS

EXTENT OF TUNNEL EXCAVATION

MONITORING AS PER OPPOSITE SIDE

NEL

ZONE 1 : AOTEA STATION

TUN

ZONE 2 : EXTENT OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT FACING ALBERT ST

TYPICAL MONITORING LOCATIONS AT STREETS INTERSECTING AOTEA STATION CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL AND CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT SHEET 1 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2610

1.0

700

800

LEGEND 5

5mm CONTOUR

10mm CONTOUR

20mm CONTOUR

30mm CONTOUR

40mm CONTOUR

50mm CONTOUR

10 5

PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

113

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID

BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED

LEGEND

TYPE 1 BUILDING/COLUMN MONITORING LOCATION TYPE 2 GROUND MONITORING LOCATION TYPE 3 PILE INCLINOMETER AND STRUT MONITORING ZONE

118

EXTENSOMETER 30 5 10

119 31

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2611.dwg

32 33 34 35 38

120

40 10

5 10 121 122 5

10 41 10 10

29/06/2016 11:34:01 a.m.

Auckland

123 5 10

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL AND CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT SHEET 2 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2611

1.0

700

800

LEGEND 5

5mm CONTOUR

10mm CONTOUR

20mm CONTOUR

30mm CONTOUR

40mm CONTOUR

50mm CONTOUR PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

113

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID

BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED

LEGEND

TYPE 1 BUILDING/COLUMN MONITORING LOCATION TYPE 2 GROUND MONITORING LOCATION

TYPE 3 PILE INCLINOMETER AND STRUT MONITORING ZONE

EXTENSOMETER 46 10

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2612.dwg

44 10

50 52

126

125 69

74 70

47 59

5 67

64 5

5 81

127

10 68

80 83

84 85

124 10

88 89

10 5

29/06/2016 11:15:47 a.m.

Auckland

FINAL POSITIONS TO BE AGREED WITH AMA / NZTA

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL AND CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT SHEET 3 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2612

1.0

700

800

LEGEND 5

5mm CONTOUR

10mm CONTOUR

20mm CONTOUR

30mm CONTOUR

40mm CONTOUR

50mm CONTOUR

PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL 82 PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL 83

PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

5 85

10 88

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID

113

148

89 90

TYPE 1 BUILDING/COLUMN MONITORING LOCATION

92 20 20

147

TYPE 2 GROUND MONITORING LOCATION

99 30

TYPE 3 PILE INCLINOMETER AND STRUT MONITORING ZONE

97 130

102 101

146

140 139

103 10

100 20

EXTENSOMETER 138 5

105

10 30

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2613.dwg

104

110

108

106 109 5

50 50 40

112

111

107 145 30 5 10 20 20 5 60 50

10 50

113

30 20 10 5

20 5 10

141

142

30/06/2016 10:12:12 a.m.

Auckland

40 30

10 10

10 5

40m

144

143

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL AND CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT SHEET 4 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2613

1.0

700

800

LEGEND 5

5mm CONTOUR

10mm CONTOUR

20mm CONTOUR

30mm CONTOUR

40mm CONTOUR

50mm CONTOUR PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

113

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID

BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED

LEGEND

TYPE 1 BUILDING/COLUMN MONITORING LOCATION TYPE 2 GROUND MONITORING LOCATION TYPE 3 PILE INCLINOMETER AND STRUT MONITORING ZONE

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2614.dwg

EXTENSOMETER

5 10

Auckland

29/06/2016 11:34:30 a.m.

30 "THESE DRAWINGS PRESENT REFERENCE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY INFORMATION TO ENABLE TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS TO ASSESS POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS PART OF A REGIONAL CONSENT APPLICATION. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED FOR ANY OTHER USE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE DESIGN WILL BE DEVELOPED FURTHER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO SUIT FINAL CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGIES"

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL AND CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT SHEET 5 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATHER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2614

1.0

700

800

10 5

LEGEND

20 143

144

5mm CONTOUR

10mm CONTOUR

20mm CONTOUR

30mm CONTOUR

40mm CONTOUR

50mm CONTOUR PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL

5 10

PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

20 30

113

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID

BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED

LEGEND

TYPE 1 BUILDING/COLUMN MONITORING LOCATION TYPE 2 GROUND MONITORING LOCATION

TYPE 3 PILE INCLINOMETER AND STRUT MONITORING ZONE

EXTENSOMETER

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2615.dwg

10 5

29/06/2016 11:16:43 a.m.

Auckland

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL AND CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT SHEET 6 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

D.MATYER 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2615

1.0

700

800

Appendix C Review Levels and Notes

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

THE FOLLOWING TRIGGERS HAVE BEEN SET BASED ON THE DESIGN AND GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION UNDERTAKEN TO DATE. FURTHER DETAILED DESIGN MAY MODIFY THE TRIGGER LEVELS PRESENTED BELOW. ANY REVISIONS BASED ON FURTHER DESIGN SHALL NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES AFFECTED NOR INCREASE THE POTENTIAL BUILDING DAMAGE IMPACTS ABOVE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICATION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING BUILDING AND GROUND MOVEMENT AT EACH EXCAVATION STAGE SO THAT GROUND MOVEMENTS GREATER THAN PREDICTED CAN BE DETECTED EARLY ENOUGH TO UNDERTAKE REMEDIAL ACTIONS. 1.

THE SLOPE "ACROSS BUILDING" SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE POINT OF MAXIMUM VERTICAL MOVEMENT AT THE FACE OF THE BUILDING TO THE SHORTER DISTANCE OF THE POINT AT WHICH VERTICAL MOVEMENT IS ZERO OR TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING AND THE CORRESPONDING VERTICAL MOVEMENT AT THIS LOCATION. VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT IS TAKEN AS THE MAXIMUM MEASURED AT THE FACE OF THE BUILDING.

TABLE 1: TRIGGER LEVELS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

NOTE:

ALERT LEVEL = 80% OF REFERENCE DESIGN PREDICTION

THIS DRAWING TO BE READ INCONJUNCTION WITH DRAWING CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2642

ALARM LEVEL=100% OF DESIGN PREDICTION

Auckland

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640.dwg

TABLE 1: TRIGGER LEVELS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS, CONTINUED

30/06/2016 1:28:23 p.m.

* STEEPEST SLOPE OF EITHER MECHANICAL OR COMBINED CLIENT

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

NOT TO SCALE

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

AOTEA TO NAL TRIGGER LEVELS TABLE AND NOTES SHEET 1 OF 2

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

N.LEA 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2640

1.0

700

800

MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR AOTEA TO NAL

NOTE:

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2642.dwg

THIS DRAWING TO BE READ INCONJUNCTION WITH DRAWING CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640

Auckland

TABLE 2: TRIGGER LEVELS FOR PILED BUILDINGS

12/05/2016 8:05:24 p.m.

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 13.05.16 ISSUED FOR CONSENT

APPROVED B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

AS SHOWN

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

AOTEA TO NAL TRIGGER LEVELS TABLE AND NOTES SHEET 2 OF 2

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

N.LEA 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2642

1.0

700

800

Appendix D Geotechnical Parameters

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

Table 5-1: Recommended Soil Properties Geology

Material

Layer Code

Zone

Unit weight

Strength properties

ɶb

kN/m

Stiffness properties

Compressibility

Permeability

ࡏ’

c’

E’

ʆ͛

kPa

deg

kPa

MPa

m/s

Fill

Sandy gravels

Britomart /Downtown

5+3/m

0.3

0.6

Fill

Silts and clays

Britomart /Downtown

20+2/m

0.3

1.35

0.29

0.03

0.7

Fill

Undifferentia ted

Silts and clays

Albert Street

Newton/ Eden Terrace

45+2/m

0.3

1.01

0.934

0.24

0.38

0.044

0.078

kv m/s -3

10 to 10 -5

3 x 10 -9 -5 10 to 10 3 x 10

*(1.0)

10 to 10

1.6

3 x 10

-9

Tauranga Group Alluvium

Silts and clays

Downtown

10 + 2/m

24°

1.2

0.3

1.7

0.41

0.10

0.6

1 x 10

10 to 10 TA

Downtown

55 + 2/m

28°

2+0.9/m

0.3

1.06

0.27

0.04

1.0

2 x 10

-9

1 x 10 -5

-9

1 x 10 -5

-9

1 x 10

10 to 10 4 x 10

-9

6 x 10 to 4 x 10 Silts and clays

Silts and clays

Albert Street (Downtown / Kingston Street north)

Albert Street (Kingston Street south)

Newton/ Eden Terrace

10 + 5/m

28°

2+0.4/m

0.3

1.01

0.43

0.069

1.0

2 x 10

25 +5/m

28°

2+0.9/m

3.6+0.3/m

0.3

1.08

0.28

0.09

1.2

2 x 10

ER residual

Silty clay

Newton/ Eden Terrace

All

55 for z<3m 55+10(z-3) for 3<z<8m 250 for z>8m

34°

20 for z<3m 20+4(z– 3) for 3<z<8m 80 for z>8m

0.3

10+1.5/m

0.3

1.1

0.35

0.04

6 x 10 to 4 x 10

1.0

2 x 10

1.5

1 x 10

0.02

1.0

1 x 10

Symbol Definition

1.The soil stiffness modulus Es is the drained unload/reload modulus

Initial void ratio

Bulk unit weight

2.The pre-consolidation pressure is denoted by pc.

At rest lateral earth pressure coefficient

Horizontal coefficient of permeability

I‘

Undrained Shear Strength

3.The depth below ground level is denoted by z (m). 4. Uncertainty surrounds determination of kh and kv. Sensitivity analyses are recommended for the range of parameters presented.

Vertical coefficient of permeability

c’

Effective cohesion

E’

Q’ Cc

Drained Elastic Modulus

Swelling index

Pre-consolidation pressure

* For sensitivity analysis

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

34 CRL-SYW-GEO-000-RPT-0006 Project 239933 | 02 June 2015 | Revision 1

Effective internal friction angle

Poisson’s ratio Compression index

-10

-7

-10

-5

-9

to 10

1 x 10 10

-8

-9 -8

-8

-10

-8

-9

10 to 10

-6

-8

-9

to 10

5 x 10

10 to 5 x 10 Symbol Definition

-10

4 x 10

-7

-8

Notes

-6

-7

0.14

-7

10 to 10 1.15

-5

to 10

4 x 10

-9

Silts and clays

-7

*(1.0)

6 x 10 to 4 x 10 Auckland Volcanic Ash

-10

4 x 10

-9

28°

-7

6 x 10 to 4 x 10 20 + 7/m

-7

-5

-9

-7

-5

-6

10 to 10

-5

-6

10 to 10

-7

-9

-6

10 to 10

-5

-9

Silts and clays

1 x 10

-5

1.6

10 to 10 Tauranga Group Marine

-9

-6

-8

to 10

-6-7

Table 6-1: Rock Mass Characteristics Mass

Zone

Stress 1

Density

Discontinuities

Strength

γb (kN/m)

JCond89

JRC

RQD81 (core) (%)

RMR89 (%)

GSI2002

RBS Sigci (MPa)

Sigt (MPa)

0.75

Stiffness 6

Permeability

c'rm (MPa)

MRi

Erm (MPa)

Kh (m/s)

0.015

0.3

100

2x10 -8 -7 (4x10 to 5x10 )

0.25

140

1x10 -6 (10 to 3x10 )

10 5a 11 5b 7

0.1

0.25

160

400

2x10 -9 -6 (5x10 to 5x10 )

Zref Depth (m BGL)

phi'rm (degrees)

0.075

–

0.45

0.045

-7

2x10 -9 -8 (4x10 to 5x10 )

-6

3x10 -8 -6 (10 to 10 )

ALL

(0.5 - 2)

–

65 (60-70)

EUs1

NEWTON

(0.5 - 2)

–

EU2

ALL

(0.5 - 2)

49 (44-54) 2a 44

65 (60-70) 2a 60

2.5 3b 30

0.25

EU3

ALL

(0.5 - 2)

52 (47-57) 2c 2d 49 , 44

70 (60-75) 2c,2d 60

10 (8-15) 3b 25

0.4

0.2

170

1500

2x10 -7 -5 (2x10 to 2x10 )

EUs3cs

KROAD

(0.5 - 2)

50 (47-57) 2c 2d 49 , 44

65 (60-75) 2c,2d 60

15 (15-25) 3b 25

1.5

0.4

0.2

180

2000

2x10 -7 -5 (2x10 to 2x10 )

Notes:

Symbol definition:

Ko γb RBS JCond89 Jr Ja JRC RQD81CORE RMR89 GSI2005,2013 mi Zref phi’rm c’rm sigt v MR i Erm Kh Kv

Uncertainty surrounds determination of Ko. Sedimentary rocks can have high Ko. Average Ko determination from dilatometer testing is Ko=2.7 (n=45) which is judged to be too high; no hydraulic fracture or insitu stress field instrumentation data is available. Hoek et al. (2005) recommend in the absence of test data, a sensitivity analysis is carried out using Ko values of 0.5 and 2 which represent reasonable end members for tectonically undisturbed sedimentary rock. 2 Typical RMR and GSI values with ranges presented in brackets. RMR and GSI estimates should be made following face logging. Wall RMR is higher than Roof RMR due to prevalence of low-strength sub-horizontal bedding. Typical roof failure mode is blocks dropping out on low strength bedding planes. 2a For roof (to account for low strength horizontal bedding planes) and local zones of clustered jointing (local zones with greater fracture frequency) 2b 2c EUs1 uncemented low ‘soil’ strength rock mass, treat as intact material; For local zones with greater fracture frequency (normal ‘dripping’ water condition) 2d For local zones of clustered jointing/faulting (local ‘flowing’ water condition); as encountered during construction of Rosedale tunnel 3 Typical strength ECBF (EU2) is generally composed of alternating bands of sandstone (EUs2, UCS 1.6 MPa) and siltstone/mudstone (EUz2, UCS 3.2 MPa) which vary in proportions but with typical ratios varying 70:30 / 50:50 / 30:70 are common with some locally thick beds of either sandstone or siltstone (1m+ thick). Rock block strength (Laubscher, 1990) provides a weighted average of intact material properties and shows good agreement with confined compressive strength deduced from pressuremeter/dilatometer; Local limestone (concretionary sandstone) bands 100mm thick reported 30+ MPa 4 material tensile strength is 10% of UCS; lower bound rock mass tensile strength is strength of discrete sandstone-siltstone bedding planes 5a 5b mi=10.6 for EUs2 sandstone; mi=6.5 for EUz2 siltstone; EU2 mi=10 suggested. Mi for EU3 could not be determined due to lack of stress-strain data over stress range (σ3 up to UCS/2) required for accurate determination of mi. 6 Hoek and Brown failure criterion (2002) derived Mohr-Coulomb phi’ and c’ have been determined using the Carter et al. (2007, 2013) strength correction. The correction assumes rock mass strength approaches that of soil (unable to support discontinuities) as intact rock strength approaches zero. 7,8 The correlation between intact modulus (Ei) and depth is weak for EU2 material and masked by the variability in UCS which accounts for most of the variation. Halkatevakis and Sofianos (2010) concluded that Erm approaches that of intact rock when both intact rock strength discontinuities persistence are low. It is suggested Erm = Ei for EU2 rock mass in the absence of insitu test data. EU3 has sufficient intact strength to maintain dilated discontinuities resulting in a corresponding reduction in rock mass modulus. In the absence of insitu test data, Erm is estimated halfway between that of Ei and Erm predicted by the Hoek and Diederichs (2006) empirical relationship. For EU3 use Erm = 0.75 x Ei. X

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

58 CRL-SYW-GEO-000-RPT-0006 Project 239933 | 02 June 2015 | Revision 1

Lateral at-rest earth pressure coefficient Bulk unit weight Confined rock block strength RMR joint condition (1989) Q system joint roughness coefficient Q system joint roughness coefficient Barton’s joint roughness coefficient Rock quality descriptor – logged core (BS5930:1981) Rock mass rating (1989 version) Geological strength index (2005 version) Hoek-Brown material friction constant Hoek-Brown reference depth for tunnels Hoek-Brown failure criterion effective friction angle (2002) Hoek-Brown failure criterion effective cohesion (2002) Estimate of tensile strength Poisson ratio Modulus ratio (intact, tangent static modulus) Rock mass elastic modulus (tangent, vertical, static, confined) Horizontal coefficient of hydraulic conductivity Vertical coefficient of hydraulic conductivity

Kv (m/s)

-8

-7

-8

(5x10

2x10 -7 to 5x10 )

-10

-6

1x10 -8 -6 (7x10 to 7x10 )

-7

-6

2x10 -7 -5 (2x10 to 2x10 )

-6

DR6 CH675 Geological cross section with PLAXIS analytical interpretation

Bluestone Wall (indicative) 25

22.4mRL

18.2mRL

Fill TA

Fill 15

EW EW

-5

Scale: 1:200 Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

30m

DR6_CH730 Geological cross section with PLAXIS analytical interpretation

23.0mRL Fill 20

Fill TA

TA ER 15

ER 10

EW EW 5

EU EU 0

Scale: 1:200 Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

-5

30m

DR6_CH850 Geological cross section with PLAXIS analytical interpretation

24.8mRL

Fill 20.2mRL 20

Fill

TA ER

TA EW

ER 10

EU EU

Scale: 1:200 Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

-5

30m

DR6_CH900 Geological cross section with PLAXIS analytical interpretation

Lower Albert St Wall (indicative) 25.4mRL

(above GL) Fill 20.2mRL 20

Fill

TA 15

EW EU

Scale: 1:200 Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

-5

30m

DR6_CH950 Geological cross section with PLAXIS analytical interpretation

Lower Albert St Wall (indicative)

25.5mRL Fill

(above GL)

Fill

21.7mRL

TA 15

ER EW

EW 5

EU EU 0

Scale: 1:200 Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

-5

30m

100

150

200

Geological cross section with PLAXIS analytical interpretation (CH1010)

250

300 CRL2-BH209 (19m R)

Wellesley Street Shaft (Indicative) see drawing CRL-PAT-EPD-000-DRG-0014 & CRL-PAT-UTI-000-DRG-0041 for details

ELEVATION (m )

CRL2-BH208 (9m L) CRL3B-EB310 (42m R)

CRL2-BH210 (4m R)

ARTP76-ART17 (2m L)

ARTP76-ART18 (32m R)

P Fg TAc ERc

? Fc

P Fg Fc

TAc

333

2 ERz ERz 6

EUi

EWs EUs2

100 100 100

42 59

EUi2 EUs2 EUz2

EUs2

EWs ERs

EUz2 EUs2

18 EWz EWs EUz2 EWz 97 EUs2 EUs1 41

EUs1 50+ 429 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2

EUz2

ERz ERs ERz

ER ?

EUz2 EUs2 EUs3 EUs2

50+ 200

EUs2

-5

50+

EWz

231

EWs

15 31

TA ? EW ?

9 12

ERs

(Including Highly Organic Soil)

4 5

Fill

F ER

P Fg Fc TAc ERz ERs ERc ERz EWz

88 P Fc

ARTP76-ART41 (23m L)

CRL2-CP206 (35m L)

ARC_27916-BH1 (12m L)

ARC_27917-BH2 (12m L)

EUz2

-10

-15 -20

N 250 803

E 800 399

1050

E 750 399

N 200 CRL3B-EB310 803

E 850 399

E 900 399

E 950 399

E 000 400

E 050 400

N 150 803

ARTP76-ART18

CRL2-BH209 50

CRL2-BH210

1000 1000

N 300 803

ARTP76-ART17 1000

CRL2-BH208

ARC_27917-BH2 N 200 803

ARC_27916-BH1

500

ARTP76-ART41

0 CRL2-CP206

950 00N 3950 803

SCALE M.FAULK H 1:1000 V 1:500

SIZE

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

DRAWN

DATE 17.10.14

DESIGNED 27/06/13

FIRST

M.R

P.KIRK / N.CRAMPTON

CHECKED

B. O'LOUGHLIN

SOUTHERN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

APPROVED

A.NAGY

E 800 399

APPROVED

E 850 399

REV DATE REVISION DETAILS 1.0 17.10.14 ISSUED FOR CONSENTS 2.0 20.05.15 ISSUED FOR GER

E 900 399

E 950 399

CLIENT

E 000 400

E 050 400

N 250 803

TITLE

WELLESLEY PROJECT

DOCUMENT

CRL

ZONE

SYW

DISCIPLINE

GEO

ELEMENT

000

TYPE

SKE

SHEET

0017

REVISION

2.0

4 5 4 9 B6

/B 5-D 8/ HB4

ERz ERc ERz EWs

? ?

ERsEUsH EWs EWz EUz/ EUs/ EUsH EUz/ EUs/

EUg/

EW ? EUs3

TRACK1LEVEL

5-D

EUg3

5/ 5/ BH-

5-4H9 EUzH EUsH 4H9 EUs/ /-4H9 EUz/ EUs/ 5-D

EWs EUsH

ERs ERz ERs ERz ERs EWz B9 EWsEWs

EUzH EUsH

55 EUzH EUsH 6-- EUsH

EUzH EUsB EUzH EUs/

EUg/

EUzH B--EUsB

EUsH EUzH

EUz/ EUsH

933m

CRL1A-MB3A 934m RE

H320

EUs

EU H57

EUz/ EUs/

EUg/

EUiHEUsH EUzH EUsH

EUz/ EUsH EUzH EUs/ EUiH EUsH EUs/ EUzH EUsH

4H9

H6/

EUsB

EUsH

EWz EWs EWz EWs

EUs/ EUz/ EUs/

EUsH

4-5

EUs/

EUg

P Fg Fk

Fg Fc

? TA?

EW EU

TAo TAz TAc TAo EUsH

EUs3

EUg/

EUg3

H EUz H EUs

EUsB

EUzH EUsH

H EUz H EUs

EUs/

EUg/

EUsH

EUg3 ?

