Repairing and Rebuilding Houses Affected by The Canterbury Earthquakes

GUIDANCE V ERS ION C ONTROL
Repairing and rebuilding

houses affected by the
Canterbury earthquakes
Version Control
This guidance is a ‘living document’ – and we will be continually monitoring the
information it contains and making changes as required. You can register to receive
updates to this document and download the latest version at the following address:
www.dbh.govt.nz/guidance-on-repairs-after-earthquake
ACTIONED
VERSION WHAT HAS CHANGED DATE
BY
1 Guidance on repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Dec 2010 DBH
Canterbury earthquake sequence
2a Revised issue of Guidance on repairing and rebuilding houses Nov 2011 DBH
affected by the Canterbury earthquake sequence
2b Interim guidance for repairing and rebuilding foundations in April 2012 DBH
Technical Category 3
2c Guidelines for the geotechncial investigation and assessment of Sep 2012 MBIE
subdivisions in the Canterbury region
3 Revised issue of Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Dec 2012 MBIE
D AT E : D E C E M B E R 2 012 . V E R S I O N : 3
VERSION CONTROL
PAG E 1
Canterbury Technical Guidance - Introduction.indd 1 29/01/2013 10:12:32 a.m.

D
1.OI C
NU M ED
T RO NUT CSTATUS
T I ON
This document’s status

UP D A TE: This document is issued as guidance under section 175 of the Building Act 2004. The
December 2012 Department of Building and Housing became part of the Ministry of Business, Innovation
and Employment (MBIE) on 1 July 2012. The former Department of Building and Housing
is referred to in this document as ‘the Ministry’. While the Ministry has taken care in
preparing this document, it is only a guide and, if used, does not relieve any person of
the obligation to consider any matter to which that information relates, according to the
circumstances of the particular case. The document will be updated from time to time and
the latest version is available from the Ministry’s website at www.dbh.govt.nz.
You can copy all or some of this document only if you are using it for education or public
information, and you say it came from us. You cannot copy any of this document in any way
for commercial use, and you cannot keep it in a retrieval system unless you ask us first.
ISBN: 978-0-478-39907-3 (print)

ISBN: 978-0-478-39908-0 (electronic)
UP D A TE: Scope of update

December 2012
This is the third edition of the guidance for repairing and rebuilding houses following the
Canterbury earthquake sequence and supersedes the guidance documents published in
December 2010, November 2011, April 2012 and September 2012. This update is provided
in a new loose-leaf format to allow the guidance to be updated on a regular basis. It now
incorporates all parts of the residential foundation guidance in one volume:
• Part A – Technical Guidance
• Part B – Technical Information
• Part C – Guidance for assessing, repairing and rebuilding foundations in TC3
• Part D – Guidelines for the investigation and assessment of subdivisions in the

Canterbury region
The guidance is presented in a new format, with associated editorial adjustments,