EUs/

EUsH

EUz/ EUzH EUsH

EUsH

EUzH EUsH EUzH EUzH EUsH EUsH Fault EUzH EUsH

///

EUzH EUzH EUsH EUsH

EUzH EUsH

6 8

H67

EUs3

EUg/

ERz /

/ EUs

EUs/

? CS-LOWER

EUg/

B/5-

EUg/

/--

UzH

EWs

47B

EUzH EUs/ EUs/ EUsH EUi/ EUs/

/--

B5--

P Fg Fc

8 BH

/5-

EUg3

EUzH

B/ H5

49 EUsH

EUsB EUsH

ERc ERss EW

CS-UPPER

EUs/ EUz/

P Fg ERc ERz

P Fg Fc

EUiH

? B-

3B-B CRL

CRL3B-BH319 938m

CRL2-BH275 935m RE

EWz

B/6 EUsH /--

EUs/

CRL3B-BH275R 934m RE

CRL2-BH218 93m LE H8 /4 ERs EWs5-

ERs ERz EWs

EUs3

EUsB EUsH

EUzH EUsH

EUsB EUz/ EU

EUzH EUsH

EUsH

EUzH

H-

EUzH EUsH EUzH

EUsH

CRL2-BH217

8-H/--N

8-H/5-N

CRL2-BH275 CRL3B-BH275R

8-H4--N

8-H45-N

8-H5--N

/9955-E

8-H55-N

8-H6--N

B8--

B-

B75-

CRL2-BH278

CRL1A-MB3A CRL3B-BH320

CRL3B-EB312

CRL3B-BH324 CRL2-BH215

/9955-E

HB--

H-5-

H---

B95-

B9--

CRL2-BH218

B75-

1.0 01.05.15 DRAFT 2.0 28.05.15 ISSUED1FOR1GER

H11:1000

V11:500

PRELIMINARY

CITY1RAIL1LINK

NOT1FOR1CONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICAL1AND1HYDROGEOLOGICAL1LONG1SECTION DR6MC201CHAINAGE11750-2100

P.KIRK1/1N.CRAMPTON . B.O:LOUGHLIN

8-H/--N

8-H/5-N

8-H4--N

CRL3B-BH319

8-H45-N

8-H5--N

/995--E

8-H55-N

/995--E

B85-

B8--

CRL2-BH277

8-H6--N

ELEVATIONL)mLC

ERz

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0027

2.0

Database4File: CRL_RD_/JGPJ Library4file: AURECON_AKL_H-B/-6H7VBLGLANJGLB Template: AURECON_AKL_H-B/-7H/JGDT Report4File: FENCELWITHLLOCATIONLPLANLA/LLGLCRL Date4Generated: H7K-5KH-B5

TAz

ERc ERz 7 B4

? ER

EWs

H.-5-

CRL3B-EB312 929m RE

P P Fg Fg TAcERc

H.--MERCURY1SHAFT

CRL2-BH277 924m RE

B.95-

P Fg Fc ERc ERz

P P Fg Fg Fc Fc ER ERz

P Fg TAc

P Fg

B.9--

CRL2-BH278 940m RE

CRL3B-BH324 927m RE

B.85BERESFORD1SHAFT CRL2-BH217 932m RE

B.8--

CRL2-BH215 927m RE

B.75-

5 4 9 B6

/B 5-D 8/ HB4

EWi EWs EW 55

EWz EUz/ EUs/ EUsH EUz/ EUs/

5-D 5-D

6/ EUsH EUsB EUsH EUs/

5-D 5-D

EUz/ EUs/

EUg/

EUz

EWs EUsH

ERs ERz ERs ERz 6 ERs EWz B9 EWsEWs 6

B-

5/ EWs

B74

B5-EUz/ EUs/

75-

EUzH EUs/

5-D

LE 915m

6/ EU H57

4H9

EUs

EUs/

5-D

EUg/

EUg/ EUg/

EUs/ EUz/

EUs/ EUsH EUs/ EUz/ EUs/ EUsH EUsB EUsH

EUsB EUsH EUzH

EUzH B--EUsB EUs/ EUz/ EUsH

EUsH EUzH

EUsH

Fg Fc

EWz EWs EWz EWs

EUsH

4-5

EUs/

BH EUs/ EUz/ EUs/

TAo TAz TAc TAo TAz EWs EUsH

///

H6/

EUg

/5-

EUzH EUsH

P Fg Fk

6 8

B/5-

EUg/

68 /--

H EUz H EUs

47B

EUzH EUsH

H320 EW

/--

EUzH EUsH EUzH EUs/

ERz /

EWs

H67

4/5

EWs

P Fg Fc

8 BH

EWz

EUs/

5-D

EUzH EUs/ EUs/ EUsH EUi/ EUs/

ERc ERss EW

EUzH EUsH 6-- EUsH

P Fg ERc ERz

Fg ER

49 EUsH

ERz

3B-B

P Fg Fc

BTAz

4 5

CRL1A-MB3A 913m LE

CRL2-BH220 920m RE 7

EWz

EWi

EWs

B ER

P Fc

CRL

H.-5-

CRL2-BH277 925m LE

LE P P Fg Fg Fc Fc ER ERz

Fg Va

984m CRL3B-BH319

EBS337-MH1 917m RE

CRL2-BH275 910m LE

CRL3B-BH275R 910m LE

EBS336-BH3 914m RE

CRL2-BH217 912m LE ER

ERsEUsH EWs

EUg/

EUiHEUsH EUzH EUsH

EUz/ EUsH EUzH EUs/ EUiH EUsH EUs/ EUzH EUsH

H EUz H EUs

EUsH EU

EUs/ EUg/ EUsH

EUsH

EUs/ EUz/

EUzH EUsH EUzH

EUzH EUzH EUsH EUsH

EUzH EUsH

EUsH EUsH

EUzH EUsH EUzH EUzH EUsH EUsH Fault EUzH EUsH

EUzH EUsH

H EUz H EUs

EUsB

EUzH

EUzH EUsH

EUg/

EUsB

EUzH

EUsB EUz/

EUzH

EUsH EUsH

EUzH

H-

EUzH EUsH EUzH EUsH

EUsH

8-H/--N

8-H/5-N

8-H4--N

8-H45-N

/996--E

8-H5--N

CRL3B-BH315

8-H55-N

8-H6--N

B-

EBS336-BH2 EBS336-BH1

HB--

H-5-

H---

B95-

CRL2-BH275 CRL3B-BH275R CRL2-BH278

CRL1A-MB3A CRL3B-BH320

CRL3B-EB312

1.0 18.11.14 DRAFT 2.0 28.05.15 ISSUED6FOR6GER

H61:1000

V61:500

/9955-E

8-H/--N

H-5-

PRELIMINARY

CITY6RAIL6LINK

NOT6FOR6CONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICAL6AND6HYDROGEOLOGICAL6LONG6SECTION DR6MC306CHAINAGE61750-2100

P.KIRK6/6N.CRAMPTON . B.OgLOUGHLIN

8-H/5-N

H---

8-H4--N

B95-

B9--

8-H45-N

/995--E

CRL2-BH218

8-H5--N

B85-

8-H55-N

B75-

/995--E

8-H6--N

B8--

CRL2-BH277

HB--

CRL2-BH217

CRL3B-BH324 CRL2-BH215

B9--

B85-

B8--

/9955-E

/996--E

CRL2-BH220

EBS337-MH1

EBS336-BH3

B75-

ELEVATIONV)mVC

ERc ERz ERz 7 Va B4 ERs / H4 ER ERz EWs 4 H8 4 /4 6 ERs 8EWs 5B5 EUiH HB/6 B9 EW H7 EUsH 6//-EUsB 5H BH5 EUsH BB/5-- EU 86 B88 B-74H9 EUzH 75 EUsH B/4H9 5-D EUs/ B58 EUzH /-5/ B88 EUsB 4H9 EUzH 5/ EUz/ EUs/ EUs/ 5-D BH/

P Fg Fc ERc ERz ERs

6 ERz ERc ERz EWs

P Fg Fc TAc

P Fg Fc ERc ERz

H.---

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0028

2.0

Database)File: CRL_RD_/JGPJ Library)file: AURECON_AKL_H-B/-6H7VBVGVANJGLB Template: AURECON_AKL_H-B/-7H/JGDT Report)File: FENCEVWITHVLOCATIONVPLANVA/LVGVCRL Date)Generated: H8K-5KH-B5

P Fg

B.95-

CRL3B-EB312 921m LE

TAz

EBS336-BH2 924m RE

CRL3B-BH315 940m RE

P P Fg Fg TAcERc

P Va

B.9--

CRL2-BH278 910m LE

CRL3B-BH324 910m LE

B.85EBS336-BH1 924m RE CRL2-BH218 947m LE

B.8--

CRL2-BH215 910m LE

B.75-

6 Fc

8 5

5 24

19 19 4/ 83

115

Fg ERc ERz

EW 63 55

113 63 EU

27 EUz 125

5/J

EUz2

5/J

EUs2

5/J

158

EUs3

5/J

188

1/7 82

EWs EERs Ws ERz

ERz

ERs ERz EWs

3//

EUi3 429 EUz3 EUs3 5/J

EBS1062-AH1 014m RE

EBS1062-AH2 018m RE ERz

13 18 EWs 29 EWz

EUi2 EUs2

EU429 s2

5/J EUs3 EUz2 EUs3 53 EUs2 EUi3 53 EUs3 EUz3 EUs3 12/

F ERc ER

5/ EWz EWs EUi2EUs3 EUs2 136 EUs1 EUs2 3// EUs1 EUs1 EUs2 EUs2 5// 429

Fg ER P Fg Fc ERs

EWs

3//

EBS1062-AH3 02m RE

EBS1065-BH2 023m RE

CRL2-BH218 08m LE 28 ERs EWs

EUz2 86 EUs2 EUz2 75 EUs2

188

CRL3 -BH3 CRLB 3B-B 14A H31 4)07m )LE )0 6m)L E

CRL3B-BH275R 09m RE EWi

13/

EUz3 EUs3

15 EWs 19 EUs2 EUs2 52

EWz

EUs2 EUs1 EUs2 EUs3

CRL2-BH217 017m LE

EBS336-BH3 07m LE EW

6//

EUs2

EUz2

EUs1

EUs1 EUi3 EUz2 EUz3 EUs3 EUs3

EUz2

15/ EUs2

EUz2 EUg3 EUs2

EUg3

EUs2

EUs3 EUs2 EUs3 EUz3 EUs3 EUs2 EUs1 EUs2

EUs1 EUz2 EUs3 EUz2

EUs2

EUi2 EUz2 EUz2 EUs2 EUs1 EUz2 EUs2

EUz2

EUs2 EUs1

EUs3

EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2

EUz3 EUs2

EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 Fault EUz2 EUs1 EUs2

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2

EUz2

EUg3

EUg3 EUs3 EUg3

EUg3 EUg3

1///

EUg3 EUs3 EUg 3 EUz3 EUs 3 EUs2 EUz2 EUs3 EUs 2 EUi2 EUs2 EUs3 EUz2 EUz 2 EUs2

EUs2 EUz2

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2

EUz2 EUs2

EUz2

EUz2 EUs2

EUs1 EUs2 EUz2 EUs1 EUz2 EUs2

15 1/

39935/E

3994//E

39945/E

3995//E

39955/E

3996//E

39965/E

3997//E

EBS1065-BH2 EBS1062-AH2

8/25//N

EBS1062-AH1 CRL3B-BH275R

8/25//N

CRL2-BH219A

EBS1062-AH3

185/

CRL3B-BH314A CRL3B-BH314 CRL2-BH218

185/

ELEVATIONODmO.

Fc ERz ERc

ERz 7 14

/ 6

EWi EWs

ERc ERz

ER 4

25/

P Fg P Fg ER Fg TAc ER

P Fg

2//

EBS336-BH3

EBS336-BH1

CRL2-BH217

EBS336-BH2

VQ1:500

PRELIMINARY

GEOLOGICALQANDQHYDROGEOLOGICALQCROSSQSECTION BERESFORDQSQUARE

P.KIRKQ/QN.CRAMPTON . B.O-LOUGHLIN

CITYQRAILQLINK

NOTQFORQCONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

39935/E

HQ1:1000

3994//E

39945/E

1.0 18.11.14 DRAFT 2.0 28.05.15 ISSUEDQFORQGER

3995//E

39955/E

3996//E

39965/E

3997//E

8/255/N

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0029

2.0

Database)File: CRL_RD_3BGPJ Library)file: AURECON_AKL_2/13/627V1O-OANBGLB Template: AURECON_AKL_2/13/723BGDT Report)File: FENCEOWITHOLOCATIONOPLANOA3LO-OCRL Date)Generated: 28H/5H2/15

P Fg Fc ER

Fg Va

Fc P Va Va

P Fg Fc ERc ERz ERs

15/

CRL2-BH216 048m LE

EBS336-BH1 018m LE

CRL2-BH219A 02m RE

1//

EBS336-BH2 033m LE

CRL3B-BH315 050m LE

150

60 5 6

55 14

TAc

ERz

ERz EWs

35 50B

EWs EUs2 EUs3

50B

EUs2

EWs

31 68

EUs2

405

EUs3

300

EUz2 EUs2

429

CRL3B-BH317 (6m L) P Fg Fc EWs

9 45

EUs2

50B

50B 50B

EUs2

Euz2 EUs2

EUs3 EUz3 EUs3

EUz2 EUs2

50B 50B 50B EUz3

EUs3

EUz3

333 EUz3 EUs3 EUi3 EUs3

EWs

EUs3 EUg3

EUg3

EUz2

EUg3

EUs3

EUs2

EUz2 EUs2

EUs3

EUs2 EUs2

EUg3

EUg3 EUi2

EUz3 EUs2

EUz2 EUs2

EUz2

EUs2 EUz3

EUs2 EUz2

EUs2

EUz2

EUi2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2

15 EUs2

399350E

399400E

399450E

399500E

399550E

399600E

399650E

2050

399700E

2050

CRL2-BH278

802350N 802350N

CRL3B-BH317 2000

2000 399350E

399400E

399450E

399500E

399550E

399600E

802400N

399650E

CRL2-BH277

399700E

ELEVATION(Jm(K

50B

EUz3 EUs3

4 EWz

EWz EWs EWz EWs

6 2

ERc ERs

6 8

50B

ERc ERs EWs

3 EWz

P Fg ERc ERz

300

P Fg Fc

ERz

16 19

P Fg Fc

ERs

250

802400N

1.0 18.11.14 DRAFT 2.0 28.05.15 ISSUEDSFORSGER

HS1:1000

VS1:500

PRELIMINARY

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICALSANDSHYDROGEOLOGICALSCROSSSSECTION CROSSSSTREET

P.KIRKS/SN.CRAMPTON . B.O-LOUGHLIN

CITYSRAILSLINK

NOTSFORSCONSTRUCTION

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0030

2.0

Database3File: CRL_RD_3.GPJ Library3file: AURECON_AKL_20130627V1(/(AN.GLB Template: AURECON_AKL_20130723.GDT Report3File: FENCE(WITH(LOCATION(PLAN(A3L(/(CRL Date3Generated: 28/05/2015

CRL2-BH278 (17m R)

P Fg Fc

CRL3B-BH320 (51m L)

200 CRL2-BH276 (73m L)

100

CRL2-BH277 (25m L)

50 CRL3B-BH316 (59m L)

TAc

17 5

EWz EWs

ERs EWi

EWz

65 EUs

EWz

CRL2-BH285 320m LE

CRL1A-MB4A 320m RE

ERs

ERz ERc

43 41 63

EWs

273 EUs2

EWi EWs

EUz2

563

EUz2

EUz3

EUz2

EUs3

1/2 122 131

EUz3

EUs2

13/

EUs1 EUi2

EUz2 EUs2 EUi2 EUz2

156 161

EUz2 EUs2

226

EUs3

EUz2 EUs2 EUz3 EUs2

EUs2

EUz2 EUs1 EUz2 EUi2

1/8

Fault

EUs2 EUz2

6//

EUs2

EUi2 EUs2 EUz2

231

273

EWs

EWi EUs3

EWz

345

231

429

ERc

EWs

EUz2

EUs2

9 17 24

EWz

TAc

EWs

13/

EUz2 EUs2

EUs2

136

EUs1

141

EUz2

EUz2 EUs2

132

EUz2

1/9

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUi2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2

157

516

MAP5SCALE51:20005@A3 8/15//N

8/155/N

8/16//N

8/165/N

8/17//N

8/175/N

8/18//N

8/185/N

8/19//N

255/

26//

245/

EBS434-BH3_3A_3B

25//

3997//E 27//

/ 24/

265/

CRL1A-MB4A CRL1A-CPT5

CRL2-BH283

275/

26//

245/

255/

3997//E

24/

27//

28//

265/

285/ /

1//

CRL2-BH285

275/

5/ 23 // 23

285/

15/

29//

28//

39965/E 5/

EBS412-HA2 EBS412-BH1 EBS412-HA1

2//

29//

39965/E

39975/E

CRL2-BH225

25//

8/195/N

8/2///N

8/2/5/N

8/21//N

8/215/N

8/22//N

39975/E

5/ 22

25/ 3//

CITY5RAIL5LINK

NOT5FOR5CONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICAL5LONG5SECTION DR6MC205CHAINAGE52400-2750m

P.KIRK . B.OmLOUGHLIN

5/ 22

8/15//N

PRELIMINARY

8/155/N

8/16//N

V51:500

8/165/N

H51:1000

8/17//N

8/175/N

8/18//N

8/185/N

1.0 28.05.15 ISSUED5FOR5GER

8/19//N

8/195/N

8/2///N

8/2/5/N

8/21//N

8/215/N

8/22//N

3996//E

22/

ELEVATIONIDmI.

7 13

EWi

2 2/

/ ERz

7 ERz

TAc

4 4

ERz

ERs

14 TAc

P Fg Va

CRL1A-CPT5 319m RE

EBS412-HA1 348m LE

Fg Va

2K7//

P Fg

EWi

EBS412-BH1 343m LE P Fg Fc

2K65/

Va Fc

F Va

2K6//

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0031

1.0

Database)File: CRL_RD_3BGPJ Library)file: AURECON_AKL_2/13/627V1I-IANBGLB Template: AURECON_AKL_2/13/723BGDT Report)File: FENCEIWITHILOCATIONIPLANIA3LI-ICRL Date)Generated: 3H/6H2/15

CRL2-BH283 32m LE

2K55/ CRL2-BH225 328m RE

2K5//

EBS412-HA2 339m LE

2K45/ EBS434-BH3_3A_3B 328m RE

2K4//

/6 EWs

32 4B

EUz2

64 7/

EUs2

EUi2

375

25B

EUz2

/B3

57 7/

EUs2

EWs

/4 EWi 5B

EUs2 EUi2

333

EUs2 EUs/ EUz2

/25 /36

EUs2

5B.

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2

EUz2 EUs2

Va TAc

EUs3

/5BBB

EUs2

EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs/ EUi2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs/ EUz2 EUs/ EUs2 EUs/ EUs2

EUz2 EUs3 EUs2 EUz2 EUs/ EUs3 EU2 EUs3 EUs2 EUi2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2

ERz

EUz2

25B

EUs2

EUz3

EWs

EUs3

EUs2 EUs/ EUz2

EWz

5/ EUs/ EUs2 EUs/ EUs2

EUz2

EUz2 EUs/ EUs2

EUs/

EUz2 EUs2

EUi2

EUs2

P Fc P Fg Fc ERc

5B.

2/4

EUz2

Fc ERc ERz ERc ERs ERz ERs EWz EWs EUz2

EWs

5B.

EUs/

EUs2

EUs/

EUs/ EUi2

25B

2/4

TA ERc EWz

EWz EWs

Fg VRt VWt ER

ERc

EWz

/3B EUs2

ERc ERs

EUs2

EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs3 EUi2

2/4

EUs2 EUz2

75B

27 3B /BBB

EUs2 EUz2 75B

25B

EUs2

5BB

EUz2

EUi2

EUz2

EUs2

75B

VUb Fc

TAc

VUb VUb

TAz

VUb

ER?

TAc

72 47

ERc ERz EWs

EWi

8B B

3B 36

EWz EWs EWi EUz2 EUs2 EUs3 EUz3 EUs3 EUz2

ERz EWi EUs

TAz 4 ERc

4 //5 33

EWs EWz

EUz2 EUs2 EUs2

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2

EUz2

EUz2 EUs2

EUs2

EUs3

EUz2 EUi2

EUz2

5BB

P Fg Fc Fg

EUs2

EUs/

333

CRL1AEMB5B 939m RM

EUz2 EUs2

23/

375

32 37

EUz2

EWs

/BB

23/ EUs2

/58

/B7

EUi2

/67

7/ 2BB

EUz2

EUs2

EUs3

EUz2 EUs2

MAP6SCALE61:15006@A3 N5B 5/B2 /82B

CRL2-BH233

3BBB

295B 3BB B

29BB

285B

3BB

28BB

CRL2-BH231 CRL2-BH230

EBS191-AH5

/5B

275B

2BB

28BB

27BB

265B

25B

275B

EBS470-HA3

BN 75

/ 8B

CRL2-BH299

CRL2-BH228

EBS469-HA7

29BB

295B

EBS1110-MH1a

285B

CRL2-BH227 39

CRL2-BH229 E 39

ELEVATIONLCmL_

EWs

3/ BB

/BB

EBS470-HA1

EBS191-AH9b EBS191-AH9A EBS191-BH3

EBS470-HA2

27BB

EBS191-BH1 /3 8B

265B

N BB

32 BB

1.0 28.05.15 ISSUED6FOR6GER

H61:1000

V61:500

PRELIMINARY

CITY6RAIL6LINK

NOT6FOR6CONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICAL6LONG6SECTION DR6MC206CHAINAGE62750-3100m

P.KIRK . B.O?LOUGHLIN

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0032

32 BB

5 /3

B /4

5 /4

B /5

5 /5

B /6

5 /6

B /7

5 /7

1.0

DatabaseGFile: CRL_RD_3KGPJ LibraryGfile: AURECON_AKL_2B/3B627V/LJLANKGLB Template: AURECON_AKL_2B/3B723KGDT ReportGFile: FENCELWITHLLOCATIONLPLANLA3LLJLCRL DateGGenerated: 3-B6-2B/5

EWz

CRL2EBH232G90mGLM

ERs

NSL02EMB3G926mGRM

ERs

2B TAc

NSL02ERH3G917mGLM

ERs

6 /4

8 ERz

EBS191EBH1 943m LM

ERc

ERz

P Fc

EBS191EBH3 946m LM

8 7

ERz 7 6

TAc

EBS191EAH9b 941m LM

TAz

EBS191EAH9A 950m LM

P Fg Fc

CRL2EBH233 938m RM

EBS191EAH5 942m LM

TAc

3GB5B

CRL2EBH231 929m LM

P Fg Va

CRL2EBH299 925m LM

CRL3BEBH323 924m RM

CRL2EBH230 934m LM

3GBBB

EBS1110EMH1a 94m RM

F Va

2G95B

CRL2EBH229 915m RM

CRL2EBH228 99m RM F Va

/B //

P Fg Va

CRL1AEMB5A 944m RM

F Va

2G9BB CRL1AECPT6 949m RM

7 Va

2G85B

EBS470EHA1 934m LM

HT Va

2G8BB

EBS470EHA3 94m RM

CRL2EBH227 942m RM

EBS469EHA7 910m LM

EBS470EHA2 932m LM

2G75B

ERc

11 ERs

EWs

EUs2

EUi2

250

EUz2

EWs

EUs1

103

EUs2

214 50

EUz2

333

EUs2 EUs1 EUz2

125 136

EUs1 EUi2

50J

EUi2

50J

EUs2

50J

EUs2 EUs1 EUz2

EUs2 EUz2 EUs1 EUs2

Fc ERc ERz ERc ERs ERz ERs EWz EWs EUz2

EWs

EUs2

Fc ERz EWc

Fc ER

F ER

50J EUs1 EUs2 EUs1 EUs2

16 EUs2

EUs3

EUz3

EUs2 EUz2 EUs1 EUi2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs1 EUz2 EUs1 EUs2 EUs1 EUs2

EUz2 EUs3 EUs2 EUz2 EUs1 EUs3 EU2 EUs3 EUs2 EUi2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2

EUz2

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2

EUs1

EUi2

EUs2

Fg VRt VWt ER

EUs1

214 250

14 EWi

EWz

EUs3 EUs1

333

EUi2

EUz2

TA ERc

EUz2

EUz2 EUs2

500

EUs2

EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs3 EUi2

ERc

EWz

EUs2

130 EUs2

EWz EWs

32 37

EUz2

214

ERc ERs

EUz2 EUs2

231

375

EWs

231 EUs2

100

158

107

EUi2

167

21 31

EWs

EUz2

EUs2

750

EUz2 EUs2

EUi2

EUs2

EUs3

EUz2

EUs2

EUs3

EUz2 EUs2

MAPSSCALES1:1500S@A3 E

N25 5001 128

EBS386-BH9

2950

EBS1110-MH1a

3000

EBS386-BH6

2950

2900

300

290

300

30 50

250

EBS470-HA3

2750

CRL2-BH299 285

N 50 17 80

2850

CRL2-BH228

100

CRL2-BH229

2800

CRL3B-BH323

CRL2-BH227

CRL1A-MB5A CRL1A-MB5B

E 00 CRL1A-CPT6

E00 0908 9389

0 35

ELEVATIONODmO.