particularly in relation to Part C which was previously issued as a separate volume.
There are also updates to some technical provisions, although the guidance has not been
subject to a comprehensive review.
Where changes to the document have been made, these are identified as updates and
deletions via margin notes within the document.
D AT E : D E C E M B E R 2 01 2 . V E R S I O N : 3
D O C U M E N T S TAT U S
PAG E 2
D OC
1. UM ENT UC
INTROD STATUS
TION
D O C U M E N T S TAT U S
PAG E 3
1.OIRNETWO
F RO D
RDU C T I ON
Foreword
This document, issued by the Ministry, provides technical guidance for repairing and
rebuilding houses in the Canterbury region following the Canterbury earthquake sequence.
Publication of this document is a part of the Government’s support for long-term recovery
in Canterbury. It gives robust and well-balanced engineering solutions that will reduce the
risk of injury to people and damage to homes in future earthquakes.
The technical guidance has been developed in response to the Canterbury earthquake
of 4 September 2010 (sometimes referred to as the Darfield earthquake). Since the 2010
guidance was published, there have been numerous aftershocks, large and small, including
the disastrous 22 February 2011 aftershock, known as the Lyttelton aftershock. This
document incorporates information gained from each significant aftershock and extensive
scientific and geotechnical investigation into the impacts of the Canterbury earthquake
sequence. In particular it draws on learnings about the effects of liquefaction. The scale
of liquefaction in the Canterbury earthquake sequence, and the impact on residential
dwellings, highlighted the importance of ensuring there are appropriate foundations on land
that may be subject to liquefaction in major events.
UP D A TE: Properties in the Canterbury Green Zone have been assigned (on an area-wide basis) one
December 2012 of three technical categories for foundation investigation and design guidance (TC1, TC2
and TC3). These categories describe, on an area-wide basis, how the land might perform
in future large earthquakes and the foundations that are considered appropriate to reduce
the risk of injury and damage. The technical categories were developed to guide consent
authorities, engineers, builders and insurance companies on the level of site investigation
required and, based on the site investigation results, the most appropriate foundation
systems for a particular site. The technical categories were the result of intensive research
and analysis based on a mix of historical and post-earthquake data, discussions with
geotechnical consultants and research groups, and a degree of engineering judgement.
The technical categories are based on an area-wide analysis of observed damage and
known geological conditions.
Without the technical categories and the Ministry’s guidance, every site where foundation
repairs are required in the Green Zone would require further geotechnical investigation
and site-specific foundation design. The technical categories ensure valuable engineering
resource is directed where it is needed most (TC3 areas, for example) and will enable
homeowners to commence repairs with greater certainty.
The volume of repair and reconstruction activity is placing challenges on the insurance
assessment, engineering design, construction and consenting capacity available in New
Zealand. The reconstruction has and will continue to put pressure on New Zealand’s
engineering resources, both structural and geotechnical. Given the numerous aftershocks,
insurers and reinsurers need confidence that the rebuilding work is robust, will reduce the
risk of damage in future large events and does not involve unnecessary expense. There is
also pressure on councils to process large volumes of consent applications. This has the
potential to result in delays to homeowners and slow the re-establishment of the most
affected communities.
FOREWORD
PAG E 4
1. INTROD
FORUC TION
EWOR D
Overseas experience of recovery from major events has shown that confusion, delays
and additional design costs can occur if designers, insurers and councils have different
perspectives. The Ministry’s guidance encourages consistency of approach. It identifies
areas where costly investigations and design for properties are unnecessary and
recommends site-specific investigations for certain properties, where significant land
damage from liquefaction may be possible in future large events. It provides solutions and
construction methods that will meet the requirements of the Building Act and Building
Code while avoiding ‘over-design’.
It also includes useful information on retaining walls for hillside properties, chimney repairs
and repairs to wall and roof frame connections, steel and pole frames and masonry walls.
This provides guidance for the many dwellings that have suffered minor damage to the
superstructure, such as damaged chimneys and superficial cracking to cladding or linings.
Following the methods or solutions proposed in the document is not mandatory. Different
and improved details and methods may well be developed as the recovery proceeds.
Earthquakes and their effects are complex. Investigations into the full picture of how
residential structures responded to liquefaction effects are ongoing.
David Kelly, Director Canterbury Rebuild and Recovery

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Mike Stannard, Chief Engineer

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
FOREWORD
PAG E 5
1. IK
AC NNTOW
RO DL U
EDCG
T IEON
M E NT S
Acknowledgements
In preparing this document, the Ministry acknowledges and is grateful for
contributions from:
The Ministry’s Engineering Advisory Group (Residential), consisting of:
Dave Brunsdon Kestrel Group Ltd

Graeme Beattie BRANZ Ltd
Barry Brown Fraser Thomas Ltd/NZ Structural Engineering Society
George Hooper Earthquake Commission
Mike Jacka Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Andrew King GNS Science
John Leeves Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Ian McCahon Geotech Consulting Ltd
Kevin McManus McManus Geotech Ltd
Peter Millar Tonkin & Taylor Ltd
Rob Robinson Remediation Specialist
Roger Shelton BRANZ Ltd
Peter Smith Spencer Holmes Ltd
John Snook Canterbury Structural Group/NZ Structural Engineering Society
Mike Stannard Chief Engineer, MBIE
Nick Traylen Geotech Consulting Ltd
Earthquake Commission (EQC), particularly: Hugh Cowan and Pat Moynihan
Tonkin & Taylor, particularly: Sjoerd van Ballegooy for collation and analysis of land and
building damage and development of maps.
The Natural Hazards Research Platform
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PAG E 6
1. INTROD UC TION
C ONTENTS
Sections
Introduction
Part A: Technical guidance
Part B: Technical information
Part C: Assessing, repairing and rebuilding

foundations in TC3
Part D: Guidelines for the geotechnical

investigation and assessment of
subdivisions in the Canterbury region
References
Glossary of terms
List of acronyms
CONTENTS
PAG E 7
C
1.OIN T E
RON TDSU C T I ON
CONTENTS
PAG E 8
GUIDANCE INTROD UC TION
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Damage from the Canterbury earthquake sequence