EUz2

375

EWz

200

20 TAc

ERs

ERz

8 7

P Fc

CRL2-BH230 00

280

2700

200

EBS469-HA1

31 0

150

275 0

2650

100

270

31 50

PRELIMINARY

CITYSRAILSLINK

NOTSFORSCONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICALSLONGSSECTION DR6MC30SCHAINAGES2750-3100m

P.KIRK . B.ODLOUGHLIN

VS1:500

N 50 13 80

HS1:1000

N 00 14 80

N 50 14 80

1.0 28.05.15 ISSUEDSFORSGER

N 00 15 80

N 50 15 80

N 00 16 80

N 50 16 80

N 00 17 80

N 50 17 80

265

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0033

1.0

Database)File: CRL_RD_3BGPJ Library)file: AURECON_AKL_20130627V1O-OANBGLB Template: AURECON_AKL_20130723BGDT Report)File: FENCEOWITHOLOCATIONOPLANOA3LO-OCRL Date)Generated: 3/06/2015

ERz 7 6

EBS386-BH9 725m R9

TAz

TAc

EBS386-BH6 78m R9

P Fg Fc

3K050

CRL3B-EB316 741m R9

CRL1A-MB5A 728m R9

CRL2-BH299 736m L9

TAc

P Fg Va

4 8

CRL3B-BH323 713m R9

3K000

EBS1110-MH1a 79m L9

2K950

CRL2-BH230 748m L9

CRL1A-MB5B 724m R9

CRL2-BH228 710m L9

EBS470-HA3 718m L9

P Fg Va

2K900

CRL2-BH229 72m R9

2K850

F Va

HT Va

2K800

CRL1A-CPT6 733m R9

HT Va

EBS469-HA1 724m L9

CRL2-BH227 719m R9

2K750

10 2

ERs

ERc

ERz ERc

23 34

43 41 63

EWs

273

131

EUs2

200 375

375

EUs1 EUi2

156

EUz2 EUs2 EUi2 EUz2

161

EUs2

333

EUz2 EUs2

500

136

EUs1

141

EUz2

CRL2-BH228 323m R0

EUs2

132

EUz2

109

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUi2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2

157

516

103

EUs2

250

EUz2

231

EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs3 EUi2

TA ERc

EWz EWs

EWs

47 57 71

EUs2

EWi 50

EUs2 EUs1 EUi2

86 EUs2

EUs1

214

EUz2

333

EUs2 EUs1 EUz2

125

EUz2 EUs2

EUs1

EUz2

EUs2

EUz2

136

EWs

EUz2 EUs2

EUz2

250 EUs2 EUz2

16 EUs2

EUz3

EUs2 EUz2

EUs2 EUz2750 EUs1 EUi2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs1750 EUz2 EUs1 EUs2 EUs1 EUs2

EUs3

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2

EWz

EUi2

EUs2 EUs1 EUz2

P Fc P Fg Fc ERc

Fc ERc ERz ERc ERs 8 ERz ERs 8 EWz 31 EWs EUz2 26 60

EUs1

EUz2

214

250

158

ERc

EWz

167 EUi2

58 EUi2

EUs2

226

EUz2

5 ERc ERs

107

EUz2 EUs2

EWs

231

108

130

EUs2

EUz2 EUs1 EUz2 EUi2

EWs

EUs2 EUz2

600

122

EUi2 EUs2 EUz2

563

102

EUz2

EWz

EWi 231

EWi EWs

EWs

20 TAc

7 ERs

345

6 14

EWz

86 91

ERc

ERz

ERs

ERz

TAz

P Fc

TAc

7 6

TAc

P Fg Fc

8 TAc

EUs3

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2

EUs1 EUz2

EUz2

EUs2

750

EUs3

EUz2 EUz2 EUs2

EUi2

EUz2

EUs2

EUs3 EUz2 EUs2

EUz2 EUs2

CRL2-BH227 50E

3996

50N

8014

00N

8015

50N

8015

00N

8016

50N

8016

00N

8017

50N

8017

00E

3997

100

CRL2-BH229 50 2950

2900

EBS469-HA7

00E

3996 300

250

200

150

100

2650

2700

2750

2800

2850

350

EBS1110-MH1a

EBS470-HA3 0E

0 3997

2950

2900

CRL2-BH228

2850

2800

2750

2700

2650

CRL1A-MB4A CRL1A-CPT5

CRL2-BH285

CRL2-BH230

CRL2-BH299

EBS470-HA1 CRL2-BH231 50N 8014

00E

3996

00N 8015

50N 8015

00N 8016

50N 8016

00N 8017

50N 8017

1800 008N0 8018

50E

3996

1.0 28.05.15 ISSUEDDFORDGER

HD1:1000

VD1:500

PRELIMINARY

CITYDRAILDLINK

NOTDFORDCONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICALDLONGDSECTION DR6MC50DCHAINAGED0-350m

P.KIRK . B.O'LOUGHLIN

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0035

1.0

Database)File: CRL_RD_3.GPJ Library)file: AURECON_AKL_20130627V1(-(AN.GLB Template: AURECON_AKL_20130723.GDT Report)File: FENCE(WITH(LOCATION(PLAN(A3L(-(CRL Date)Generated: 3/06/2015

ERz

CRL2-BH231 334m L0

F Va

CRL2-BH299 320m L0

P Fg Va

EBS1110-MH1a 320m R0

300

CRL2-BH229 337m R0

F Va

250

CRL2-BH230 312m L0

P Fg Va

EBS470-HA3 313m R0

CRL2-BH227 349m R0 7

ELEVATION(Jm(K

HT Va

200 EBS470-HA1 323m L0

150 EBS469-HA7 33m L0

100 CRL2-BH285 320m L0

CRL1A-MB4A 317m R0

CRL1A-CPT5 317m R0

57 7B

EUsH EUsB

5-_

EUiH

5-_

EUsH

5-_

86 HB4

H5-

P Fk Fg Fk Fc /

EUsB EUsH EUsB EUsH

6/ 99

EUs/

EUzH EUs/ EUsH EUzH EUsB EUs/ EUH EUs/ EUsH EUiH EUzH EUsH EUzH

55 74

EUz/ EUs/

Fc VUb

ERz ERs ERc EWc EUsH EUsB EUsH

TAz

ER Fg

BJ5 F

TAc

Va B5

TAz TAc

TVz

Void BB

TAz 8

7 ERz

B7 ERs

EW /H

/B EW?

VRt

VUb TAz

6 7 TAc 5

TAc ERc ERz

TAs

TAz 5

TAc TAz

TAz

VUb

P Fg

P Fg TAc

BH ER

TAc

CRL3BNEB319 019m L8

P Fg Fc Fg F Fg VUb

P Fg

TAz

TAc

EUsH EUiH

F ER

5-_

BH5 B/6

EUsH

EUsB

///

EWs

4 ERz

EWs

TAs

H7 8B 8/ H7/

TAc ERz EWs EWz EWs EUsH EUzH

EUzH

EUsH

EUs/

EUsH

EUzH

BH 8-

B4 8-

/9 H7

7--

MAPYSCALEY1:2000Y@A3

BH7

4--

N --

H8 --

CRL1A-CPT6

E B5 -

8B7 5N

65-

H8 --

/5-

H9 --

AREP11-DH3 CRL3B-EB319

CRL2-BH229

CRL3B-EB318

CRL3B-BH323 EBS1110-MH1a H9

AREP11-DH1

1.0 28.05.15 ISSUEDYFORYGER

HY1:1000

VY1:500

PRELIMINARY

-N

8B5N

CITYYRAILYLINK

NOTYFORYCONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICALYLONGYSECTION DR6MC60YCHAINAGEY0-350m

P.KIRK . B.O@LOUGHLIN

BB -

-N 97

BB 5

-N

BH -

-N /9

BH 5

B/ -

-N

-N 5-

B/ 5

EBS243_B1(01281) 5-

H--

B5-

-N

CRL2-DH201

NSL02-RH4

B4 -

-N

CRL3B-EB316 /5-

B4 5

-N

B5 -

-N 95

B5 5

-N

B6 -

B6 5

-N

AREP11-DH5

B-

NSL02-MB5

H8 5-

H-

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0038

1.0

Database9File: CRL_RD_/JGPJ Library9file: AURECON_AKL_H-B/-6H7VBdGdANJGLB Template: AURECON_AKL_H-B/-7H/JGDT Report9File: FENCEdWITHdLOCATIONdPLANdA/LdGdCRL Date9Generated: /K-6KH-B5

EWi

AREP11NDH3 035m L8

AREP11NDH5 022m L8

5 EWs

NSL02NRH4 04m L8

CRL2NDH202 026m L8

EWz B5

Fg VRt VWt ER

NSL02NMB4 030m L8

CRL2NDH201 015m L8

TA ERc

CRL3BNEB316 05m L8

ERc

CRL2NBH292 014m L8

4 5

ELEVATIONdmmd)

/--

AREP11NDH1 039m L8

H5-

EBS243_B10012818 016m L8

P Fc H-

H--

CRL3BNBH323 05m L8

EBS1110NMH1a 020m L8

CRL2NBH229 04m L8

B5-

NSL02NMB5 02m R8

B--

CRL3BNEB318 04m R8

CRL1ANCPT6 033m R8

ERz

4 12

5 ERs

45 EWs

57 71

100

EWs

214 EWz

250

130

EWz EWs

EUi2

EUs1

103

EWz

Fc ERc ERz ERc ERs ERz ERs EWz EWs EUz2

8 8 31

5025

EUs2 EUs1 EUz2 EUs2

EUs1 EUs2 EUs1 EUs2

EWs

EUs2

EUz2 EUs3 EUs2 EUz2 EUs1 EUs3 EU2 EUs3 EUs2 EUi2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2

EUz2

EUs2 EUs1 EUz2

EUs2 EUz3

EUs3

50-

EUz2

250 EUs2 EUz2

EUs1

EUs3

EWi

EWz

50-

P Fc P Fg Fc ERc

EUi2

ERz

50-

125

EUz2 EUs1 EUs2

EUs1 EUz2

EUi2

ERz

EUs2

50-

333

136

50-

EUs2

EWs

EWi 29

EUs1

214 50

EUs2

F 3

ERc ERs

8 14

TA 3 ERc 5

4 EWz

Fg VRt VWt ER

ERc

Va TAc

Va 8

50-

EUs2 EUz2 EUs1 EUi2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2 EUs1 EUz2 EUs1 EUs2 EUs1 EUs2

750

EUs2 EUz2

EUs2 EUz2 750

EUs2 EUz2 EUs2 EUz2

EUs1 EUi2

EUz2

EUs2

EUs3

EUs2

EUz2

EUs2

40 35

350

00 39 95

3100

13 8500 1N3 5

3050

3000

E N

0 CRL3B-BH323

E N

MAPOSCALEO1:1000O@A3

3050

3000

3100

EBS1110-MH1a CRL2-BH229 50 29

CRL1A-MB5B CRL1A-MB5A CRL1A-CPT6

1.0 24.11.14 DRAFT 2.0 28.05.15 ISSUEDOFOROGER

HO1:500

VO1:500

PRELIMINARY

E 50

CITYORAILOLINK

NOTOFOROCONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICALOCROSSOSECTION NIKAUOSTREET

P.KIRK . B.O8LOUGHLIN

CRL2-BH230

E 15

E 00

CRL2-BH298 CRL2-BH299 CRL2-BH231

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0039

2.0

Database)File: CRL_RD_3/GPJ Library)file: AURECON_AKL_20130627V1 H AN/GLB Template: AURECON_AKL_20130723/GDT Report)File: FENCE WITH LOCATION PLAN A3L H CRL Date)Generated: 29/05/2015

CRL2-BH231 03m L8

160

CRL2-BH299 02m L8

P Fc

ELEVATION Gm J

P Fg Fc

140

CRL2-BH298 02m L8

120

CRL3B-BH323 037m R8

P Fg Va

100

CRL2-BH229 06m R8

CRL1A-MB5B 02m L8

CRL1A-MB5A 03m L8

EBS1110-MH1a 012m R8

CRL2-BH230 045m L8

CRL1A-CPT6 04m L8

5 / 9 -6

EW 55

-6

EWz EUzH EUsH EUsB EUzH EUsH

5K_ 5K_

6H EUsB EUsEUsB EUsH

5K_ 5K_

EUzH EUsH

EUgH

EUz

ERc ERz ERz H 7 Va -/ ERs H B/ ER ERz EWs / B8 K / H/ 6 ERs 8EWs 5K -5 EUiB BK -H6 -9 EW B7 EUsB 6HHKK EUs5B -B5 EUsB --H5KK EU 86 -88 -K7/B9 EUzB 75 EUsB -HK /B9 5K_ EUsH -58 EUzB HKK 5H -88 EUs/B9 EUzB 5H EUzH EUsH EUsH 5K_ -BK

EWs EUsB

6 ERs ERz ERs ERz 6 ERs EWz -9 EWsEWs 6

-K

EWs

-7/

-5KK

75K

EUzB EUsH

EUzB EUsH EUsH EUsB EUiH EUsH

EUzH EUsH

5K_ 5K_

HKK

B EUz B EUs

6H /7-

/B9

EUzB EUsB EUzB EUsH

B57

EUs

EUsH

P Fg Fk

B5 EW

EUsH

ERz

-8 EWs

EWs

P Fg Fc

8 -B

CRL4-CPT468 n40m Ld

EWz BB

EUzB EUsB 6KK EUsB

ERc ERss EW

-H

/9 EUsB

ERz

P Fg ERc ERz

CRL4-CPT469 n26m Ld

n15m

/ 5

P Fg Fc

-K

EWz

TAz

EWi

H320 TA

EWs

3B-B

P Fc

BDK5K

CRL1A-MB3A n13m Ld

CRL2-BH220 n20m Rd

P Fg Fc ERc ERz

CRL

CRL2-BH277 n25m Ld

Fg Va

n84m CRL3B-BH319

EBS337-MH1 n17m Rd

CRL2-BH275 n10m Ld

CRL4-CPT467 n12m Ld

EBS336-BH3 n14m Rd

CRL2-BH217 n12m Ld

EWi EWs

-6

ERsEUsB EWs

B-/

6 8 EUsB EUsH EUzH EUsH

Fg Fc

H-

EWz EWs EWz EWs

EUsB

/K5

EUsH

-B

TAo TAz TAc TAo TAz EWs EUsB

-H5K

HHH

B67 5K_

B6H EUgH

EUzB EUsB

EUgH

EUzB EUsB

EUgH

EUsH EUsB EUsH EUzH EUsH EUsB EUsEUsB

EUsEUsB EUzB

EUzB -KKK EUsEUsH EUzH EUsB

EUsB EUzB

EUiBEUsB EUzB EUsB

EUzH EUsB EUzB EUsH EUiB EUsB EUsH EUzB EUsB

B EUz B EUs

EUsB

EUgH EUsB

EUsB

EUsH EUzH

EUzB EUsB

EUsB EUsB

EUzB EUsB EUzB EUzB EUsB EUsB Fault EUzB EUsB

EUs-

EUsH

EU EUzB EUsB EUzB

EUzB EUzB EUsB EUsB

EUzB EUsB

B EUz B EUs

EUs-

EUzB

EUzB EUsB

EUgH

EUsH EUzH

EUg

H5K EUgH

EUzB

EUsEUzH

EUzB EU

EUsB EUsB EUzB EUzB

EUzB EUsB EUzB EUsB

-5

EUsB

8KBHKKN

8KBH5KN

8KB/KKN

8KB/5KN

H996KKE

8KB5KKN

CRL3B-BH315

8KB55KN

8KB6KKN

-K

EBS336-BH2 EBS336-BH1

CRL2-BH275 CRL4-CPT467 CRL3B-BH275R CRL2-BH217

CRL2-BH278

CRL1A-MB3A CRL3B-BH320

CRL3B-EB312

1.0 18.11.14 2.0 28.05.15 3.0 01.06.16 4.0 22.06.16

DRAFT ISSUEDNFORNGER UPDATEDNWITHNRS/CWNLINE REVISED

HN1:1000

VN1:500

PRELIMINARY

8KBHKKN

H9955KE

CITYNRAILNLINK

NOTNFORNCONSTRUCTION

A.NAGY

GEOLOGICALNANDNHYDROGEOLOGICALNCROSSNSECTION DR6MC30NCHAINAGEN1750-2100

P.KIRKN/NN.CRAMPTON . B.O7LOUGHLIN

BK5K

BKKK

8KBH5KN

CRL4-CPT468

8KB/KKN

-95K

-9KK

8KB/5KN

H995KKE

CRL2-BH218

8KB5KKN

-85K

8KB55KN

-75K

H995KKE

8KB6KKN

-8KK

CRL2-BH277 CRL4-CPT469

B-KK

CRL3B-BH324 CRL2-BH215

B-KK

BK5K

BKKK

-95K

-9KK

-85K

-8KK

H9955KE

H996KKE

CRL2-BH220

EBS337-MH1

EBS336-BH3

-75K

ELEVATIONk(mkm

H5K_

6 ERz ERc ERz EWs

P Fg Fc TAc

P P Fg Fg Fc Fc ER ERz

BDKKK

CRL

SYW

GEO

000

SKE

0028

4.0

DatabaselFile: CRL_RD_HGGPJ Librarylfile: AURECON_AKL_BK-HK6B7V-k.kANGGLB Template: AURECON_AKL_BK-HK7BHGGDT ReportlFile: FENCEkWITHkLOCATIONkPLANkAHLk.kCRL DatelGenerated: B8JK5JBK-5

P Fg Fc ERc ERz ERs

P Fg

-D95K

CRL3B-EB312 n21m Ld

TAz

EBS336-BH2 n24m Rd

CRL3B-BH315 n40m Rd

P P Fg Fg TAcERc

P Va

-D9KK

CRL2-BH278 n10m Ld

CRL3B-BH324 n10m Ld

-D85K EBS336-BH1 n24m Rd CRL2-BH218 n47m Ld

-D8KK

CRL2-BH215 n10m Ld

-D75K

Appendix E Shallow Foundation Buildings – Stage 2 Burland Assessment

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

[List of Eliminated CRL : Stage 1 Summary Buildings for Stage 2 Assessment] St. No

Street

Maximum Settlement

51-59 65-71 77-85 87 72 93 34-36 30 28 26 24 9-11 27-35 11-25 265 291-297 210 48-52 106 126 132 140 142 14 18 15 54 5 9 30A 30E 136A-136E 6 149B 151-155 153 3 23 25 30 224 226-228 23-25 2-2A 5-7 2-106 2-5 3-6

Federal Street Federal Street Federal Street Federal Street Federal Street Federal Street Wyndham Street Wyndham Street Wyndham Street Wyndham Street Wyndham Street Durham Lane Victoria St West Victoria St West Elliot St Wellesley St West Federal Street Mayoral Drive Vincent Street Vincent Street Vincent Street Vincent Street Vincent Street East Street East Street Cross Street Upper Queen Street Upper Queen Street St Benedict Street St Benedict Street St Benedict Street St Benedict Street St Benedict Street Symonds Street Symonds Street Dundonald Street Dundonald Street New North Road New North Road New North Road New North Road New North Road Mt Eden Road Ruru Street Mt Eden Road Enfield Street Enfield Street Fenton Street

<10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm <10mm

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 4 Building Name: Auckland District Court

Address: 65-69 Albert Street

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Frame Storeys: 13 storeys with no basement level Height: Unknown Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

65m

39m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Very Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

25.0

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 544 0.055%

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 6 Building Name: -

Near Telco Fourth Media

Address: 6-12 Kingston Street

Description of structure Construction Type: RC frame/ unreinforced masonry infill Storeys: 3 Height: Unknown Building use: Unknown

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

20m

10.8m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

25.0

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1507 0.042%

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 7 Building Name: - Near Scoop Media

Address: 4 Kingston Street

Description of structure Construction Type: RC frame/ unreinforced masonry infill Storeys: 4 Height: Unknown Building use: Unknown

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

14m

10.8m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

25.0

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 602 0.038%

15 Albert Street

ID 15 - Cross section perpendicular to Victoria St entrance

Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

∆hogging No. ∆settlement ∆distance ∆s/Dd ∆max H t=H I=H^3/3 Bh ∆horizontal ν E/G

24 6 4 11 24000.0 2181.8 52 16 16.0 1365.3 24.0 8 0.3 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

ɛb ɛd ɛh ɛbs ɛds ɛcritical

0.00025 0.00022 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 0.0006

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Very Slight - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0252 0.0218 0.0333 0.0585 0.0364 0.0585

ID 15 - Aotea St - East of Victoria St Entrance

Aotea East Entrance 3.7 m 0

24.0 m20

11 mm

0 40

100

120

6m m

-20

-30

52 mm

Vertical settlement,nm

-10

Mech -40

-50

-60

Distance from Wall,m

Total

140

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 29 Building Name: Auckland Police Building Address: 67-101 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 15 Height: Unknown Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

61m

35m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

10mm 12

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1:910 0.034%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 30 Building Name: Auckland Chinese Presbyterian Church Address: 105 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 2 Height: Unknown Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

20m

7.0m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Very Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

10mm 12

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1:716 0.058%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 31 Building Name: Winsun Heights Apartments Address: 113 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 15 Height: Unknown Building use: Residential

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

26m

52.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

16mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1:545 0.049%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

*Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 32 Building Name: Marco Housing Ltd Address: 117 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 3 Height: Unknown Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

3.0 m

10.5 m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Very Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

17 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1:576 0.066 %

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 33 Building Name: Address: 125 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 4 Height: Unknown Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

14m

20m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Very Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

15mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1:600 0.058 %

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 34 Building Name: Address: 127 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 3 Height: Unknown Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

18m

10.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Very Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

15.2mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1:641 0.060 %

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

*Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 35 Building Name: One33 Vincent Address: 133 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Frame Storeys: 3 Height: 9.5m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

19m

9.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Very Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

16.6mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 678 0.057 %

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

*Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 36 Building Name: Dynasty Gardens Hotel Address: 135-137 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Frame Storeys: 15 storeys including 2 basement levels Height: 40m Building use: Residential

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: 2.5-8 metre deep reinforced concrete piles Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

19m

40m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

15.6 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 738 0.038%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

*Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 37 Building Name: Address: 135-137 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced Masonry Blockwork Storeys: 4 storeys Height: 13m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

12m

13m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

14.1 mm 1: 802 0.038%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

*Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 38 Building Name: Eclipse Apartments Address: 156 Vincent Street Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Frame and Reinforced Concrete Walls Storeys: 14 floors and 1 basement level Height: Approx. 42 m Building use: Residential

Structure drawings available: Yes Description of foundations: Piles and bottom floor is slab on grade Foundation drawings available: Yes, pile logs available.

Length

Height

Depth

36m

42m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

13.5 mm 1: 860 0. 0.030%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

*Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Capacity Check Summary Capacity Ratios Worst Loaded

Axial

Shear

Cracking

0.16

0.59

0.20

2.22 Cracked

φ1.0m

A A B A B

Level 1 Beam

Grnd Beam/Slab

Column

Pile

P11

Size

A - After Construction

B - Before Construction

Comments: Only the piles were modelled in PLAXIS and only the “After Construction” model was available.

Note: detailed comments are in the "Building Summary.xlsx" where applicable.

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 39 Building Name: YMCA Fitness Centre Address: 149 – 157 Greys Avenue Description of structure Construction Type: Steel Frames with Reinforced Concrete Walls Storeys: 2 floors with one basement level Height: Approx. 11m Building use: Commercial Heritage Building

Structure drawings available: Yes Description of foundations: Piles. Shallow Founded with piles/ footing. Slab on grade Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

57m

11m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

19.9 mm 1: 1182 0. 0.022%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

*Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 40 Building Name: YMCA Hostel Address: 149 – 157 Greys Avenue Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Frame/ Reinforced Concrete Wall Storeys: 6 floors with one basement level Height: Approx. 16m Building use: Heritage Residential Building

Structure drawings available: Yes Description of foundations: Piles, Shallow founded Pile Footing Foundation drawings available: Foundation plans are available

Length

Height

Depth

26m

16m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

13.9 mm 1: 1569 0.016%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

*Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 41 Building Name: Hopetoun Delta Apartments Address: 29 – 39 Pitts Street Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Wall Storeys: 5 Storeys with no basements Height: Building use: Residential

Structure drawings available: Yes Description of foundations: Shallow Founded/ Strip Footing / Piles. Bottom Floor is slab on grade. Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

7.0m

17.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

13.9mm 1: 1644 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 42 Building Name: Central Ambulance Station Address: 47 Pitt Street Description of structure Construction Type: Steel Frame/ Reinforced Concrete Wall Storeys: Two storey building with no basement floor Height: Approx. 6m Building use: Commercial Building

Structure drawings available: Yes Description of foundations: Shallow founded structure with Slab on grade Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

43m

6.0m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

14.2mm 1: 1732 0.018%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 43 Building Name: Address: 1 Beresford Square Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced Masonry Storeys: 3 storeys with no basement Height: Approx. 20m (including tower) Building use: Commercial/ Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes Description of foundations: Shallow Founded/ footing Foundation drawings available:?

Length

Height

Depth

25m

20m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

12.7mm 1: 2154 0.023%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 44 Building Name: Address: 59 Pitt Street Description of structure Construction Type: Steel Frame/ Unreinforced Masonry Infill Storeys: 2 Floors with no basement floor Height: Approx 9m Building use: Retail/ Commercial Heritage Building

Structure drawings available: Yes Description of foundations: Shallow Founded/ Footing Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

23m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

17.7 mm 1: 2266 0.016%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 45 Building Name: Pitt Street Methodist Church Address: 78 Pitt Street Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced Masonry Storeys: 3 floors with one basement level Height: Approx. 15m Building use: Church/ Heritage Building

Structure drawings available: Yes, some drawings found. Description of foundations: Shallow Founded – Pile/Footing Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

40m

15m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

15mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1:2258 0.017%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 46 Building Name: Pitt Street Buildings Address: 211 – 235 Karangahape Road Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced Masonry Storeys: 2 floors with 1 basement floor Height: Approx. 10m Building use: Residential, Heritage Building

Structure drawings available: Some structural drawings found. (Most are for the Pitt Street Church Description of foundations: Shallow founded, Pile footing Foundation drawings available: None found

Length

Height

Depth

37m

10m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

10.5mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3478 0.012%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 47 Building Name: Gardyne Holt Address: 16 – 18 Beresford Square

Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 2 storeys Height: Approx. 9m Building use: Office Building/ Commercial. Heritage Building

Structure drawings available: Yes Description of foundations: Shallow Founded Foundation drawings available: No foundation drawings found

Length

Height

Depth

20m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

3.8mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2743 0.012%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 48 Building Name: Fusion Sushi Address: 259 - 281 Karangahape Road Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 2 storeys Height: unknown Building use: Retail and Residential Building

Structure drawings available: drawings of previous demolished building present. Description of foundations: Shallow founded Foundation drawings available: None

Length

Height

Depth

24m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

10mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3824 0. 0.015%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 49 Building Name: Address: 251 -253 Karangahape Road Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced Masonry Storeys: 3 Floors Height: Approx. 8m Building use: Commercial, Heritage Building

Structure drawings available: A few structural drawings available. Description of foundations: Shallow founded Foundation drawings available: No foundation drawings found.

Length

Height

Depth

13m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

8.4mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 4137 0.013%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 50 Building Name: Dentist Chambers Address: 61 – 65 Pitt Street

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced Masonry Storeys: 2 Floors with no basement level Height: 10m Building use: Commercial, Heritage Building

Length

Height

Depth

24m

10m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

11.1mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 4713 0.016%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 51 Building Name:

Address: 259-281 Karangahape Road

Description of structure Construction Type: Timber Storeys: 2 Storeys with no basement level Height: 7m approx. Building use: Residential/Commercial

Structure drawings available: No Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footing pads Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

18m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

6.0mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 4255 0.016%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 52 Building Name: Navel and Family Hotel Address: 243 Karangahape Road

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building with steel bracing alterations in 2005 Storeys: 3 Floors with 1 basement level Height: 10m approx. Building use: Residential/ Heritage Building

Structure drawings available: Yes, architectural plans with some structural detail drawings Description of foundations: Shallow founded – footings and ground beams. Underpinning works completed in 1972. Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

19m

10m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

8.5mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 8214 0.007%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 53 Building Name: Address: 214 Karangahape Road

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Frame and Unreinforced masonry infill Storeys: 2 floors, 2 Basement levels Height: 7m approx. Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Shallow Founded Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

10m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

3.9mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 5156 0.009%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 54 Building Name: George Court Building Address: 238 Karangahape Road

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced Concrete Frame and Unreinforced masonry infill Storeys: 4 floors, 2 Basement levels Height: Approx. 20m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

32m

20m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

11.7mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2063 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 55 Building Name: Heritage Building/BK Hostel

Address: 246-254 Karangahape Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced concrete infill. Storeys: 3 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 13m approx. Building use: Residential/Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footing and strip footing Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

12m

13m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

15.4mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2859 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 56 Building Name: Commercial/Heritage Building/Norman Ng Building

Address: 256 Karangahape Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 8m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Pile/footing, slab on grade Foundation drawings available: No

: Length

Height

Depth

10m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

12.6

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1900 0.007%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 57 Building Name: Commercial/Heritage Building

Address: 258-264 Karangahape Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 8m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footings Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

12m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

9.4

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3537 0.002%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 58 Building Name: Commercial/Heritage Building

Address: 268 Karangahape Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 8m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

6.4

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3701 0.002%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 59 Building Name: Commercial/Heritage Building

Address: 270 Karangahape Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 8m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

5.1

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3815 0.008%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 60 Building Name: Mercury Theatre

Address: 9 Mercury Lane

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 3 storeys with no basement level Height: 9m approx. Building use: Theatre/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – shallow pads/spread footings Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

43 m

9.0 m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

27 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1:636 0.047%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Sensitivity Result

ID 60

22.0 5 ∆hogging No. 1 6 ∆settlement ∆distance 22000.0 3666.7 ∆s/Dd 14 ∆max H 10 t=H 10.0 I=H^3/3 333.3 Bh 22.0 5 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00029 ɛb ɛd 0.00017 ɛh 0.0002 ɛbs 0.0005 0.0003 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0005

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Very Slight - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0294 0.0173 0.0227 0.0521 0.0270 0.0521

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 61 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 16 East St

Description of structure Construction Type: Steel frame building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 7m approx. Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

7.7

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 439 0.050%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 65 Building Name: George Court Factory Building

Address: 1 Cross St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame Storeys: 3 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 12m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – strip footing at perimeter and column pads, slab on grade. Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

100m

12m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

27.8

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 965 0.025%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 66 Building Name: Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT)

Address: 42 Upper Queen St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame and precast reinforced concrete walls. Storeys: 5 storeys with no basement level Height: 15.2m to roof level. Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Reinforced concrete piles between 8m and 10m, embedded 3m into sandstone. Slab on grade Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

45m

18m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

17.7 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1539 0.017%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 67 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 46-50 Upper Queen St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame and unreinforced masonry infill. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 6m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footing with suspended floor Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

27m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

18.9mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1479 0.010%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 68 Building Name: Residential/Commercial Building

Address: 52 Upper Queen St

Description of structure Construction Type: RC frame and RC wall. Vertical cracking in façade. Storeys: 3 storeys with no basement level Height: 9.8m Building use: Residential/Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – reinforced concrete strip footings with slab on grade Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

25m

9.8m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

11.8mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3220 0.004%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 69 Building Name: Saint Benedicts Cathedral

Address: 1 Saint Benedicts St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building. Cracking on West edge retaining wall adjacent to driveway.

Storeys: 1 storeys with no basement level Height: 19.1m to apex of roof Building use: Church/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – footings and foundation pads, with a suspended floor on the ground level. Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

42m

19m

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible (concrete fence shows cracks).

Max. Settlement

12.2mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2072 0.013%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 70 Building Name: Saint Benedicts Church Annex

Address: 1A Saint Benedicts St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced Masonry Building. Minor cracking in south face, dislodged bricks at top of front façade. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 11.8m to apex of balustrade. Building use: Church/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

18m

10m

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

15.4mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2654 0.007%

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible (However, existing condition shows bricks dislodged at some area of the wall/façade.)

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 71 Building Name: Residential Building

Address: 3 Saint Benedicts St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 1 storeys with no basement level Height: 4.1m Building use: Residential

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Shallow founded - timber piles with a suspended floor and reinforced concrete strip footing Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

14.9mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3276 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 72 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 7 Saint Benedicts St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame and reinforced blockwork infill. Blockwork wall on north face extends below ground level Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 7.1m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – strip footing around perimeter and 2.3m sq foundation pads Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

17m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

11.7mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2731 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 73 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 16 Saint Benedicts St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame and reinforced blockwork infill. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 6.5m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – foundation pads and slab on grade. Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

17m

6.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

13.9mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 7033 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 74 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 149 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame and unreinforced masonry infill Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 6.0 m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – perimeter footing and slab on grade Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

39m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

13.1mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3393 0.007%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 75 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 157-159 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame with RC blockwork masonry walls. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 7m approx. Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded - spread footing pads Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

38m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

13.2 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3081 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 76 Building Name: The Winchester

Address: 24 Saint Benedicts St

Description of structure Construction Type: concrete blockwork masonry, reinforcement details unknown. Vertical cracks observed in front façade and side off building. Storeys: 3 storeys with no basement level Height: 16m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

31m

10m

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

13.4 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3096 0.004%

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 77 Building Name: Commercial/Heritage Building

Address: 161-165 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building supported by internal steel frame. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 7m approx. Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

32m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

13.2 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3081 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 78 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 30 Saint Benedicts St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete/Steel Frame Storeys: 4 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 12.9m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: 4m deep concrete piles beneath basement level Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

45m

12.9m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

13.1 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2974 0.006%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 79 Building Name: Commercial/Heritage Building

Address: 173 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building. Minor cracks in façade windowsills observed. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 8m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

19m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

13.0 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3662 0.006%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 80 Building Name: Residential Building

Address: 22 Stable Lane

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete blockwork masonry frame building. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 8.5m to apex Building use: Residential

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

14m

8.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

11.5 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2959 0.002%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 81 Building Name: Commercial/Heritage Building

Address: 177a Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame with URM brickwork walls/infill Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 8.5m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – RC spread footings Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

20m

8.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

13.0 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 4246 0.006%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 82 Building Name: Commercial/Heritage Building

Address: 177-185 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 8m. Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Figure 1: Symonds St Face

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Figure 2: Stable Lane Face

Length

Height

Depth

16m

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

12.8 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 5938 0.006%

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 83 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 187-191 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 9m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

22m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

12.5 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3465 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 84 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 193 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 9.5m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Figure 1: Symonds St Face

Figure 2: Stable Lane Face

Length

Height

Depth

20m

9.5m

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

12.4 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3354 0.005%

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 85 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 195-199 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 9.5m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

17m

9.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

12.3 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3551 0.005%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 86 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 201 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 9.5m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

20m

9.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

12.2 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3247 0.004%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 87 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 203-205 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 9.5m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Figure 1: Symonds St Face

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Figure 2: Stable Lane Face

Length

Height

Depth

20m

9.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

12.5 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 3100 0.004%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 88 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 207-209 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 9m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No Figure 1: Symonds St Face

Figure 2: Stable Lane Face

Length

Height

Depth

20m

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

13.2 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2859 0.005%

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 89 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 211-213 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building. Minor cracking in window bays observed. Storeys: 3 storeys with no basement level Height: 10.9m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No Figure 1: Symonds St Face

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Figure 2: Stable Lane Face

Length

Height

Depth

20m

10.9m

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

14.2 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2611 0.006%

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 90 Building Name: Edinburgh Castle Building

Address: 215 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building with reinforced concrete columns due to alterations in 1995. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 7m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – Concrete spread footing pads and strip footing beneath masonry walls. Original timber piles support suspended timber floor Foundation drawings available: Yes – for alteration works

Length

Height

Depth

26m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

19.8 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1696 0.008%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 91 Building Name: Interface Architecture Building

Address: 221 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 3 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 10m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footing pads Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

21m

10m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

24.2 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1402 0.012%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 92 Building Name: Café 23

Address: 223-231 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building. Horizontal cracking extending across façade. Plates have been bolted on to control cracks. Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 10m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

23m

10m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

28.4 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1432 0.016%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 93 Building Name: Commercial/Heritage building

Address: 204-218 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 8.7m Building use: Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – reinforced concrete footing beam and pads Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

23m

8.7m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

28.4 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1432 0.016%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 94 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 233 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced masonry building with a timber façade. Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 7.9m Building use: Commercial/Residential/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – reinforced concrete footing pads Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

11m

7.9m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

31.2 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1369 0.015%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 95 Building Name: French Connection Restaurant

Address: 235-237 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced brickwork masonry Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 9.7m Building use: Residential/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – 300x300x1100mm deep concrete footings Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

20m

9.7m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

33.0 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1223 0.019%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 96 Building Name: Retail and Residential Building

Address: 239 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced brickwork masonry Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 10m Building use: Residential/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

31m

10m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

34.6 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1142 0.019%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 97 Building Name: Retail and Residential Building

Address: 241-255 Symonds St

Description of structure Construction Type: Unreinforced brickwork masonry Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 9.7m Building use: Commercial/Residential/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footing pads Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

31m

9.7m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Very Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

18.7 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 865 0.053%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 98 Building Name: Broadcast M.A.P.

Address: 8-10 Dundonald St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame, RC masonry walls at the North and South face. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 8m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – reinforced concrete spread footings and strip footings Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

25m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

16.2 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 833 0.043%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 99 Building Name: Vector Substation

Address: 12 Dundonald St

Description of structure Construction Type: Precast reinforced concrete panels and unreinforced masonry walls. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 7.2m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

24m

7.2m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

36.7 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1023 0.024%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 100 Building Name: Soundcraft Ltd

Address: 22 Dundonald St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame with reinforced blockwork masonry wall on south wall. Storeys: 3 storeys with no basement level Height: 11m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Steel piles to unknown depth with reinforced concrete tie beams Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

26m

11m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

16.0 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 977 0.045%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation) – N/A

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 101 Building Name: Auckland Chinese Community Centre

Address: 1 New North Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame with reinforced blockwork masonry wall Storeys: 3 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 4.5m at New North Rd face and 13.4m at west face. Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded - reinforced concrete spread footing pads Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

30m

10.4m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

24.0

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1685 0.010%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 102 Building Name: Retail and Residential

Address: 1-13 Mt Eden Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Timber framed and unreinforced masonry building Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 9.0m Building use: Residential/Commercial/Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

35m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

20.0

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2241 0.008%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 103 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 2 New North Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Longitudinal unreinforced masonry walls with transverse steel beams. Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 10m to apex Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Shallow founded Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

17m

10m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

20.4

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 2014 0.004%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 104 Building Name: Beatnik Publishing

Address: 21 New North Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Timber frame Storeys: 2 storeys with no basement level Height: 6.5m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Shallow founded Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

23m

6.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

13.5

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1799 0.016%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 105 Building Name: Villa Dalmacia

Address: 10-14 New North Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame. Horizontal and vertical cracking observed in façade. Storeys: 3 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 11.8m Building use: Commercial, Built Heritage

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footing with slab on grade Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

63m

11.8m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

33.4

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 929 0.015%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 106 Building Name: Compliance Consultants

Address: 16-20 New North Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Unknown Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 6.8m Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

17m

6.8m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

25.5

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1620 0.004%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 107 Building Name: Sopers Macindoe Building

Address: 22-26 New North Rd

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 8.2m to apex Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – reinforced concrete spread footings and strip footings with slab on grade. Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

23m

8.2m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

19.6

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1955 0.002%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 108 Building Name: Eden Accomodation

Address: 11 Nikau St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame with reinforced blockwork masonry walls Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 9 m Building use: Commercial accommodation

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footing and slab on grade Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

24m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

40.8

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 1048 0.018%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 109 Building Name: TV3 - Carpark

Address: 2 Flower St

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame Storeys: 2 storeys Height: 5.5m to rooftop carpark Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footing and slab on grade Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

31m

5.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

53.4

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 712 0.023%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 110 Building Name: Commercial/ Residential

Address: 10-14 Nikau Street

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame buildings with RC masonry walls Storeys: 2 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 7.0m Building use: Commercial warehouse and a residential building

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Both buildings are shallow founded with strip footings and spread footing pads. The commercial warehouse at 10 Nikau St has 250mm diameter x 1200mm deep piles at the base of the masonry walls at the North and South of the building. Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

19m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

34.8

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 402 0.105%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 111 Building Name: Commercial Building

Address: 16 Nikau Street

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced masonry walls. Original frame strengthened with diagonal bracing during 2002 extensions. Storeys: 1 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 3.9m at Nikau St face Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded – spread footings at the base of columns Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

20m

13.9m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

56.4

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 318 0.103%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 112 Building Name: Residential Building

Address: 6 Flower Street

Description of structure Construction Type: Timber frame building Storeys: 1 storeys with 1 basement level Height: 4.5m Building use: Residential

Structure drawings available: No

Description of foundations: Unknown Foundation drawings available: No

Length

Height

Depth

4.5m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Very Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

10.3

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 890 0.073%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 113 Building Name: TV3 Building

Address: 3 Flower Street

Description of structure Construction Type: Reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill Storeys: 3 storeys with 2 basement level Height: 8m from GF on Flower St face, 15m from GF on Karori St face. Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Original building at the corner of Flower St and Nikau St is shallow founded – reinforced concrete spread footings Extension of original building at Karori St has reinforced concrete piles, up to 3.5m deep beneath the subgrade level. Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

31m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Negligible

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 12

Max. Settlement

24.9

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1: 887 0.014%

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Building Assessment Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Building Assessment Chart

86 Albert Street

ID 114

31 1 ∆hogging No. 2 9 ∆settlement ∆distance 31000.0 3444.4 ∆s/Dd 16 ∆max H 7 t=H 7.0 I=H^3/3 114.3 Bh 31.0 9 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00005 ɛb ɛd 0.00001 ɛh 0.0003 ɛbs 0.0003 0.0002 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0003

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0049 0.0014 0.0290 0.0339 0.0204 0.0339

AOTEA East 680

ID114

Distance from wall, m 0

Settlement,mm

7 mm

31 m

16 mm

100

120

140

120-130 Albert Street

ID 115

66.2 3 ∆hogging No. 1 8 ∆settlement ∆distance 66196.0 8274.5 ∆s/Dd 10 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 66.2 2 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00002 ɛb ɛd 0.00000 ɛh 0.0000 ɛbs 0.0001 0.0000 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0001

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0024 0.0001 0.0030 0.0054 0.0021 0.0054

AOTEA East 900 - Vertical Movement Distance from wall, m

20 25

10 mm

Settlement,mm

65.7 m

80 2 mm

18 mm

0 m 5.0

100

120

140

ID 116 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

37.7 5 ∆hogging No. 1 27 ∆settlement ∆distance 37700.0 1396 ∆s/Dd 37 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 37.7 32 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00012 ɛb ɛd 0.00001 ɛh 0.0008 ɛbs 0.0010 0.0006 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0010

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Slight - Serviceability

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0115 0.0012 0.0849 0.0964 0.0594 0.0964

AOTEA West 850 Distance from wall, m 0m 2.0 0

10 mm

37.7 m

20 25 30 35 40 45

37 mm

Settlement,mm

10 15

m m

100

120

140

ID 117

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 31.00 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 36.00 m 15.28 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 19.2 mm 7.6 m

Calculation interval = 0.1 m CRL CH1060 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 47.00 m 15.28 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 19.2 mm 7.6 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

18 mm 1:520 0.084%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Hogg. 0.047% 0.037% 0.011% 0.084% 0.049%

Sagg. -0.005% 0.006% 0.017% 0.001% 0.015%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.084% Slight

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

abc

CRL CH1060 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 118

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 30.50 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 37.00 m 15.76 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 18.6 mm 7.9 m

Calculation interval = 0.1 m CRL CH1400 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 48.40 m 15.76 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 18.6 mm 7.9 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

15 mm 1:558 0.079%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Hogg. 0.046% 0.033% 0.010% 0.079% 0.047%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.079% Slight

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

abc

CRL CH1400 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 119

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 28.00 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 37.00 m 16.72 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 17.5 mm 8.4 m

Calculation interval = 0.1 m CRL CH1440 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 47.50 m 16.72 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 17.5 mm 8.4 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