The Darfield earthquake of 4 September 2010 was an internationally significant event that
focused attention on damage to residential properties from liquefaction and lateral spreading.
The 22 February 2011 Lyttelton aftershock caused further liquefaction that affected houses
across a far wider area of Christchurch, and caused extensive rockfall and some landsliding
on the Port Hills. Significant shaking damage was also observed in the hill suburbs.
Other significant aftershocks, most notably on 13 June 2011 and 23 December 2011, again
caused liquefaction in the low-lying areas worst affected in the 4 September 2010 and 22
February 2011 events, and further shaking damage to hillside properties.
As at the end of 17 September 2012, approximately 460,000 insurance claims relating to U P D A TE:
120,000 properties had been submitted to the Earthquake Commission (EQC). Of these December 2012
properties, approximately 30,000 are likely to have experienced land damage as a result
of the Canterbury earthquake sequence (ground deformation resulting from the effects of
liquefaction, landslip and rockfall), ranging from very minor to very severe. The effects of
liquefaction included differential and overall vertical settlement and lateral spreading, with
the latter being the most damaging to buildings and infrastructure.
The majority of the dwelling damage claims not affected by land damage relate to minor
damage such as damaged chimneys and superficial cracking to cladding/wall linings.
In many cases, damage will have increased following the subsequent major aftershocks.
1.1.2 Residential land zones

On 23 June 2011, the Government and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
(CERA) announced four residential land zones:
• Green – repair/rebuild process can begin

• Red – land repair would be prolonged and uneconomic
• Orange – ‘hold zone’, further assessment required; to be rezoned Red or Green
depending on further investigation
• White – ‘un-zoned’, parts of the Port Hills and CBD; still being mapped.
Subsequent announcements have resolved the status of properties that were initially
designated within the Orange and White Zones, see www.cera.govt.nz
Guidance provided in this document focuses primarily on the Green Zone on the flat1 and
to a lesser extent the Port Hills areas affected by landslip, rockfall and shaking damage.
(1) The term ‘on the flat’ is used to distinguish the areas affected by liquefaction from the Port Hills area
INTRODUCTION
PAG E 1. 1
INT
1. RO
IN D UDCUTC
T RO IOTN
I ON
This document has been prepared in conjunction with work undertaken by Tonkin & Taylor
Ltd for the Government, in order to coordinate the analysis and mapping of land and
residential building damage.
1.2 Objectives
The principal objective of this document is to provide building repair and reconstruction
solutions and options that:
1. are appropriate to the level of land and building damage experienced

2. take account of the likely future performance of the ground
3. meet Building Act and Building Code requirements
4. are acceptable to insurers and property owners.
Increasing the resilience of residential dwellings is also an underlying objective.
Increasing resilience however involves a range of possibilities. For houses on land that has
the potential for future liquefaction, achieving optimum resilience would involve remediating
the ground to remove or reduce this potential. While this approach may be preferable for
new subdivisions where the cost per property can be minimised, it may not be practical for
individual developed sites. In addition, it is not necessarily within the scope of insurance
cover or regulatory requirements for a given level of damage.
The guidance provided in this document aims for a consistent approach to repair and
rebuilding that minimises the individual investigation and design effort required for each
property. It takes a prudent approach that is mindful of costs and risks, providing solutions
and construction methods that aim to meet the requirements of the Building Act and
Building Code. It also looks to satisfy the relevant insurance requirements without giving
rise to ‘betterment concerns’. Independent costing advice indicates a strong positive
benefit to cost in following the proposals in the document.
Owners may choose to specify additional measures to achieve greater levels of resilience,
noting that this is likely to be outside the scope of insurance contracts and would also
require specialist geotechnical engineering advice.
1.3 Regulatory context