11 mm 1:632 0.074%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Hogg. 0.047% 0.027% 0.009% 0.074% 0.048%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.074% Very Slight

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

abc

CRL CH1440 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 120

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 11.80 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 20.00 m 20.93 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 14.0 mm 10.5 m

Calculation interval = 0.1 m CRL CH1560 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 32.50 m 20.93 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 14.0 mm 10.5 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

12 mm 1:872 0.046%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Hogg. 0.031% 0.014% 0.005% 0.046% 0.032%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.046% Negligible

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

abc

CRL CH1560 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 121

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 29.30 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 -5.50 m 26.50 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 11.1 mm 13.3 m

Calculation interval = 0.1 m CRL CH1750 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 -64.00 m 26.50 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 11.1 mm 13.3 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

10 mm 1:1975 0.022%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Sagg. -0.016% 0.004% 0.001% -0.013% 0.005%

Hogg. 0.014% 0.008% 0.002% 0.022% 0.014%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.022% Negligible

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

CRL CH1750 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 122

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 32.90 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 -10.30 m 26.50 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 11.1 mm 13.3 m

Calculation interval = 0.1 m CRL CH1750 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 -33.10 m 26.50 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 11.1 mm 13.3 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

9 mm 1:1744 0.023%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Sagg. -0.001% 0.000% 0.000% -0.001% 0.000%

Hogg. 0.014% 0.009% 0.002% 0.023% 0.015%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.023% Negligible

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

CRL CH1750 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 123

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 36.00 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 30.00 m 26.50 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 11.1 mm 13.3 m

Calculation interval = 0.1 m CRL CH1750 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 69.00 m 26.50 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 11.1 mm 13.3 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

11 mm 1:1969 0.021%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Hogg. 0.014% 0.007% 0.002% 0.021% 0.014%

Sagg. -0.026% 0.010% 0.001% -0.017% 0.008%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.021% Negligible

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

CRL CH1750 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 124

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 37.50 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 44.00 m 29.02 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 10.1 mm 14.5 m

Calculation interval = 0.5 m CRL CH2270 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 62.00 m 29.02 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 10.1 mm 14.5 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

11 mm 1:1703 0.023%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Hogg. 0.014% 0.009% 0.001% 0.023% 0.014%

Sagg. -0.004% 0.005% 0.003% 0.001% 0.002%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.023% Negligible

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

CRL CH2270 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 125

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 36.00 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 -33.00 m 31.35 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 9.4 mm 15.7 m

Calculation interval = 0.5 m CRL CH2300 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 45.00 m 31.35 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 9.4 mm 15.7 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

8 mm 1:2770 0.020%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Hogg. 0.013% 0.007% 0.001% 0.020% 0.013%

Sagg. -0.008% 0.002% 0.001% -0.006% 0.002%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.020% Negligible

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

CRL CH2300 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 126

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 35.00 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 0.00 m 31.35 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 9.4 mm 15.7 m

Calculation interval = 0.5 m CRL CH2300 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 -30.00 m 31.35 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 9.4 mm 15.7 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

11 mm 1:2563 0.016%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Sagg. -0.012% 0.003% 0.000% -0.009% 0.003%

Hogg. 0.010% 0.005% 0.001% 0.016% 0.011%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.016% Negligible

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

CRL CH2300 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 127

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 28.00 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 17.00 m 31.35 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 9.4 mm 15.7 m

Calculation interval = 0.5 m CRL CH2300 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 27.00 m 31.35 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 9.4 mm 15.7 m

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

18 mm 1:1529 0.015%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Hogg. 0.009% 0.005% 0.004% 0.015% 0.011%

Sagg. -0.035% 0.010% 0.001% -0.025% 0.010%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.015% Negligible

Dominant mode of deformation is bending

CRL CH2300 MC30 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 130

Depth below base of building (m)

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building and tunnels

Building Details

Length Height 35.60 m 3.00 m Piled F Depth

F Depth 0.00 m

E/G 2.6

Tunnel Offset Depth below found. Diameter K Volume Loss Smax i

1 16.00 m 41.47 m 9.64 m 0.5 1.1 % 15.4 mm 20.7 m

3 45.00 m 41.47 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 7.1 mm 20.7 m

Calculation interval = 0.5 m 0 0 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

2 25.00 m 41.47 m 6.84 m 0.5 1.0 % 7.1 mm 20.7 m

Max. Settlement Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain 5

26 mm 1:1437 0.010%

Open Cut Depth Offset Breadth W/D %dv/D dh/dv

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

Displacement (mm)

Offset from left hand edge of building (m)

Displacements shown at exaggerated scale relative to building Hori Vert

Strains in Building Strain components Max combined tensile strains

Horizontal Bending Shear Bending Diagonal (shear)

Sagg. -0.034% 0.008% 0.000% -0.025% 0.010%

compressive strains given -ve: tensile strains given +ve Maximum tensile strain for building =

0.010% Negligible

Dominant mode of deformation is shear

0 0 0 0

Analysis by Roque Alea

abc 29/06/16

Brexis 2.0.0

ID 131 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

20.0 1 ∆hogging No. 1 7 ∆settlement ∆distance 20000.0 2857 ∆s/Dd 14 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 20.0 6 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00007 ɛb ɛd 0.00001 ɛh 0.0003 ɛbs 0.0004 0.0002 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0004

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0067 0.0013 0.0300 0.0367 0.0211 0.0367

AOTEA Kingston Plenum South Distance from wall, m 18.4 m

40 7 mm

20.0 m

14 mm

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

m 1m

Settlement,mm

100

120

140

ID 132 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

24.5 2 ∆hogging No. 1 8 ∆settlement ∆distance 24500.0 3063 ∆s/Dd 15 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 24.5 12 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00010 ɛb ɛd 0.00002 ɛh 0.0005 ɛbs 0.0006 0.0003 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0006

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Very Slight - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0097 0.0015 0.0490 0.0587 0.0344 0.0587

AOTEA Victoria St Entrance North Side Distance from wall, m 0 0.00

20 7 mm

25.00

m m

20.00

15.00

15 mm

Settlement,mm

5.00 10.00

24.5 m

14.5 m

100

120

140

ID 133 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

∆hogging No. ∆settlement ∆distance ∆s/Dd ∆max H t=H I=H^3/3 Bh ∆horizontal ν E/G

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00006 ɛb ɛd 0.00016 ɛh 0.0007 ɛbs 0.0007 0.0005 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0007

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Very Slight - Aesthetic

6.1 1 1 3 6100.0 2033 14 12 12.0 576.0 6.1 4 0.3 2.6

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0063 0.0161 0.0656 0.0719 0.0510 0.0719

AOTEA Victoria St Entrance South Side Distance from wall, m

6.1 m

0.00

Settlement,mm

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

40 11 mm

5.00

18.3 m

14 mm

1m m

100

120

140

ID 134 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

∆hogging No. ∆settlement ∆distance ∆s/Dd ∆max H t=H I=H^3/3 Bh ∆horizontal ν E/G

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00006 ɛb ɛd 0.00017 ɛh 0.0007 ɛbs 0.0007 0.0005 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0007

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Very Slight - Aesthetic

5.9 1 1 3 5900.0 1967 11 12 12.0 576.0 5.9 4 0.3 2.6

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0063 0.0167 0.0678 0.0741 0.0527 0.0741

AOTEA Victoria St Entrance South Side 5.9 m

0.00

Settlement,mm

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

40 8 mm

5.00

24.0 m

11 mm

Distance from wall, m

100

120

140

ID 135 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

30.5 2 ∆hogging No. 1 6 ∆settlement ∆distance 30500.0 5083 ∆s/Dd 11 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 30.5 11 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00007 ɛb ɛd 0.00001 ɛh 0.0004 ɛbs 0.0004 0.0003 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0004

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.007 0.001 0.036 0.043 0.025 0.043

AOTEA Victoria St Entrance South Side

15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

10.00

Settlement,mm

5.00

Distance from wall, m 60 5 mm

0.00

25.3 m

11 mm

30.5 m

100

120

140

ID 136 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

51.5 3 ∆hogging No. 1 4 ∆settlement ∆distance 51500.0 12875.0 ∆s/Dd 10 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 51.5 1 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00004 ɛb ɛd 0.00000 ɛh 0.0000 ɛbs 0.0001 0.0000 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0001

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0039 0.0003 0.0019 0.0058 0.0014 0.0058

ID 138 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

23.1 3 ∆hogging No. 1 17 ∆settlement ∆distance 23100.0 1358.8 ∆s/Dd 37 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 23.1 7 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00016 ɛb ɛd 0.00003 ɛh 0.0003 ɛbs 0.0005 0.0002 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0005

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0160 0.0027 0.0303 0.0463 0.0216 0.0463

139 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

10.1 1 ∆hogging No. 1 3.4 ∆settlement ∆distance 10100.0 2969 ∆s/Dd 20 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 10.1 1 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00015 ɛb ɛd 0.00006 ɛh 0.0001 ɛbs 0.0002 0.0001 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0002

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0149 0.0057 0.0099 0.0248 0.0102 0.0248

MC 60 CH340 0

0.00 5.00 10.00

20.00

40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00

35.00

30.00

25.00

5 mm

15.00

100

110

120

130

140

150

140 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

∆hogging No. ∆settlement ∆distance ∆s/Dd ∆max H t=H I=H^3/3 Bh ∆horizontal ν E/G

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00019 ɛb ɛd 0.00010 ɛh 0.0001 ɛbs 0.0003 0.0002 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0003

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

7.2 1 1 3 7200.0 2400.0 8 3 3.0 9.0 7.2 1 0.3 2.6

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0187 0.0101 0.0139 0.0326 0.0161 0.0326

MC 60 CH340 0

0.00 5.00 10.00

20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00

1 mm

15.00

100

110

120

130

140

150

141 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

20.0 2 ∆hogging No. 1 2 ∆settlement ∆distance 20000.0 10000.0 ∆s/Dd 13 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 20.0 2 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00013 ɛb ɛd 0.00003 ɛh 0.0001 ɛbs 0.0002 0.0001 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0002

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0133 0.0026 0.0100 0.0233 0.0079 0.0233

142 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

10.0 3 ∆hogging No. 1 1 ∆settlement ∆distance 10000.0 17959 ∆s/Dd 12 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 10.0 2 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00045 ɛb ɛd 0.00018 ɛh 0.0002 ɛbs 0.0006 0.0003 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0006

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0449 0.0175 0.0200 0.0649 0.0259 0.0300

ID 143 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

10.0 1 ∆hogging No. 1 4 ∆settlement ∆distance 10000.0 2392.3 ∆s/Dd 10 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 10.0 2 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00015 ɛb ɛd 0.00006 ɛh 0.0002 ɛbs 0.0003 0.0002 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0003

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0150 0.0058 0.0200 0.0350 0.0161 0.030

144 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

10.0 1 ∆hogging No. 1 1 ∆settlement ∆distance 10000.0 18553 ∆s/Dd 10 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 10.0 2 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00013 ɛb ɛd 0.00005 ɛh 0.0002 ɛbs 0.0003 0.0002 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0003

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0135 0.0053 0.0200 0.0335 0.0158 0.0335

145 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

14.9 2 ∆hogging No. 1 8 ∆settlement ∆distance 14900.0 1932 ∆s/Dd 30 ∆max H 3 t=H 3.0 I=H^3/3 9.0 Bh 14.9 1 ∆horizontal 0.3 ν E/G 2.6

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00020 ɛb ɛd 0.00005 ɛh 0.0001 ɛbs 0.0003 0.0001 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0003

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0199 0.0052 0.0067 0.0266 0.0081 0.027

146 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

∆hogging No. ∆settlement ∆distance ∆s/Dd ∆max H t=H I=H^3/3 Bh ∆horizontal ν E/G

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00015 ɛb ɛd 0.00024 ɛh 0.0002 ɛbs 0.0004 0.0003 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0004

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

8.0 2 1 5 8000 1562 29 10 10.0 333.3 8.0 2 0.3 2.6

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0148 0.0240 0.0249 0.0397 0.0343 0.0397

147 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

∆hogging No. ∆settlement ∆distance ∆s/Dd ∆max H t=H I=H^3/3 Bh ∆horizontal ν E/G

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00005 ɛb ɛd 0.00001 ɛh 0.0001 ɛbs 0.0001 0.0000 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0001

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Negligible - Aesthetic

35.2 2 1 4 35200 7907 12 3 3.0 9.0 35.2 2 0.3 2.6

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0052 0.0006 0.0057 0.0109 0.0040 0.011

148 Cut and cover settlements Length Relative Settlement Storeys Change in settlement Length Slope Max Settlement Building Height Lever Arm Section Moment of Area Lenth Resisting H. Movement Horizontal Movement Poisson's Ratio Young's/Shear Modulus

∆hogging No. ∆settlement ∆distance ∆s/Dd ∆max H t=H I=H^3/3 Bh ∆horizontal ν E/G

Bending Strain Diagonal Strain Horizontal Strain Total Bending Strain Total Diagonal Strain Critical Tensil Strain

0.00015 ɛb ɛd 0.00002 ɛh 0.0005 ɛbs 0.0007 0.0004 ɛds ɛcritical 0.0007

Risk Category - Tensile Strain Very Slight - Aesthetic

28.7 4 1 10 28700 2965 17 3 3.0 9.0 28.7 15 0.3 2.6

m mm mm mm mm m m m^3 m mm

0.0149 0.0020 0.0505 0.0655 0.0355 0.065

Appendix F Piled Foundation Output

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

38 Wyndham St

Aotea Station – Piled Building Analysis Summary (For Internal Review)

1.1

Assessment Criteria:

Ultimate Limit State The following standards were adopted to assess the existing design actions on the building and to determine the building member capacities:  

NZS1170 – Existing Loads NZS3101 – Member Capacities

Serviceability Limit State The following criteria was adopted to assess the serviceability limit for each concrete element:

1.2

Assessment Procedure:       

Model typical building section in PLAXIS 2D (incl substructure and superstructure to 1-2 levels above ground) to estimate potential construction induced loads Undertake Load Takedown of building adopting NZS1170 Model existing loads on structure using SpaceGass Combine existing loads with potential loads from tunnel construction Calculate member capacities based on available building drawings and adopting NZS3101 Compare capacities with existing demands and combined potential demands Compare demands against Serviceability and Ultimate Limit State criteria as per above

38 Wyndham St – Wyndham Towers

2.1

Drawings: -

Typical Building Section

Typical Building Plan & Pile Detail

Typical Column Detail

Typical Ground Beam Details

Typical Level 1 Slab Detail

2.2

Plaxis Model – Displaced Shape

2.3

SpaceGass Model

2.4

Outcome 

Φ0.9m Pile capacity is OK. Cracking stress limit is not exceeded.



760x760 Column capacity is OK. Loads have not increased enough to exceed the 2MPa cracking limit.



1200Dp x 760 Ground Beam loads have not increased enough to exceed capacity. Cracking stress has decreased from 3.09MPa to 2.57MPa resulting in a decrease in crack width from 0.32mm to 0.29mm.



Level 1 300mm thick slab capacity is OK. Loads have not increased enough to exceed the 2MPa cracking limit. However a crack width of 0.15mm is expected.

Pile Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 1/04/2016

All piles are the same, use highest load (4A)

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-3.20 0.264 -4.32 0.396 0.113

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

27 275 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

0.900 0.060 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 2.8

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.03175 0.03175

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 6 6

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.063 0.0127 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -6 -4 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-1380.1 1.00 0.47 12.3 1.52 0.719 0.666 1.039 0.00 0.35 0.26 0.11

buckling load (MN) moment magnification factor neutral axis ratio axial capacity (MN) bending capacity (MNm) shear capacity of concrete (MN) shear capacity of steel MkN) shear capacity (MN) buckling utilisation (%/100) axial utilisation (%/100) bending utilisation (%/100) shear utilisation (%)

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0051 0.0509 0.2250

0.0095 0.0095 0.1892

na 0.0001

0.0630 0.0001

5.02 MPa

M/Z

3.69 MPa

OK OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

OK OK

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

cl 10.3.10.5.1 / cl 10.4.7.4.1 minimum volumetric ratio for confinement cl 10.3.10.5.1 / cl 10.4.7.4.1 minimum volumetric ratio for anti-buckling cl 10.3.10.5.2 / cl 10.4.7.4.5 maximum spiral spacing for confinement (m) cl 10.3.10.7.1 minimum spiral size based on flexural steel diameter (m)

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

Cracking Check P/A

Cracking Bell Diametre Bearing Pressure Bearing Capacity Capacity Ratio

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0025 0.3175 0.0050

0.0102 0.0102 0.0630 0.0127

OK 2.13 m 1213 kPa 6250 kPa 0.19

Ground Floor Beam Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 1/04/2016

4A-4B

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

0.054 0.290 0.080

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.435

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.152

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

1.200 0.760 0.140 0.075

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.075 1.125

no. 9 4

db (m) 0.03175 0.0254

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.450 0.010 2 0.002

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

275

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

0.19 -1 144 0.29 -4323.19 1.00 0.06 16.32 0.514 0.314 0.097 0.309 na 0.05 0.85 0.49

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm) buckling load (MN) moment magnification factor neutral axis ratio axial capacity (MN) bending capacity (MNm) shear capacity of concrete (MN) shear capacity of steel MkN) shear capacity (MN) buckling utilisation (%/100) axial utilisation (%/100) bending utilisation (%/100) shear utilisation (%) Cracking Check

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0073 0.0730 0.2533

0.0066 0.0066 0.4500

P/A

-0.06 MPa

Mx/Zx

2.51 MPa

NG OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK NG

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG NG

cl 10.3.10.6.1 / cl 10.4.7.5.1 minimum stirrup area for confinement cl 10.3.10.6.1 / cl 10.4.7.5.1 minimum stirrup area for ant-buckling cl 10.3.10.6.2 / cl 10.4.7.5.5 maximum stirrup spacing for confinement (m) cl 10.3.10.7.1 minimum stirrup size based on flexural steel diameter (m)

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0006

0.4500 0.0001

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

-0.0031 3.1E-04 0.253 0.01

0.0001 0.0001 0.450 0.0095

NOT OK

Level 2 Beam Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 1/04/2016

L1 300THK Slab

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-0.004 0.061 -0.005

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.086

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.059

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 0.5 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.305 1.000 0.140 0.040

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.05 0.255

no. 4.35 5

db (m) 0.023 0.02

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.020 0.000 0 0.000

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

275

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

0.40 -4 179 0.15 -114.06 1.00 0.14 5.57 0.097 0.157 0.000 0.118 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.50

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0024 0.0244 0.3333

0.0028 0.0028 0.0200

P/A

0.01 MPa

Mx/Zx

1.21 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK NG

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK NG

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0000

0.0200 0.0000

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0E+00 0.102 0.01

0.0000 0.0000 0.020 0

Column Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

Note: Columns are the same - use worst load

1/05/2016

C4A, B-G

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-1.679 0.031 -2.334

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

0.047

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

0.030

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

2.44 1.0 0.8 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.760 0.760 0.200 0.040

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.152 0.010 4 0.0006

dj (m) 0.068 0.278 0.488 0.698

no. 4 2 2 4

db (m) 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

410

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -3 -3 0.00 -213.96 1.01 0.30 11.64 1.329 0.508 0.358 0.650 0.01 0.20 0.04 0.05

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0046 0.0462 0.2533

0.0074 0.0074 0.1520

P/A

2.91 MPa

Mx/Zx

0.42 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK NG

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.1520 0.0003

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 3.7E-05 0.253 0.01

0.0003 0.0001 0.152 0.0095

1425kPa 110kPa

275MPa

410MPa

ECCENTRICITY

4.57m

Suggested section

18.2m

26'-0"

915mm

Full height RC wall 2.13m

"Beam2" in PLAXIS

8,100 mm

4,650 mm

GROUND BEAM LINE 4

GROUND BEAM DETAIL. TAKE THIS AS TYPICAL GROUND BEAM AS SOME ARE THIS SIZE.

ECCENTRICITY

63 Albert St

Aotea Station – Piled Building Analysis Summary (For Internal Review)

1.1

Assessment Criteria:

Ultimate Limit State The following standards were adopted to assess the existing design actions on the building and to determine the building member capacities:  

NZS1170 – Existing Loads NZS3101 – Member Capacities

Serviceability Limit State The following criteria was adopted to assess the serviceability limit for each concrete element:

1.2

Assessment Procedure:       

63 Albert St – AMI House

2.1

Drawings: -

Typical Building Section

Typical Building Plan

Pile Detail

Typical Column Detail

2.2

Typical Ground Beam/Slab Details

Typical Level 1 Beam Detail

Plaxis Model – Displaced Shape

2.3

SpaceGass Model

2.4

Outcome 

Φ1.05m Pile ULS capacity is OK – Bending 37% Utilised, Shear 43% Utilised. Pile is uncracked <1Mpa tension.



800x800 Column ULS capacity is OK. Column is uncracked <1Mpa tension.



700Dp x 400 Ground beam ULS capacity is OK. 0.25mm crack width < 0.3mm serviceability limit OK.



Ground Floor Slab ULS capacity is OK. 0.08mm crack width < 0.3mm serviceability limit OK.



900Dp x 300 Level 1 beam ULS capacity is OK. 0.17mm crack width < 0.3mm serviceability limit OK.

Pile Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 22/03/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-6.31 -0.445 -8.73 -0.668 0.183

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

25 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.050 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 3.3

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.032 0.032

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 7 7

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.200 0.016 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -7 -8 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-2354.7 1.00 0.61 16.2 2.53 0.902 0.384 0.964 0.00 0.54 -0.27 0.19

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0069 0.0693 0.2625

0.0113 0.0113 0.1876

na 0.0002

0.2000 0.0002

7.28 MPa

M/Z

-3.92 MPa

OK OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

Cracking Check P/A

Cracking Bell Diametre Bearing Pressure Bearing Capacity Capacity Ratio

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0035 0.3200 0.0050

0.0044 0.0044 0.2000 0.0160

OK 2.3 m 2100 kPa 2250 kPa 0.93

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

Note: C1 and C5 are similar. Use highest load

22/03/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-3.87 0.580 -5.17 0.869 0.352

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

25 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.050 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 3.3

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.032 0.032

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 7 7

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.200 0.016 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -5 -4 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-2354.7 1.00 0.46 16.2 2.38 0.701 0.384 0.813 0.00 0.32 0.37 0.43

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0069 0.0693 0.2625

0.0113 0.0113 0.1876

na 0.0002

0.2000 0.0002

4.47 MPa

M/Z

5.10 MPa

OK OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

Cracking Check P/A

Cracking Bell Diametre Bearing Pressure Bearing Capacity Capacity Ratio

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0035 0.3200 0.0050

0.0044 0.0044 0.2000 0.0160

OK 1.8 m 2032 kPa 2250 kPa 0.90

Basement Beam & Slab on Grade Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV Note: At C5 is the worst shear (negative bending again)

31/03/2016

C1 (C2 Side)

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

0.302 0.043 0.453

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.065

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.207

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.700 0.400 0.140 0.075

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.097 0.603

no. 4 4

db (m) 0.024 0.024

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.200 0.010 4 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

275

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

0.00 0 144 0.22 -493.82 1.00 0.11 4.96 0.145 0.027 0.260 0.216 na 0.54 0.45 0.96

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0022 0.0224 0.2000

0.0036 0.0036 0.2000

P/A

-1.08 MPa

Mx/Zx

2.33 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

NG OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

0.1508 0.0002

0.2000 0.0003

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

-0.0010 3.8E-05 0.133 0.01

0.0003 0.0001 0.200 0.01

NOT OK

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV Note: At C5 is the worst shear (negative bending again)

31/03/2016

C5 (C4 side)

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

0.000 0.180 0.000

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.269

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.249

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.700 0.400 0.140 0.075

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.097 0.603

no. 4 4

db (m) 0.024 0.024

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.200 0.010 4 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

300

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

300

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

0.31 -3 187 0.25 -493.82 1.00 0.15 5.03 0.266 0.122 0.284 0.305 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.82

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0022 0.0224 0.2000

0.0036 0.0036 0.2000

P/A

0.00 MPa

Mx/Zx

9.62 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

NG OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

0.1508 0.0001

0.2000 0.0003

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

-0.0007 3.8E-05 0.133 0.01

0.0003 0.0001 0.200 0.01

NOT OK

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV Note: At C5 is the worst shear (negative bending again)

31/03/2016

C5 (C4 side)

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

0.070 0.001 0.105

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.001

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.001

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.100 6.500 0.150 0.025

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.05

no. 42

db (m) 0.0053

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.200 0.010 4 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

485

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

300

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

0.34 -2 90 0.08 -12.56 1.00 0.06 10.29 0.014 0.105 0.024 0.096 na 0.27 0.07 0.01

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

Cracking Check Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0052 0.0520 2.1667

0.0009 0.0009 0.2000

P/A

-0.11 MPa

Mx/Zx

0.00 MPa

NG OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0000

0.2000 0.0003

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

-0.0001 2.8E-04 0.033 0.005

0.0003 0.0001 0.200 0.01

Level 2 Beam Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

Dv 7/04/2016

Worst tension. Section A, C2 on C1-C2 side.

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

0.067 0.009 0.101

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.013

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.108

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.700 0.350 0.140 0.040

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.064 0.614 0.638

no. 3 2 3

db (m) 0.028 0.024 0.024

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.250 0.010 3 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

275

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

0.00 0 29 0.03 -506.60 1.00 0.11 4.43 0.281 0.120 0.165 0.214 na 0.12 0.05 0.51

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0020 0.0196 0.2000

P/A 0.0036 0.0036 0.2500

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

Mx/Zx

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0002

0.2500 0.0002

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

-0.0011 4.8E-05 0.117 0.01

0.0002 0.0001 0.250 0.01

-0.27 MPa -0.31 MPa 28583333.3 OK

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 1/04/2016

Worst negative bending. Section B, C5 on C4 side.

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-0.016 0.262 -0.024

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.279

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.386

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.900 0.350 0.140 0.040

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.062 0.836

no. 3 3

db (m) 0.024 0.028

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.090 0.010 3 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

275

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

0.28 -2 182 0.17 -962.04 1.00 0.08 5.42 0.354 0.164 0.602 0.574 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.67

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0025 0.0252 0.2000

P/A 0.0032 0.0032 0.0900

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

Mx/Zx

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

0.2090 0.0001

0.0900 0.0002

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 1.7E-05 0.117 0.01

0.0002 0.0001 0.090 0.01

-0.05 MPa 5.55 MPa 47250000 NOT OK

Column Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC Note: C5 has higher loading

30/03/2016

C1, C5

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-3.82 0.052 -5.76

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

0.078

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

0.312

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

3.6 1.0 0.86 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.800 0.800 0.200 0.075

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.150 0.012 4 0.001

dj (m) 0.109 0.309 0.509 0.691

no. 4 2 2 4

db (m) 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -6 -6 0.00 -106.30 1.08 0.50 13.68 1.792 0.670 0.573 0.932 0.05 0.42 0.05 0.33

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0051 0.0512 0.2667

0.0074 0.0074 0.1500

P/A

5.96 MPa

Mx/Zx

0.61 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.1500 0.0005

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 3.4E-05 0.267 0.01

0.0005 0.0001 0.150 0.012

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC C4 is worst load

30/03/2016

C2, C3, C4

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-6.12 0.094 -8.50

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

0.141

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

0.065

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

3.6 1.0 0.83 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.800 0.800 0.200 0.075

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.150 0.012 4 0.001

dj (m) 0.109 0.309 0.509 0.691

no. 4 2 2 4

db (m) 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.028

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -10 -9 0.00 -108.04 1.12 0.68 13.68 1.818 0.821 0.573 1.046 0.08 0.62 0.09 0.06

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0051 0.0512 0.2667

0.0074 0.0074 0.1500

P/A

9.56 MPa

Mx/Zx

1.10 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.1500 0.0005

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 3.4E-05 0.267 0.01

0.0005 0.0001 0.150 0.012

TYPICAL SECTION THOUGH BUILDING

1,280 mm

DETAILS OF THIS RETAINING WALL ARE NOT AVAILABLE

0.8 m

0.6 m

C1, C2, C3, etc. coincide from PLAXIS

Building Damage Assessment Summary Sheet Project: Auckland City Rail Link Building ID: 8 Building Name: Retail and office building Address: 83 Albert Street

Description of structure Construction Type: RC frame/ reinforced masonry Storeys: 3 Height: Unknown Building use: Commercial

Structure drawings available: Yes

Description of foundations: Shallow founded RC concrete pad footings Foundation drawings available: Yes

Length

Height

Depth

19.7m

9.0 m

Conclusion: Damage Category: Very Slight

Building Details Poisson E / G ratio 0.3 2.6

Max. Settlement

26.1 mm

Max. Slope Max. Tensile Strain

1:498 0.074 %

BUILDING SETTLEMENT PROFILE Mechanical Settlement

Burland Chart

Combined Settlement (Mechanical and Consolidation)

Burland’s Chart

87-89 Albert St

Aotea Station – Piled Building Analysis Summary (For Internal Review)

1.1

Assessment Criteria:

Ultimate Limit State The following standards were adopted to assess the existing design actions on the building and to determine the building member capacities:  

NZS1170 – Existing Loads NZS3101 – Member Capacities

Serviceability Limit State The following criteria was adopted to assess the serviceability limit for each concrete element:

1.2

Assessment Procedure:       

87-89 Albert St – Albert Plaza

2.1

Drawings: -

Typical Building Section

Typical Building Plan

Pile Detail

Typical Column Detail

Typical Ground Beam/Slab Details

2.2

Typical Level 1 Beam Detail

Plaxis Model – Displaced Shape

2.3

SpaceGass Model

2.4

Outcome 

Φ1.0m Pile capacity is OK. Cracking stress limit is not exceeded.



750 x 750 Column capacity is OK. Shear capacity ratio has increased from 93% to 98%. Cracking stress limit is not exceeded.



500Dp x 500 Ground Beam shear load was critical, utilization was at 87% in the after case. With a Moment utilization of 49%, the resulting crack width was 0.12mm.



600Dp x 400 Level 1 Beam loads do not exceed capacity. Bending moment load has decreased from 57% of capacity to 54% of capacity resulting in a cracking stress reduction from 8MPa to 7.71MPa.

Pile Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 1/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-5.07 0.051 -7.61 0.076 0.008

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

30 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.000 0.060 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 3.1

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.02 0.02

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 6 6

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.250 0.012 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -7 -6 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-1540.3 1.01 0.53 15.4 2.01 0.638 0.170 0.606 0.00 0.49 0.04 0.01

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0063 0.0628 0.2500

0.0038 0.0038 0.2189

NG OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0003

0.2500 0.0001

Cracking Check P/A

6.46 MPa

M/Z

0.52 MPa

Cracking

Bell Diametre Bearing Pressure Bearing Capacity Capacity Ratio

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0019 0.2000 0.0050

0.0020 0.0020 0.2500 0.0120

1.7 m 3353 kPa 6250 kPa 0.54

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 1/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-4.29 0.428 -5.83 0.642 0.119

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

30 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.000 0.060 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 3.1

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.024 0.024

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 6 6

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.250 0.012 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -7 -4 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-1678.9 1.00 0.45 15.9 1.97 0.643 0.170 0.610 0.00 0.37 0.33 0.19

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0063 0.0628 0.2500

0.0054 0.0054 0.2178

NG OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0003

0.2500 0.0001

Cracking Check P/A

5.46 MPa

M/Z

4.36 MPa

Cracking

Bell Diametre Bearing Pressure Bearing Capacity Capacity Ratio

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0023 0.2400 0.0050

0.0020 0.0020 0.2500 0.0120

1.9 m 2056 kPa 6250 kPa 0.33

Ground Floor Beam Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 1/04/2016

C4-C3 midspan

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-0.061 0.064 -0.092

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.095

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.128

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.500 0.500 0.140 0.050

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.082 0.428

no. 3 3

db (m) 0.024 0.024

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.300 0.010 2 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

0.35 -2 102 0.12 -209.16 1.00 0.16 5.30 0.198 0.134 0.062 0.147 0.00 0.02 0.48 0.87

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0020 0.0200 0.2000

0.0027 0.0027 0.3000

P/A

0.24

Mx/Zx

3.05

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK NG

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0002

0.3000 0.0002

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 1.7E-04 0.167 0.01

0.0002 0.0001 0.300 0.01

NOT OK

Level 2 Beam Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 4/04/2016

L2,L3,L4 beams; worst negative combination at Beam2, at C2, C1 side.

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-0.028 0.188 -0.042

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

0.195

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

0.206

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

10.8 0.7 0.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.600 0.400 0.140 0.050

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.074 0.425 0.55

no. 4 2 2

db (m) 0.028 0.028 0.028

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.125 0.010 4 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

0.31 -4 202 0.26 -13.87 1.00 0.16 5.68 0.361 0.150 0.380 0.397 0.00 0.01 0.54 0.52

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

Cracking Check Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0019 0.0192 0.2000

0.0049 0.0049 0.1250

P/A

0.12 MPa

Mx/Zx

7.83 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.1250 0.0003

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 2.8E-05 0.133 0.01

0.0003 0.0001 0.125 0.01

NOT OK

Column Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 14/03/2016

C6, 1-2

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-4.099 0.337 -5.646

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

0.505

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

0.593

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

2.7 1.0 0.86 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.750 0.750 0.200 0.050

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.400 0.012 5 0.0009

dj (m) 0.072 0.223 0.374 0.525 0.676

no. 5 2 2 2 5

db (m) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -10 -5 0.00 -142.17 1.06 0.52 11.65 1.441 0.542 0.263 0.604 0.04 0.48 0.37 0.98

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0045 0.0450 0.2500

0.0050 0.0050 0.4000

P/A

9.28 MPa

Mx/Zx

4.79 MPa

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0004

0.4000 0.0006

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 1.9E-04 0.200 0.01

0.0006 0.0001 0.400 0.012

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 14/03/2016

C6, 2-3

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-3.538 0.152 -4.842

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.228

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.228

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

2.7 1.0 0.9 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.750 0.750 0.200 0.050

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.200 0.012 5 0.0003

dj (m) 0.072 0.223 0.374 0.525 0.676

no. 5 2 2 2 5

db (m) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -8 -5 0.00 -142.94 1.05 0.46 11.65 1.391 0.504 0.526 0.772 0.03 0.42 0.17 0.30

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0045 0.0450 0.2500

P/A 0.0050 0.0050 0.2000

Cracking Check 10.96 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

Mx/Zx

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0002

0.2000 0.0006

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 3.2E-05 0.200 0.01

0.0006 0.0001 0.200 0.012

0.07 MPa OK

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 14/03/2016

C5, 1-2

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-3.260 0.040 -4.625

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.060

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.039

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

2.7 1.0 0.8 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.700 0.500 0.200 0.040

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.066 0.634

no. 3 3

db (m) 0.028 0.028

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.300 0.012 2 0.0006

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

C -10 -9 0.00 -97.67 1.07 0.66 7.39 0.971 0.445 0.131 0.432 0.05 0.63 0.07 0.09

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0028 0.0280 0.2000

P/A 0.0037 0.0037 0.3000

Cracking Check 12.02 MPa

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

Mx/Zx

OK NG

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0003

0.3000 0.0002

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 6.8E-05 0.167 0.01

0.0002 0.0001 0.300 0.012

0.16 MPa OK

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 14/03/2016

C5, 2-3

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-2.989 0.040 -4.592

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.060

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.039

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

2.7 1.0 0.8 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.700 0.500 0.200 0.040

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.066 0.634

no. 3 3

db (m) 0.028 0.028

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.300 0.012 2 0.0006

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

C -9 -8 0.00 -98.21 1.07 0.65 7.39 0.974 0.443 0.131 0.431 0.05 0.62 0.07 0.09

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0028 0.0280 0.2000

P/A 0.0037 0.0037 0.3000

Cracking Check 11.93 MPa

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

Mx/Zx

OK NG

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0003

0.3000 0.0002

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 6.8E-05 0.167 0.01

0.0002 0.0001 0.300 0.012

0.16 MPa OK

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 14/03/2016

C4, 1-3

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-4.566 0.106 -6.930

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.160

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.008

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

2.7 1.0 0.7 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.750 0.750 0.200 0.050

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.300 0.012 7 0.0003

dj (m) 0.072 0.223 0.374 0.525 0.676

no. 5 2 2 2 5

db (m) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -9 -7 0.00 -151.97 1.06 0.62 11.65 1.474 0.604 0.491 0.821 0.05 0.59 0.12 0.01

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0045 0.0450 0.2500

P/A 0.0050 0.0050 0.3000

Cracking Check 15.69 MPa

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

Mx/Zx

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0003

0.3000 0.0008

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 4.8E-05 0.200 0.01

0.0008 0.0001 0.300 0.012

0.10 MPa OK

75% Load

5,628 mm

1,337 mm

Total available slab width is 5400/2 + 1337 = 4037mm

25% Load

SUGGESTED SECTION THROUGH BUILDING

Movement

2. 8 m

m m

COLUMN THROUGH HERE

9 sq m 36.3 sq m 46.7 sq m 4.2 sq m

Aotea Station – Piled Building Analysis Summary (For Internal Review)

1.1

Assessment Criteria:

Ultimate Limit State The following standards were adopted to assess the existing design actions on the building and to determine the building member capacities:  

NZS1170 – Existing Loads NZS3101 – Concrete Member Capacities

Serviceability Limit State The following criteria was adopted to assess the serviceability limit for each concrete element:

1.2

Assessment Procedure:       

Model typical building section in PLAXIS 2D (incl substructure and superstructure to 1-2 levels above ground) to estimate potential construction induced loads Undertake Load Takedown of building adopting NZS1170 or adopt existing drawing loads if provided Model existing loads on structure using SpaceGass Combine existing loads with potential loads from tunnel construction Calculate member capacities based on available building drawings and adopting NZS3101 Compare capacities with existing demands and combined potential demands Compare against Serviceability and Ultimate Limit State criteria as per above

99 Albert St – AA Building

2.1

Drawings -

Typical Building Section

Typical Building Plan

Pile Detail

Typical Column Detail

Typical Ground Beam/Slab Details

2.2

Typical Level 1 Beam Detail

Plaxis Model – Displaced Shape

2.3

SpaceGass Model

2.4

Outcome

Uncracked Station Piles

 Φ1.05m Pile ULS capacity is OK – Bending utilization 29%, Shear 30%. Axial utilization was

critical for the Φ1.05m Pile at 94%. Pile expected to remain uncracked without any tension in its extreme fibre.

 600x1200 column ULS capacity OK with Bending utilization at 35% and Shear at 9%. Worst axial load is on the 1200x1200 column with 58% utilization. Column expected to remain uncracked without any tension in its extreme fibre.

 100mm Thick Slab on Grade cracks to 0.19mm with an axial utilization of 60%. Furthermore, if the Elliot Towers construction modelling is removed, then the crack width will reduce.

 665Dp x 600 Level 2 beam as was the case in the majority of the beams analysed, the

gravity loads comprised most of the demand (about ¾). 84% Moment utilisation. 61% Shear utilisation. 0.16mm crack width.

K0 Sensitivity Nominal change in demands and crack widths.

 Ground Slab. Axial force reduced to 46% from 60%. Crack width reduced to 0.14mm from 0.19mm.

 Level 2 beam. Bending utilization reduced to 75% from 84%. Crack width decreased to 0.15mm. Shear 61% to 58%.

Cracked Station Piles Nominal change in demands and crack widths.

 Ground Slab. Axial force increased to 68% from 60%. Crack width increased to 0.21mm from 0.19mm – still within limits.

 Level 2 beam bending utilization went down to 87% from 84%. Crack width increased to 0.18mm. Shear 63% from 58%.

Pile Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 18/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-10.86 0.703 -15.31 1.054 0.346

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

28 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.200 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 3.8

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.028 0.028

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 8 8

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.300 0.016 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -11 -9 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-3649.3 1.01 0.69 22.0 3.62 1.218 0.299 1.138 0.00 0.70 0.29 0.30

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0090 0.0905 0.3000

0.0099 0.0099 0.1944

Cracking Check P/A

9.60 MPa

M/Z

4.14 MPa

OK OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0004

0.3000 0.0002

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0030 0.2800 0.0050

0.0025 0.0025 0.3000 0.0160

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 18/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-12.95 0.280 -18.43 0.420 0.158

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

28 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.200 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 3.8

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.028 0.028

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 12 12

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.320 0.02 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -12 -11 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-4216.2 1.01 0.76 23.3 3.71 1.710 0.437 1.610 0.00 0.79 0.11 0.10

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0090 0.0905 0.3000

0.0148 0.0148 0.1285

Cracking Check P/A

11.45 MPa

M/Z

1.65 MPa

OK OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0005

0.3200 0.0003

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0046 0.2800 0.0050

0.0037 0.0037 0.3200 0.0200

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 18/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-30.33 0.190 -42.91 0.285 0.120

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

28 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.800 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 5.7

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement

Ast = Asc =

no 9 9

db (m) 0.024 0.024

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.200 0.02 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -12 -12 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-14970.8 1.00 0.81 45.9 9.32 2.587 1.106 2.770 0.00 0.94 0.03 0.04

Include concrete creep

dbb (m)

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0204 0.2036 0.4500

0.0081 0.0081 0.2768

Cracking Check P/A

11.92 MPa

M/Z

0.33 MPa

NG OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0004

0.2000 0.0003

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0019 0.2400 0.0050

0.0038 0.0038 0.2000 0.0200

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 18/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-22.47 0.400 -32.37 0.600 0.225

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

28 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.800 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 5.7

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement

Ast = Asc =

no 9 9

db (m) 0.024 0.024

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.200 0.02 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -9 -8 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-14970.8 1.00 0.65 45.9 10.83 2.178 1.106 2.463 0.00 0.71 0.06 0.09

Include concrete creep

dbb (m)

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0204 0.2036 0.4500

0.0081 0.0081 0.2768

Cracking Check P/A

8.83 MPa

M/Z

0.70 MPa

NG OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0004

0.2000 0.0003

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0019 0.2400 0.0050

0.0038 0.0038 0.2000 0.0200

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 18/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-22.46 0.561 -32.34 0.842 0.300

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

28 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.800 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 5.7

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement

Ast = Asc =

no 9 9

db (m) 0.024 0.024

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.200 0.02 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -10 -8 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-14970.8 1.00 0.65 45.9 10.83 2.177 1.106 2.462 0.00 0.71 0.08 0.12

Include concrete creep

dbb (m)

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0204 0.2036 0.4500

0.0081 0.0081 0.2768

Cracking Check P/A

8.82 MPa

M/Z

0.98 MPa

NG OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0004

0.2000 0.0003

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0019 0.2400 0.0050

0.0038 0.0038 0.2000 0.0200

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC 18/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-12.53 0.318 -17.85 0.477 0.202

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

28 380 275

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

1.200 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 3.8

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.028 0.028

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 8 8

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.300 0.016 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -12 -10 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-3649.3 1.01 0.77 22.0 3.40 1.337 0.299 1.227 0.00 0.81 0.14 0.16

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0090 0.0905 0.3000

0.0099 0.0099 0.1944

Cracking Check P/A

11.08 MPa

M/Z

1.88 MPa

OK OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0004

0.3000 0.0002

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0030 0.2800 0.0050

0.0025 0.0025 0.3000 0.0160

GF Slab Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

NB 8/04/2016

Cracked Station Piles

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

1.085 0.000 1.627

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.000

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.000

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.100 4.800 0.140 0.040

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.04 0.08 0.08

no. 25 2 6

db (m) 0.012 0.024 0.028

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.250 0.006 4 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

T 0 146 0.21 -12.80 1.00 0.17 9.29 0.060 0.000 0.010 0.007 na 0.68 0.00 0.00

Include concrete creep

A P/A

0.59 1.83864407

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

Cracking Check Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0038 0.0384 1.6000

0.0074 0.0074 0.2500

P/A

-2.26

Mx/Zx

0.00

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG NG

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0000

0.2500 0.0001

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

-0.0001 2.9E-04 0.033 0.01

0.0001 0.0000 0.250 0.006

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

NRB 8/04/2016

Ko 1 (sensitivity)

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

0.731 0.000 1.097

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.000

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.000

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.100 4.800 0.200 0.040

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.04 0.08 0.08

no. 25 2 6

db (m) 0.012 0.024 0.028

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.250 0.006 1 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

T 0 98 0.14 -12.80 1.00 0.25 9.29 0.083 0.000 0.002 0.002 na 0.46 0.00 0.00

Include concrete creep

A P/A

0.59 1.23970169

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

na 0.04542867 0 0 Cracking Check

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0038 0.0384 1.6000

0.0074 0.0074 0.2500

P/A

-1.52

Mx/Zx

0.00

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK NG

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG NG

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0000

0.2500 0.0000

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 2.9E-04 0.033 0.01

0.0000 0.0000 0.250 0.006

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

NB 8/04/2016

Ko GER

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

0.960 0.000 1.440

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.000

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.000

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.100 4.800 0.200 0.040

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.04 0.08 0.08

no. 25 2 6

db (m) 0.012 0.024 0.028

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.250 0.006 4 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

T 0 129 0.19 -12.80 1.00 0.20 9.29 0.068 0.000 0.010 0.007 na 0.60 0.00 0.00

Include concrete creep

A P/A

0.59 1.62711864

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

na 0.1791781 0 0 Cracking Check

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0038 0.0384 1.6000

0.0074 0.0074 0.2500

P/A

-2.00

Mx/Zx

0.00

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG NG

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0000

0.2500 0.0001

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

-0.0001 2.9E-04 0.033 0.01

0.0001 0.0000 0.250 0.006

Level 2 Beam Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 8/04/2016

L2,L3,L4 beams

Cracked Pile

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-0.107 0.242 -0.161

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.400

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.221

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

9.6 0.7 0.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.665 0.600 0.140 0.035