All work undertaken to repair damage is ‘building work’ and needs to comply with Building
Code requirements, whether or not a building consent is required.
After repair work that requires a building consent is carried out, a building needs to comply,
as nearly as is reasonably practicable, with the provisions of the Building Code that relate
to means of escape from fire and access and facilities for persons with disabilities. It must
also continue to comply with the other provisions of the Building Code to at least the same
extent as before the repair work.
INTRODUCTION
PAG E 1. 2
1. INTROD UC TION
However, the requirement for access and facilities for people with disabilities does not
apply to private houses, while special fire safety requirements for houses are essentially
limited to the installation of domestic smoke alarms. Note: If the house is not fully
detached there may be other requirements. This means the requirements can generally be
satisfied by installing smoke alarms and by demonstrating that the overall performance of
the house for structural safety, weathertightness, sanitary, etc, is no worse than before the
application for building consent (ie, before the repair work).
Repairs being undertaken, therefore, do not require the building to be fully upgraded to
comply with the performance requirements of the Building Code. Only the scope of work
being undertaken needs to comply with Building Code Requirements.
In undertaking repairs and rebuilding, particular attention needs to be paid to health and U P D A TE:
December 2012
safety requirements. The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, the Hazardous
Substances and New Organisms Act 1996, and the various regulations made under
these Acts need to be complied with. The MBIE fact sheet “Lifting Earthquake-Affected
Buildings in Christchurch” provides appropriate guidance on lifting existing buildings
to enable foundations to be repaired or rebuilt (refer www.dol.govt.nz/quake/lifting-
earthquake-affected-buildings-christchurch.pdf). Where repairs are undertaken and there
is a possibility of asbestos being present in the building the MBIE fact sheet “Disaster
Recovery – Asbestos Management” should be consulted for guidance (refer to www.dol.
govt.nz/quake/asbestos-management.pdf).
U P D A TE:
This document is issued as guidance under section 175 of the Building Act 2004, so
December 2012
the methods and solutions presented here are not mandatory. This guidance has been
endorsed by the Christchurch City, Waimakariri, and Selwyn District Councils which if
followed will result in consents being issued.
For more details on insurance and regulatory requirements, refer to section 8.2 and
Appendix C1.
1.4 Scope
1.4.1 Audience
This guidance is intended for the engineering design, construction and insurance sectors,
building consent authorities, PMO’s and their professional advisors and contractors.
1.4.2 Canterbury focus

The options and recommendations in this document are specific to residential properties
directly affected by the Canterbury earthquake sequence. The information on reducing the
effects of liquefaction on residential properties should not necessarily be taken as a best
practice guide for addressing liquefaction in other parts of Canterbury or New Zealand.
National best practice guidance for the design of residential dwellings to take account of
potential liquefaction will be prepared in due course, and will draw on information in this
document.
INTRODUCTION
PAG E 1. 3
INT
1. RO
IN D UDCUTC
T RO IOTN
I ON
1.4.3 Technical scope

The document focuses principally on one- and two-storey timber-framed dwellings, which
are the dominant form of construction in the affected area (ie, houses built to NZS 3604 or
its predecessor Standard).
There are, however, other forms of construction and materials for which other design
approaches and documentation apply (for example, non-specific design standards such as
NZS 4229 for reinforced concrete masonry). Assessment and repair specifications for these
types of buildings will require case-by-case consideration, although the guidance provided
on assessment, repair and reconstruction of foundations and floors may apply.
The guidance provides standard methods and solutions for the assessment, repair and
rebuilding of foundation and floor elements. The guidance focuses primarily on solutions for
Green Zone land on the flat. Advice on assessing the effects of land movement on houses
and retaining walls on the Port Hills is also included, along with limited general information
on repairs as in most cases specific advice will be required.
For superstructure damage resulting from strong ground shaking, standard repair methods
can be used in most cases. Some guidance is included in this document, particularly for
chimneys, plasterboard linings and unreinforced masonry.
Even though future liquefaction may occur within the Green Zone, and there remains
uncertainty about the extent and severity of future ground deformations, this is expected to
be manageable by appropriate design.
UP D A TE: The 22 February 2011 aftershock brought a greater understanding of damage to houses
December 2012
from liquefaction, particularly about the extent of ground damage that is likely to result in
excessive settlement of the house. This has led to land on the flat being assigned into three
foundation technical categories based on the expected future liquefaction performance:
• TC1: Liquefaction damage is unlikely in future large earthquakes. Standard residential

foundation assessment and construction is appropriate.
• TC2: Liquefaction damage is possible in future large earthquakes. Standard
enhanced foundation repair and rebuild options in accordance with MBIE guidance
are suitable to mitigate against this possibility.
• TC3: Liquefaction damage is possible in future large earthquakes. Individual
engineering assessment is required to select the appropriate foundation repair or
rebuild option.
Parts A and B of the guidance concentrate on areas where the overall settlement in a future
earthquake is not expected to be excessive (ie, TC1 and TC2).
Houses on land in TC3, where overall house settlement may be significant in a future
earthquake, will generally require deep geotechnical investigation and site-specific
engineering design for new foundations. Options including deep piles founded to a good
bearing layer will be required. Other innovative and economic foundation system solutions,
including ground treatment options, have also been trialled. Further guidance on assessment
and solutions in TC3 is included in Part C: Assessing, repairing and rebuilding foundations in
Technical Category 3.
INTRODUCTION
PAG E 1. 4
1. INTROD UC TION
To mitigate the effects of liquefaction, as a guiding principle it is preferable to build