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.300 0.012 4 0.002

dj (m) 0.063 0.347 0.601 0.632

no. 6 2 4 0

db (m) 0.032 0.016 0.028 0.0075

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

0.32 -3 158 0.15 -38.00 1.01 0.12 9.32 0.525 0.256 0.249 0.379 0.00 0.02 0.77 0.58

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

Cracking Check Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0032 0.0319 0.2000

0.0077 0.0077 0.3000

P/A

0.27 MPa

Mx/Zx

5.47 MPa

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0002

0.3000 0.0005

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 3.1E-04 0.160 0.01

0.0005 0.0001 0.300 0.012

NOT OK

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 4/04/2016

L2,L3,L4 beams

K0=1 sensitivity check

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-0.104 0.234 -0.156

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.389

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.218

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

9.6 0.7 0.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.665 0.600 0.140 0.035

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.300 0.012 4 0.002

dj (m) 0.063 0.347 0.601 0.632

no. 6 2 4 0

db (m) 0.032 0.016 0.028 0.0075

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

0.32 -3 153 0.15 -38.00 1.01 0.12 9.32 0.524 0.255 0.249 0.378 0.00 0.02 0.75 0.58

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

Cracking Check Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0032 0.0319 0.2000

0.0077 0.0077 0.3000

P/A

0.26 MPa

Mx/Zx

5.30 MPa

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0002

0.3000 0.0005

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 3.1E-04 0.160 0.01

0.0005 0.0001 0.300 0.012

NOT OK

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 4/04/2016

L2,L3,L4 beams

Uncracked Pile

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-0.124 0.268 -0.186

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.444

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.230

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

9.6 0.7 0.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.665 0.600 0.140 0.035

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.063 0.347 0.601 0.632

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.300 0.012 4 0.002

no. 6 2 4 0

db (m) 0.032 0.016 0.028 0.0075

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

0.32 -3 174 0.16 -38.00 1.01 0.12 9.32 0.530 0.257 0.249 0.380 0.00 0.02 0.84 0.61

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

0.00453933 0.01853138 -0.8538993 -1.0499362 Cracking Check

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0032 0.0319 0.2000

0.0077 0.0077 0.3000

P/A

0.31 MPa

Mx/Zx

6.05 MPa

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0002

0.3000 0.0005

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 3.1E-04 0.160 0.01

0.0005 0.0001 0.300 0.012

NOT OK

Column Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 4/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-5.154 -0.340 -6.756

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

-0.510

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

0.089

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

3.6 1.0 0.90 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.600 1.200 0.200 0.055

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.120 0.012 4 0.0005

dj (m) 0.079 0.234 0.384 0.539

no. 6 2 2 6

db (m) 0.024 0.028 0.028 0.024

dbb (m)

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

C -5 -9 0.00 -69.83 1.15 0.45 17.31 1.635 0.757 0.559 0.987 0.10 0.39 -0.36 0.09

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

Cracking Check Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0058 0.0576 0.4000

0.0072 0.0072 0.1200

P/A

7.16 MPa

Mx/Zx

-4.72 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.1200 0.0005

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 2.3E-05 0.200 0.01

0.0005 0.0001 0.120 0.012

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 4/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-6.164 0.463 -8.243

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

0.695

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

0.270

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

3.6 1.0 0.88 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

1.200 0.600 0.200 0.085

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.120 0.012 6 0.0005

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

dj (m) 0.109 0.309 0.509 0.709 0.909 1.109

no. 4 2 2 2 2 4

db (m) 0.028 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.028

dbb (m)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -11 -7 0.00 -305.55 1.04 0.52 17.97 3.616 0.768 1.725 1.870 0.03 0.46 0.20 0.14

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0058 0.0576 0.2000

0.0099 0.0099 0.1200

P/A

8.56 MPa

Mx/Zx

3.22 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0002

0.1200 0.0007

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 2.0E-05 0.200 0.01

0.0007 0.0001 0.120 0.012

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 4/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-14.656 -0.423 -19.402

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

-0.634

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

-0.061

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

3.6 1.0 0.88 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

1.200 1.200 0.200 0.085

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.350 0.012 4 0.0009

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

dj (m) 0.109 0.209 0.409 0.609 0.809 1.009 1.109

no. 7 2 2 2 2 2 7

db (m) 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024

dbb (m)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -9 -11 0.00 -529.22 1.05 0.60 33.70 6.693 1.538 0.394 1.449 0.04 0.58 -0.10 -0.04

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0115 0.1152 0.4000

P/A 0.0109 0.0109 0.3500

Cracking Check 10.18 MPa

NG OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

Mx/Zx

OK NG

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0006

0.3500 0.0005

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 1.4E-04 0.240 0.01

0.0005 0.0001 0.350 0.012

-1.47 MPa OK

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 4/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-10.634 -0.673 -14.609

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

-1.010

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

-0.078

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

3.6 1.0 0.85 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

1.200 1.000 0.200 0.085

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.350 0.012 4 0.0005

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

dj (m) 0.1 0.25 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.95 1.1

no. 5 2 3 4 3 2 5

db (m) 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024

dbb (m)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -6 -11 0.00 -434.96 1.05 0.55 28.54 5.397 1.233 0.391 1.218 0.03 0.51 -0.20 -0.06

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0096 0.0960 0.3333

0.0109 0.0109 0.3500

P/A

8.86 MPa

Mx/Zx

-2.81 MPa

OK OK NG

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK NG

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0006

0.3500 0.0005

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 6.8E-05 0.240 0.01

0.0005 0.0001 0.350 0.012

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 4/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

-5.997 -0.298 -8.047

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

Mu* =

-0.447

ULS bending moment (MNm)

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

Vu* =

-0.111

ULS shear force (MN)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Design loads

3.6 1.0 0.87 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

1.200 0.600 0.200 0.055

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.110 0.010 7 0.0005

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

dj (m) 0.077 0.277 0.477 0.677 0.832 0.982 1.137

no. 4 2 2 7 2 2 7

db (m) 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.024

dbb (m)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

C -7 -10 0.00 -322.70 1.03 0.54 18.45 3.853 0.984 1.563 1.910 0.02 0.44 -0.12 -0.06

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0058 0.0576 0.2000

0.0118 0.0118 0.1100

P/A

8.33 MPa

Mx/Zx

-2.07 MPa

OK OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0002

0.1100 0.0005

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 2.1E-05 0.200 0.01

0.0005 0.0001 0.110 0.01

109-125 Albert St

Aotea Station – Piled Building Analysis Summary (For Internal Review)

1.1

Assessment Criteria:

Ultimate Limit State The following standards were adopted to assess the existing design actions on the building and to determine the building member capacities:  

NZS1170 – Existing Loads NZS3101 – Member Capacities

Serviceability Limit State The following criteria was adopted to assess the serviceability limit for each concrete element:

1.2

Assessment Procedure:       

109-125 Albert St – SkyCity Hotel

2.1

Drawings: -

Typical Building Plan

Pile Detail

Pile Cap Detail

Typical Column Detail

Typical Ground Beam/Slab Details

Typical Level 1 Beam Detail

Axial load was very low (effectively zero from PLAXIS output) and was not worth calculating the capacity. Displacement would be fine also as a lack of force in a pin ended element implied a lack of stretching or compressing.

2.2

Plaxis Model – Displaced Shape

2.3

Outcome 

Φ0.8m Pile capacity is OK. Cracking stress limit is not exceeded.



Φ0.8m Column capacity is OK. Cracking stress limit is not exceeded.



150mm Thick Slab capacity is OK. The slab is in combined bending and tension under the new loading. As a result the slab will be cracked.



Level 3 Slab is pin ended and doesn’t attract any load, as the columns move in unison

Pile Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

AC P1

14/03/2016

P5, N5

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-2.09 0.148 -2.83 0.222 0.083

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 0.9 1.0

30 500 500

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

0.800 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 2.5

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.02 0.02

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 4 4

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.250 0.012 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -5 -3 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-658.4 1.01 0.42 10.1 0.87 0.292 0.227 0.389 0.00 0.28 0.26 0.21

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0040 0.0402 0.2000

0.0025 0.0025 0.2380

Cracking Check P/A

4.15 MPa

M/Z

2.94 MPa

NG OK NG

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.2500 0.0001

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0013 0.2000 0.0050

0.0027 0.0027 0.2500 0.0120

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

14/03/2016

M5,L5

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-3.42 0.030 -4.82 0.044 0.009

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 0.8 1.0

30 500 500

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

0.800 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 2.5

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.02 0.02

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 4 4

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.250 0.012 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -7 -7 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-673.2 1.01 0.56 10.1 1.03 0.366 0.227 0.445 0.01 0.48 0.04 0.02

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0040 0.0402 0.2000

0.0025 0.0025 0.2380

Cracking Check P/A

6.80 MPa

M/Z

0.59 MPa

NG OK NG

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK NG OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.2500 0.0001

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0013 0.2000 0.0050

0.0027 0.0027 0.2500 0.0120

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

14/03/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-0.05 0.034 -0.08 0.052 0.020

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 0.8 1.0

30 500 500

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

0.800 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 2.5

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.032 0.032

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 4 4

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.250 0.012 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

0.60 0 22 0.03

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-856.2 1.00 0.28 11.5 0.77 0.299 0.227 0.394 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.05

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0040 0.0402 0.2000

0.0064 0.0064 0.2333

Cracking Check P/A

0.10 MPa

M/Z

0.68 MPa

OK OK NG

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.2500 0.0001

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0020 0.3200 0.0050

0.0027 0.0027 0.2500 0.0120

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

14/03/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-4.83 0.068 -6.95 0.102 0.030

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 0.8 1.0

30 500 500

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

0.800 0.075 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 2.5

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.032 0.032

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 4 4

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.250 0.012 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -10 -9 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-856.2 1.01 0.70 11.5 1.23 0.701 0.227 0.696 0.01 0.61 0.08 0.04

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0040 0.0402 0.2000

0.0064 0.0064 0.2333

Cracking Check P/A

9.60 MPa

M/Z

1.35 MPa

OK OK NG

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK NG

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.2500 0.0001

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0020 0.3200 0.0050

0.0027 0.0027 0.2500 0.0120

GF Slab Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 4/04/2016

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

Ns* = Ms* = Nu* =

0.149 0.000 0.224

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN)

Creep parameters

Mu* =

0.000

ULS bending moment (MNm)

Vu* =

0.000

ULS shear force (MN)

Design loads

1 1.0 1.0 1.0

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

k4 =

0.5

environmental factor

tfinal =

100

design life (years)

tload = pe =

0.01 1

time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Section geometry Longitudinal reinforcement D= B= s= cover =

0.150 10.000 0.150 0.050

beam depth (m) beam width (m) maximum bar spacing (m) cover to reinforcement (m)

dj (m) 0.06 0.7

no. 33 33

db (m) 0.012 0.012

dbb (m)

Transverse reinforcement sv = dv = no_lig = Ab_tie =

0.250 0.006 4 0.001

spacing of transverse steel (m) stirrup diameter (m2) number of ligatures max bar area reliant on single tie (m2)

Material properties fc =

characteristic concrete strength (MPa)

fsy =

380

longitudinal steel yield strength (MPa)

fsyt =

275

tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Include concrete creep

A P/A

0.59 0.25322034

Section capacity ks = σc = σs = wk = N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

T 0 20 0.04 -1350.47 1.00 0.02 24.96 0.830 0.295 0.087 0.287 na 0.09 0.00 0.00

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0120 0.1200 3.3333

0.0075 0.0075 0.2500

P/A

-8.45

Mx/Zx

0.00

NG OK OK

minimum flexural steel area (m2) maximum flexural steel area (m2) maximum spacing of longitudinal bars (m)

OK OK

maximum spacing of transverse bars for shear (m) minimum stirrup area for shear (m2)

OK NG NG OK

Cracking

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0000

0.2500 0.0001

Detailing transverse bars for confinement Ash = Ate = sc_max = dv_min =

-0.0001 2.9E-04 0.050 0.005

0.0001 0.0000 0.250 0.006

NOT OK

Column Calculations

Project: Ref no: By: Date: Notes:

DV 22/03/2016

Level 1 N5 - CC2

Strength reduction factors φb = φv =

Moment magnification

0.85 0.75

bending strength reduction factor shear strength reduction factor

L_u = k= Bd = Cm =

-6.480 0.000 -8.805 0.000 0.000

SLS axial force (MN) SLS bending moment (MNm) ULS axial force (MN) ULS bending moment (MNm) ULS shear force (MN)

Material properties

Design Loads Ns* = Ms* = Nu* = Mu* = Vu* =

Section geometry D= cover = ds = t_case =

fc = fsy = fsyt =

1 1.0 0.8 1.0

30 380 380

unsupported length of beam (m) effective length factor dead load ratio moment distribution factor

concrete strength (MPa) steel yield strength (MPa) tranverse steel yield strength (MPa)

Creep parameters

0.900 0.040 0.000 0.000

pile diameter (m) cover to reinforcement (m) diameter of side bars (m) steel casing thickness (m)

k4 = tfinal = tload = pe =

0.65 100 0.01 2.8

environmental factor (AS3600 eq 3.1.7.2) design life (years) time to load initiation (years) exposed perimeter (m)

Reinforcement db (m) 0.016 0.016

Include concrete creep

Ast = Asc =

no 8 8

dbb (m)

sv = dv = no_lig =

0.125 0.016 1

pitch of spiral (m) diameter of spiral (m) number of ligatures

ks = σc = σs = wk =

C -10 -10 0.00

neutral axis ratio concrete stress (MPa) steel stress (MPa) crack width to EC2 (mm)

N_b = delta = ku = φNn = φMn = Vc = Vs = φVn = Ub = Un = Um = Uv =

-1138.0 1.01 0.67 12.5 1.51 0.603 0.772 1.031 0.01 0.70 0.00 0.00

Exclude side bars

Section capacity

Detailing longitudinal bars Ast_min = Ast_max = sb_max =

0.0051 0.0509 0.2250

0.0032 0.0032 0.1516

Cracking Check P/A

10.19 MPa

M/Z

0.00 MPa

NG OK OK

cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 minimum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.1 / cl 10.4.6.2 maximum longitudinal steel area (m2) cl 10.3.8.3 / cl 10.4.6.3 maximum longitudinal bar spacing (m)

Cracking

OK OK

cl 10.3.10.4.3 maximum spacing of spiral for shear (m) cl 10.3.10.4.4 / cl 10.4.7.2.7 minimum spiral area for shear (m2)

OK OK OK OK

Detailing transverse bars for shear sv_max = Av_min =

na 0.0001

0.1250 0.0002

Detailing transverse bars for confinement psc = psb = sc_max = dv_min =

0.0000 0.0016 0.1600 0.0050

0.0078 0.0078 0.1250 0.0160

SUGGESTED SECTION

1,400 mm

1. failure plane through slab between interface with pile cap

1,900 mm

Slab edge

1. Slab Check (H12-150)

Length shear = 2800mm As = 113*2800/150=2110mm2 Length Tension = 1900mm As= 113*1900/150=1430mm2Capacity= 0.75*1.4*1*2110*500MPa+0.85*1430*500MPa = 1715.5kN2. Pile Cap Shear Length = 1900mmx4 =7600mm Capacity = 0.75*1.4*1*201mm2*7600mm/150mm*500MPa = 5345kN Slab governs. 150 slab with H12-150 EW

N*=13.6kN/m*10m*1.5 = 204kN ok (from Plaxis) 1. failure plane through slab between interface with pile cap

2. failure plane through pile cap

H16-150 EW

Stress: P/A = 136kN/150mm*(2800mm+1900mm) = 0.2MPa M/Z = 4e6Nmm/(150^2*1000mm/6) = 1.07Mpa Stress=1.27Mpa ok

8.1 m

3.3 m

3.0 m

3.6 m

3.1 m

Distance between M and N is 8,000mm

Appendix G Infrastructure Assessment Memorandum

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

Aurecon New Zealand Limited Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road Newmarket Auckland 1023 PO Box 9762 Newmarket Auckland 1149 New Zealand

T +64 9 520 6019 F +64 9 524 7815 E auckland@aurecongroup.com W aurecongroup.com

Memorandum To

Roque Alea

From

Andrew Reeves

Copy

Bill Newns, Darryl Wong, Damien McGahan

Reference

CRL-KTN-STR-000-MEM0008

Date

26 August 2015

Pages (including

Subject

CMJ Structural Assessment - Update

this page)

This is an update to the memorandum 228072-AC-MEM-034 Revision 1 dated 8 November 2013 to consider the latest alignment (DR8C) in relation to the existing structures of the Central Motorway Junction (CMJ). Refer to the original memo for a description of the structures affected. The revised alignment has been updated in the 3D model of the area and the vertical and horizontal offsets to existing structures re-assessed. The calculations of the predicted effects of the construction of the CRL bored tunnel on those structures has been revisited and the results reported below. In all locations the CRL tunnel passes at greater depth beneath the structures, and this reduces the effects of construction on those structures in terms of forces induced. In terms of settlement, however, whilst the effects are reduced compared to the previous alignment the difference is small and, as the settlement amounts are small anyway, the physical difference is negligible.

Newton Bridge No 1 The revised DR8C alignment of the down main places it approximately 750mm lower, and approximately 500mm closer to the three piles of the bridge abutment. Consequently, clearance to the first bridge pier has increased along with clearance to the designation which is now over 1.0m. (2074)

(1170)

450 load spread from pile base

(37.016)

Fig 2 – Newton Bridge No1 minimum clearance to abutment pile (new values in red parenthesis – drawing not updated) Note TBM drive tolerance is 100mm

Project CRL-KTN-STR-000-MEM-0008 File 228072-AC-MEM-034 Rev A Addendum.docx 26 August 2015 Revision 0 Page 1

(5422)

(1023)

450 load spread from pile base

(36.457)

Fig 3 – Newton Bridge No1 minimum clearance to pier pile (new values in red parenthesis – drawing not updated) Note TBM drive tolerance is 100mm

The induced load effects on the structures piles are reduced by 10-15% compared to the previous alignment. The settlement effects are also improved, but the reduction in settlement is less than one millimetre so the initial assessment remains valid.

Upper Queen Street Retaining Wall Further geophysical investigation work has been undertaken since the initial assessment in order to determine the length of the non-belled retaining wall piles that the TBM will pass directly under as it constructs the up main tunnel. This has given a level of confidence in the physical separation of the piles and the tunnel roof, which will measure 5.5m for the DR8C alignment. This is greater than the previously estimated clearance of 4.5m. Horizontally the alignment has moved approximately 1m towards the larger belled piles, but remains outside the zone of influence of the first belled pile that supports the bridge abutment.

Project CRL-KTN-STR-000-MEM-0008 File 228072-AC-MEM-034 Rev A Addendum.docx 26 August 2015 Revision 0 Page 2

(5.5m)

First bridge pile

450 load spread from pile base

(2.1m)

Fig 3 – Upper Queen Street Retaining Wall minimum clearance to piles (new values in red parenthesis – refer DW-DR-CS-0390 for revised layout) Note: section taken through tunnel at an angle, hence oval shape

The net effect of the change in alignment is a reduction in induced pile load effects of approximately 15%. Settlements will be reduced by 10-15% compared to the original assessment, which equates to less than the level of survey accuracy.

Revised drawing are attached for information. enc:

CRL-KTN-CIV-000-DRG-0001-0.1 CMJ Survey NIMT Down Main Long Section CRL-KTN-CIV-000-DRG-0002-0.1 CMJ Survey NIMT Up Main Long Section CRL-KTN-CIV-000-DRG-0005-0.1 CMJ Survey Section at Upper Queen Street Retaining Wall Pile Line CRL-SYW-ALI-000-SKE-0144-0.2 DR8C / CMJ Retaining Wall Pile Centres Plan and Section

Project CRL-KTN-STR-000-MEM-0008 File 228072-AC-MEM-034 Rev A Addendum.docx 26 August 2015 Revision 0 Page 3

RT HB OU N

NOTES 1. DESIGN SHOWN IS BASED ON ALIGNMENT DR8 OPTION 81. 2. DO NOT SCALE FROM THE DRAWING.

RETAINING WALL PILES

PO RT

TO S

H16

SH 1

RT HB

UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL

PO RT

REFER DRAWING CRL-KTN-CIV-000-DRG-0002 FOR UP MAIN DETAILS

ABUTMENT

E DRI V

H1 6

NNO N

OS 1T

MCK I

E QU EN ST

IA N

SH1 TO

NEWTON BRIDGE No.1

NIMT UP MAIN ALIGNMENT MC30

P UP

POR T

SH 16 T

SOIL NAIL RETAINING WALL

NIMT DOWN MAIN ALIGNMENT MC20

EXTENT OF DRIVEN TUNNEL

PLAN

TH B

1:250

UPPER QUEEN ST

IAN MCKINNON DRIVE UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL

NEWTON BRIDGE No.1 EXISTING SURFACE PROFILE SH1 NORTHBOUND

SOIL NAIL RETAINING WALL

pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-KTN-CIV-000-DRG-0001.dwg

PORT TO SH1 NORTHBOUND

SH1 TO SH16

PORT TO SH16 NORTHBOUND

SH1 TO PORT TOP OF TUNNEL

DECLINATION NIMT DOWN MAIN ALIGNMENT MC20

12/08/2015 9:25:53 a.m.

Auckland

BOTTOM OF TUNNEL

CLIENT 10

REV DATE 0.1

REVISION DETAILS FOR INFORMATION

APPROVED

40m

SCALE

SIZE

AS SHOWN

DRAWN

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

CMJ SURVEY NIMT DOWN MAIN LONG SECTION

APPROVED

B.HOURIGAN

SCALE 1:1000

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION .

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

A.REEVES CHECKED

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

DOCUMENT 500

600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

KTN

CIV

000

DRG

0001

0.1

700

800

SH 1

NO RT

HB OU

OS H16 NO RTH BO UN D

RT T

NIMT UP MAIN ALIGNMENT MC30

PO RT T

RT HB

OU ND

NOTES 1. DESIGN SHOWN IS BASED ON ALIGNMENT DR8 OPTION 81. 2. DO NOT SCALE FROM THE DRAWING.

UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL P UP

SOIL NAIL RETAINING WALL

TO P

SH 16

O RT

TO P

SH 1

SO UT

HB OU

EE QU

RETAINING WALL PILES

S H1

H1 6

EXTENT OF DRIVEN TUNNEL

IAN M CKIN NON D

SH 1T

RIVE

ABUTMENT

NEWTON BRIDGE No.1

REFER DRAWING CRL-KTN-CIV-000-DRG-0001 FOR DOWN MAIN DETAILS

PLAN 1:250

IAN MCKINNON DRIVE UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL

EXISTING SURFACE PROFILE

pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-KTN-CIV-000-DRG-0002.dwg

SOIL NAIL RETAINING WALL

PORT TO SH1 NORTHBOUND

SH1 NORTHBOUND

SH1 TO SH16

PORT TO SH16 NORTHBOUND

SH1 TO PORT DECLINATION TOP OF TUNNEL

12/08/2015 1:26:15 p.m.

Auckland

BOTTOM OF TUNNEL

CLIENT

REV DATE 0.1

REVISION DETAILS FOR INFORMATION

APPROVED

SCALE

SIZE

AS SHOWN

DRAWN 2.5

DESIGNED

SCALE 1:250

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

DATE

CMJ SURVEY NIMT UP MAIN LONG SECTION

TITLE

A.REEVES CHECKED

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

APPROVED

B.HOURIGAN

10m

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

200

300

400

DOCUMENT 500

600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

KTN

CIV

000

DRG

0002

0.1

700

800

pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-KTN-CIV-000-DRG-0005.dwg

UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL

5.5mm

4.4

RETAINING WALL PILES

DRIVEN TUNNEL CRL UP MAIN ALIGNMENT

2.1mm

SECTION

A CRL-KTN-CIV-000-DRG-0002

12/08/2015 11:21:32 a.m.

Auckland

1:100

CLIENT 10

REV DATE 0.1

REVISION DETAILS FOR INFORMATION

APPROVED

40m

SCALE

SIZE

AS SHOWN

DRAWN

DESIGNED

DATE

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

CMJ SURVEY SECTION AT UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL PILE LINE

APPROVED

B.HOURIGAN

SCALE 1:1000

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

TITLE

A.REEVES CHECKED

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

DOCUMENT 500

600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

KTN

CIV

000

DRG

0005

0.1

700

800

LEGEND DR8C ALIGNMENT TUNNEL

EXISTING SURFACE (APPROX) I GN AL NT ME 6C DR 30 MC

28160

28150

28140

TUNNEL OUTER WALL

NIMT METRAGE

28130

28160

BELLED PILE

BH 326

28150

BH 312

28140

28130

BH 313

NON-BELLED PILES

6' DIA BELL

pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-ALI-000-SKE-0144.dwg

DEPTH OF PILES UNKNOWN

RL @ CROWN =42.612m CRL METRAGE

11/08/2015 12:02:30 p.m.

Auckland

CRL UP MC30

SCALE 1:100 @ A1, 1:200 @A3

CLIENT

REV DATE 0.1 0.2

REVISION DETAILS PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT UPDATE DR8C

APPROVED

SCALE

SIZE

1:100 @ A1 ,1:200 @ A3

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

DR8C / CMJ RETAINING WALL PILE CENTRES PLAN AND SECTION

APPROVED

B.HOURIGAN

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

P.KIRK CHECKED

DOCUMENT

M.PINKERTON 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

ALI

000

SKE

0144

0.2

700

800

Aurecon NZ Limited Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road PO Box 9762 Auckland 1149 New Zealand

T +64 9 520 6019 F +64 9 524 7815 W aurecongroup.com

Memorandum To

Bill Newns

From

Andrew Reeves

Copy

Steve Hawkins, Claire Booth-Jones, Darryl Wong, Malcolm Gibson

Reference

228072-AC-MEM-034

Date

8 November 2013

Pages (including

Subject

CMJ Structural Assessment

this page)

Introduction The proposed CRL alignment passes under the Central Motorway Junction (CMJ) in the vicinity of Upper Queen Street. There are a number of existing structures in this location, and this memo sets out the spatial relationships between the proposed tunnel bores and the existing structural foundations. The main structures of concern are shown numbered on Figure 1 below and are: 1. Newton Bridge No 1 (carrying SH1 northbound) 2. Soil Nail Retaining wall under Newton Bridge No 1 3. Upper Queen Street Retaining Wall

Fig 1 – Plan of affected structures

Project 228072-AC-MEM-034 File 228072-AC-MEM-034[1].docx 8 November 2013 Revision 1 Page 1

1. Newton Bridge No 1 Newton Bridge No 1 is a viaduct structure carrying the northbound SH1 over SH16, the first span of which straddles the CRL Down main. The CRL alignment has been designed to pass between the abutment and first pier (ref Abut O and Pier N on original drawings enclosed) of the viaduct structure and is at the outer limit of the designation to achieve that (see Fig 2). As-Built drawings of the existing structure have not been located, and the analysis has relied on construction issue drawings. The laser survey of the area that has been undertaken as part of the project shows a good level of agreement with the details indicated on the drawings, providing a degree of confidence. The length of the piles, however, remains an assumption based on the anticipated depths indicated on the construction drawings. The minimum horizontal clearance between the tunnel and the closest of the three abutment piles is just over 2.5m. The pile toe level is below the crown of the tunnel, and a 45 degree load spread from the pile toe intercepts the lower portion of the tunnel.

450 load spread from pile base

Fig 2 – Newton Bridge No1 minimum clearance to abutment pile Note Although close to designation, the TBM drive tolerance is 100mm

The first span of the structure is 80ft (24.4m), and as a result of the skew angle between the structures the horizontal clearance to the single pier pile is 5.7m (see Fig 3). A preliminary assessment of the interaction between the proposed and existing structures - the effect of the tunnel bore on the bridge piles, and of the bridge pile loads on the tunnel structure – has been undertaken using Nagen Loganathan’s paper “An Innovative Method for Assessing Tunnelling-Induced Risks to Adjacent Structures”. This indicates that abutment pile end bearing pressures would increase by approximately 1MPa (assuming induced axial loads are resisted purely by end bearing rather than skin friction, or a combination of the two), and less than typical allowable bearing pressures in confined East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF). Settlements will be approximately 6mm at the abutment and 5mm at the first pier. This represents a differential settlement of 1mm over the 24.4m span, and 5mm over the adjacent 30.5m span which is considered acceptable for the existing continuous structure, although some minor surfacing works may be required locally to the abutment.

Project 228072-AC-MEM-034 File 228072-AC-MEM-034[1].docx 8 November 2013 Revision 1 Page 2

450 load spread from pile base

Fig 3 – Newton Bridge No1 minimum clearance to pier pile Note Although close to designation, the TBM drive tolerance is 100mm

2. Soil Nail Retaining Wall under Newton Bridge No 1 Newton Bridge No 1 abutment retaining wall was installed as part of the CMJ project carried out approximately 10 years ago. The wall provides the separation to the SH16 westbound which passes under the second span of Newton Bridge No 1. As-Built drawings have been sourced which show the wall to be a soil nailed structure with precast concrete facing panels. The soil nails, which are at or above the level of SH16 and 11m long, are driven at 5 degrees to the horizontal and are therefore at shallow depth and does not affect the proposed tunnels.

3. Upper Queen Street Retaining Wall As with the Newton Bridge No1, As-Built drawings of the existing structure have not been located, and the analysis has relied on construction issue drawings. The laser survey of the area that has been undertaken as part of the project shows a good level of agreement with the details indicated on the drawings, providing a degree of confidence. The length of the piles, however, remains an assumption based on the anticipated depths indicated on the construction drawings. The CRL Up main passes under the Upper Queen Street Retaining Wall which forms part of the Central Motorway Junction. The tunnel will be approximately 4.6m below the base of the wall’s nonbelled piles (see Fig 3 below), and approximately 3.3m laterally from the first belled pile. The wall is constructed with precast concrete counterfort walls at 10ft (3m) spacing, with each counterfort having a 3ft (915mm) diameter pile at its base level, towards the rear. Material is retained by precast concrete panels between the counterfort walls. The Upper Queen Street Bridge is supported directly by counterfort walls and, due to the segmental nature of the wall construction, load will pass directly

Project 228072-AC-MEM-034 File 228072-AC-MEM-034[1].docx 8 November 2013 Revision 1 Page 3

down these walls to their respective piles. The closest pile with bridge loading is approx. 9m from the tunnel wall, and a 45 degree load spread through the ECBF rock passes below the tunnel.

First bridge pile

450 load spread from pile base

Fig 3 – Upper Queen Street Retaining Wall minimum clearance to piles (Note: section taken through tunnel at an angle, hence oval shape)

Analysis has been undertaken to determine the loading in the piles. The analysis is approximate as As-Built records of the wall were not located. Altering the assumption of how the pile is connected to the wall leads to the piles acting either in tension (pinned connection) or compression (moment connection), and further work is recommended to resolve this. As the piles are buried by up to 12m of fill it is not possible to easily inspect them to confirm assumptions. Both tension and compression scenarios were analysed and pile loads derived. When considering interaction between the tunnel and the piles the compression case is considered critical. The effect of the tunnel on the piles has been estimated using Nagen Loganathan’s paper “An Innovative Method for Assessing Tunnelling-Induced Risks to Adjacent Structures” 2011. This indicates that effects on axial loads peak approx. 10m from the tunnel centreline which in this case is the second belled pile. Settlements on the other hand are highest immediately over the tunnel. Estimates of the working load plus induced axial load in the piles indicate that the base pressures are comfortably within typical allowable bearing pressures in confined ECBF. Settlement of the first belled pile due to tunnelling will be approx. 10mm. Larger settlements will be expected for the non-belled piles over the tunnel, in the order of 15-20mm. Given the nature of the wall construction it would be expected to accommodate this amount of settlement (approx. 5mm max differential over a panel width) without structural distress. The retained highway is set back from the top of the wall so any settlement issues are unlikely to affect the carriageway, although monitoring is recommended. The bridge abutment piles are largely unaffected. The conclusion is that the tunnel will cause settlement and increased pile loads on the wall, but that these effects will be accommodated by the wall without structural distress. This assessment is considered to be approximate and further work is recommended to accurately predict the effects of the

Project 228072-AC-MEM-034 File 228072-AC-MEM-034[1].docx 8 November 2013 Revision 1 Page 4

tunnel on this retaining wall and to prove the length of the as constructed piles. Monitoring during construction is also recommended. The following long sections taken along each proposed alignment (Up and Down mains) show the relationship between the tunnels and the existing structures and their foundations as they are currently understood. These are included in more detail on the attached drawings.

Fig 4 – Long Section Up Main Chainage 2120-2240

Fig 5 – Fig 4 – Long Section Down Main Chainage 2160-2280

enc

DW-DR-CS-0337 Rev A CMJ Survey CRL Down Main Long Section DW-DR-CS-0379 Rev A CMJ Survey CRL Up Main Long Section DW-DR-CS-0380 Rev A CMJ Survey Section at Upper Queen Street Retaining Wall Pile Line Drawings of existing structures (6No) MOW 15613 (ADO 34297) Sheet 1, MOW 16189 (ADO 33842) Dwg 126S875 Dwg 1735-C-3 Sheet 2, 1735-C-11 Sheet 6, 1735-C-15 Sheet 10 (all ADO 33756

Project 228072-AC-MEM-034 File 228072-AC-MEM-034[1].docx 8 November 2013 Revision 1 Page 5

NO RT HB OU ND

UN D

RETAINING WALL PILES

PO RT T

OS H16

H1 NO RT HB O PO RT TO S

KEY PLAN UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL

NOTES 1. DESIGN SHOWN IS BASED ON ALIGNMENT DR3. 2. DO NOT SCALE FROM THE DRAWING.

REFER DRAWING 228072-SK-DR-CS-0379 FOR UP MAIN DETAILS

ABUTMENT

RIV E ND

H1 6

MCK INN O

OS 1T

CRL DOWN MAIN ALIGNMENT MC20

EXTENT OF DRIVEN TUNNEL

PLAN 1:250

UPPER QUEEN ST IAN MCKINNON DRIVE

UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL

NEWTON BRIDGE No.1 EXISTING SURFACE PROFILE SOIL NAIL RETAINING WALL

SH1 NORTHBOUND SH1 TO SH16

TOP OF TUNNEL

PORT TO SH1 NORTHBOUND

PORT TO SH16 NORTHBOUND

SH1 TO PORT DECLINATION

Cad File: Z:\CADD\PHASE 3\DRGS\TP7 DR\CS\228072-SK-DR-CS-0337.dwg

Plot Date: 11/8/2013 3:08:44 PM

Name: Brin Hingston

Xrefs: 228072-XR-C-DR-BNDY, 228072-XR-C-DR-STNM, 228072-XR-G-A1HS, 228072-XR-C-Aerial_Photo, 228072-XR-C-DR-STRC, 228072-XR-C-DR-TOPO, 228072-XR-C-DR-Legend-AL, 228072-XR-C-DR-Keyplan_1000, 228072-XR-C-DR-TOPO-CMJ-3D

IAN

SH1

NEWTON BRIDGE No.1

P UP

POR

SH 16 T

SOIL NAIL RETAINING WALL

2.5

10m

SCALE 1:250

CLIENT

REV DATE

REVISION DETAILS

APPROVED

DRAWN

DESIGNED

B.HINGSTON

A.REEVES

CHECKED

PROJECT

PRELIMINARY

CITY RAIL LINK

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT No.

L.RUTT TITLE

APPROVED DATE

08.11.13 FOR INFORMATION

B.NEWNS

CMJ SURVEY CRL DOWN MAIN LONG SECTION

228072 SCALE

SIZE

AS SHOWN

DRAWING No.

REV

DW-DR-CS-0337

SH 1N

16 N SH

TO S

PO RT

CRL UP MAIN ALIGNMENT MC30

NOTES 1. DESIGN SHOWN IS BASED ON ALIGNMENT DR3. 2. DO NOT SCALE FROM THE DRAWING.

OR TH BO UN D

ND OR

NO RT HB O

THB OU

UN D

KEY PLAN

UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL

ORT

OP OR T

TO P

SH 16 T

SH 1S OU TH BO UN D

T NS EE QU

RETAINING WALL PILES

P UP

SOIL NAIL RETAINING WALL

SH 1

H1 6

EXTENT OF DRIVEN TUNNEL

DRIV E

SH 1T

ABUTMENT

REFER DRAWING 228072-SK-DR-CS-0337 FOR DOWN MAIN DETAILS

IAN M CKIN

NON

NEWTON BRIDGE No.1

PLAN IAN MCKINNON DRIVE

1:250 UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL EXISTING SURFACE PROFILE SOIL NAIL RETAINING WALL

SH1 NORTHBOUND

SH1 TO SH16

TOP OF TUNNEL PORT TO SH1 NORTHBOUND

PORT TO SH16 NORTHBOUND

SH1 TO PORT

Cad File: Z:\CADD\PHASE 3\DRGS\TP7 DR\CS\228072-SK-DR-CS-0379.dwg

Plot Date: 11/8/2013 3:05:10 PM

Name: Brin Hingston

DECLINATION

2.5

10m

SCALE 1:250

CLIENT

REV DATE

REVISION DETAILS

APPROVED

DRAWN

DESIGNED

B.HINGSTON

A.REEVES

CHECKED

PROJECT

PRELIMINARY

CITY RAIL LINK

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT No.

L.RUTT TITLE

APPROVED DATE

08.11.13 FOR INFORMATION

B.NEWNS

CMJ SURVEY CRL UP MAIN LONG SECTION

228072 SCALE

SIZE

AS SHOWN

DRAWING No.

REV

DW-DR-CS-0379

4.5

4.5m

Xrefs: 228072-XR-C-DR-BNDY, 228072-XR-C-DR-STNM, 228072-XR-G-A1HS, 228072-XR-C-Aerial_Photo, 228072-XR-C-DR-STRC, 228072-XR-C-DR-TOPO, 228072-XR-C-DR-Legend-AL, 228072-XR-C-DR-TOPO-CMJ-3D

UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL

RETAINING WALL PILES

DRIVEN TUNNEL CRL UP MAIN ALIGNMENT

Cad File: Z:\CADD\PHASE 3\DRGS\TP7 DR\CS\228072-SK-DR-CS-0380.dwg

Plot Date: 11/8/2013 3:06:37 PM

Name: Brin Hingston

3.3m

SECTION 1:100

A CS-0379

SCALE 1:100

CLIENT

REV DATE

REVISION DETAILS

APPROVED

DRAWN

DESIGNED

B.HINGSTON

A.REEVES

CHECKED

PROJECT

PRELIMINARY

CITY RAIL LINK

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT No.

L.RUTT TITLE

APPROVED DATE

08.11.13 FOR INFORMATION

B.NEWNS

CMJ SURVEY SECTION AT UPPER QUEEN ST RETAINING WALL PILE LINE

228072 SCALE

SIZE

AS SHOWN

DRAWING No.

REV

DW-DR-CS-0380

Appendix H Karangahape Road – Further Analysis

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

This page has been intentionally left blank.

Aurecon | Mott MacDonald | Jasmax | Grimshaw I ARUP

Aurecon New Zealand Ltd Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road Newmarket Auckland 1023

T +64 9 520 6019 E Auckland@aurecongroup.com W Company Web

Memorandum To

Auckland Council

Copy

From

Aurecon

Reference

CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001

Pages (including

Date

30 June 2016

Subject

Revised Analysis for Settlement Effects at Karangahape Road

this page)

3 + attachments

Introduction

This technical memorandum provides revised analysis of settlement effects at Karangahape Station. 2

Geological Profile and Revised Geotechnical Parameters

The geological interpretation for Karangahape Station has been described in the GER (Ref. CRLSYW-GEO-000-RPT-0006 dated 2nd June 2015). With a detailed review of the geotechnical information and with an additional 3 CPT test results within the Karangahape Station area, a revised geological profile and geotechnical parameters were produced for revised settlement analysis. The revised geological profile specifically included geological strata of RS-ECBF and CW-ECBF, which were sub-divided from the previous ER strata by assessing the strengths and textures of the materials. The TA layer was evidenced from some boreholes but was thought to be limited in extent. This remains the case after the CPT testing. For details refer to the response to Auckland Council’s Section 92 comments on Geotechnical Investigations and Ground Conditions section. The inferred geological longitudinal profile is shown in below Figure 1:

Figure 1: Inferred geological condition at Karangahape Station - Revised Based on the additional CPT test results and correlation of previous CRL data specifically within Karangahape Station area, the site specific geotechnical parameters are presented in below Table 1:

Project CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001 File Appendix H Technical Note - K Rd revised analysis 28616 FINAL.docx 30 June 2016 Revision 0 Page 1

T +64 9 520 6019 E Auckland@aurecongroup.com W Company Web

Aurecon New Zealand Ltd Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road Newmarket Auckland 1023

Memorandum Geology

Mate rial

Layer Code

Zone

Unit wt

Strength properties

b 3

kN/m Tauranga Group Alluvium

Silts and clays

ECBF

Silty clay

RSECBF

Residual

Ch1750 – Ch2050

Z=1 to 6.5m (approx.) Ch1750 – Ch2050

Compressibility

Permeability

ɸ’

c’

ν’

OCR

kPa

deg

kPa

MPa

m/s

20+7/m (ground level as reference datum)

28°

Stiffness properties

2+0.9/m (ground level as reference datum)

0.3

1.1

1.15

0.28

0.17

0.09

0.02

3.5

1.0

kv m/s -7

2 x 10

4 x 10-9

6 x 10-9 to 4 x 10-7

10-10 to 10-8

1 x 10-7

1 x 10-8

10-8 to 5 x 10-6

10-10 to 10-7

1 x 10-7

1 x 10-8

10-8 to 5 x 10-6

10-10 to 10-7

Z=2 to 9m (approx.) Silty clay

CWECBF

Ch1750 – Ch2050

Z=5 to 11m (approx.)

12+5/m (top of CW as reference datum)

0.3

1.15

0.11

0.01

1.0

Table 1: Soil Properties for Karangahape Station

Project CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001 File Appendix H Technical Note - K Rd revised analysis 28616 FINAL.docx 30 June 2016 Revision 0 Page 2

T +64 9 520 6019 E Auckland@aurecongroup.com W Company Web

Aurecon New Zealand Ltd Level 4, 139 Carlton Gore Road Newmarket Auckland 1023

Memorandum 3

PLAXIS Analysis of Revised Geotechnical Parameters

Based on the above geological interpretation and site specific geotechnical parameters, revised analysis of the PLAXIS models on both Mercury Shaft and Pitt St Shaft have been carried out to consider settlement effects. The results of the revised analysis together with the original analysis results are presented in Table 2 below. Table 2: Settlement Analyses for Karangahape Station Original Analysis

Revised Geotechnical Analysis

Location

Max Settlement (mm)

Max Settlement Offset from wall (m)

5mm settlement offset from shaft wall (m)

Max Settlement (mm)

Max Settlement Offset from wall (m)

5mm settlement offset from shaft wall (m)

Mercury Lane Shaft Pitt St Shaft

18.7

4.8

5.2

9.1

1.6

Based on the above results, the revised geotechnical analysis shows only a minor increase in settlement. The affected buildings have been re-assessed based on the settlement data from the analysis and damage categories are concluded to range between Negligible to Very Slight. For details refer to Table 5.1 of the main settlement report. 4

Mercury Lane Shaft Bottom-up Construction Sequence

For the analysis described in Section 3 the Mercury Lane Shaft of Karangahape Station has been modelled as top-down construction. To provide flexibility within the application and as top-down construction is slow, an alternative bottom-up construction sequence (for the central deep shaft) has been considered. The results of the PLAXIS analysis of bottom-up construction (using the above revised geotechnical parameters) increases settlements by 8mm as shown in Table 3 below, with the Burland category assessment increased to very slight from negligible. Refer also Section 5.2.3.5 of the main report. Table 3: Settlement Analyses for Mercury Lane Shaft (top-down vs bottom-up) Top-down construction sequence

Bottom-up construction sequence

Location

Max Settlement (mm)

Max Settlement Offset from wall (m)

Max Settlement (mm)

Max Settlement Offset from wall (m)

Mercury Lane Shaft

18.7

4.8

27.6

4.6

Project CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001 File Appendix H Technical Note - K Rd revised analysis 28616 FINAL.docx 30 June 2016 Revision 0 Page 3

Appendix 1 Bottom-up Sequence Figures

Project CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001 File Appendix H Technical Note - K Rd revised analysis 28616 FINAL.docx 30 June 2016 Revision 0 Page 4

Project CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001 File Appendix H Technical Note - K Rd revised analysis 28616 FINAL.docx 30 June 2016 Revision 0 Page 5

Project CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001 File Appendix H Technical Note - K Rd revised analysis 28616 FINAL.docx 30 June 2016 Revision 0 Page 6

Appendix 2 PLAXIS Output

Project CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001 File Appendix H Technical Note - K Rd revised analysis 28616 FINAL.docx 30 June 2016 Revision 0 Page 7

Plaxis Model Geometry Input

Plaxis Analysis of Bottom-up Sequence

Project CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001 File Appendix H Technical Note - K Rd revised analysis 28616 FINAL.docx 30 June 2016 Revision 0 Page 8

Plaxis Analysis Settlement Shading

Project CRL-KRD-RME-000-MEM-0001 File Appendix H Technical Note - K Rd revised analysis 28616 FINAL.docx 30 June 2016 Revision 0 Page 9

Auckland Office Level 4, Aurecon House 139 Carlton Gore Road Auckland 1023 New Zealand T +64 9 520 6019 F +64 524 7815

Leading. Vibrant. Global. www.aurecongroup.com