using light materials rather than heavy materials. This particularly applies in properties
categorised as TC2 or TC3 or in uncategorised areas where liquefaction is possible. Light
construction (roof, walls and floors) significantly reduces the imposed loads on the subsoils
and therefore the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement. For example, lightweight
construction imposes as little as 30% of the imposed weight around the perimeter compared
to a heavy roof, masonry cladding and concrete slab dwelling.
This document does however provide foundation solutions that may enable other forms and
weights of building elements to be used.
Table 1.1 summarises the future land performance criteria and the corresponding repair and
reconstruction approaches for each technical category.
INTRODUCTION
PAG E 1. 5
INT
1. RO
IN D UDCUTC
T RO IOTN
I ON
UP D A TE: Table 1.1: Summary table of technical categories, land criteria and repair and rebuild
December 2012 approaches.
Where new Where foundations Superstructure

Foundation
foundations are are to be repaired repairs only
technical Land criteria
required (including only (including (no foundation
category
floor slab)1 floor slab) damage)
TC1 Liquefaction is Use foundations

unlikely in future large provided in NZS
earthquakes 3604 Timber Framed
Buildings, as modified
by B1/AS1 which
requires ductile
reinforcing in slabs
(refer to the Ministry’s
information sheet at
www.dbh.govt.nz/
seismicity-info)
TC2 Liquefaction damage New houses with Refer to

is possible in future light- or medium- section 4
large earthquakes weight cladding,
light-weight roofing
with suspended timber
Refer to
floors and foundations
section 7
in accordance with
NZS 36042
or
Replace foundation
with enhanced slab
Options 1 to 5 as
provided in section 5
TC3 Liquefaction damage Specific geotechnical Refer to

is possible in future investigations and Part C
large earthquakes engineering design
required
For foundation
options where TC3
performance is
confirmed see Part C
(1) Solutions provided are minimum recommendations. Homeowners can always choose more robust options,
noting the need to discuss this with the insurer.
(2) Refer to Glossary.
DEL ETI O N :
December 2012 Individual house owners may wish to go beyond the solutions suggested in this document
and specify a higher level of foundation performance or resilience. This document provides
information on the relevant engineering principles and parameters for an enhanced
foundation and floor system. This information should assist engineers undertaking specific
structural and geotechnical engineering design, and inform discussions with insurers as to
whether the proposed solution falls within the scope of the insurance policy.
INTRODUCTION
PAG E 1. 6
GUIDANCE A C ONTENTS
Part A: Technical guidance

Contents
2. F
oundation assessment criteria
and approaches
2.1 Typical dwelling foundation types.................................................................................. 2.1
2.2 Assessing foundation damage.......................................................................................2.2
2.3 Indicator criteria for repairs and rebuilds........................................................................2.3
2.4 Effect on superstructure................................................................................................2.8
2.5 Floor level investigation approaches..............................................................................2.8
2.6 Ground clearance requirements.....................................................................................2.9
3. T
echnical categorisation of the Green Zone
on the flat
3.1 Foundation technical categories.....................................................................................3.1
3.2 Obtaining technical category information......................................................................3.7
3.3 Confirming the foundation technical category...............................................................3.9
3.4 Geotechnical investigations required.............................................................................3.9
3.5 Overview of the process for repairing and rebuilding houses..................................... 3.11
3.6 Building consent information....................................................................................... 3.13
4. Repairing house foundations

4.1 General...........................................................................................................................4.1
4.2 Local repairs (TC1 and TC2)...........................................................................................4.1
4.3 Re-levelling floors (TC1 and TC2)...................................................................................4.6
5. New foundations in TC1 and TC2

5.1 General...........................................................................................................................5.1
5.2 Overview of new foundation options.............................................................................5.4
5.3 Description of indicative new foundation and floor options...........................................5.7
5.4 Guidance for specific engineering design.................................................................... 5.13
5.5 Replacing foundations (retaining the superstructure).................................................. 5.14
5.6 Garage structures and outbuildings............................................................................. 5.18
5.7 Services........................................................................................................................ 5.19
PA R T A . T E C H N I C A L G U I DA N C E
C O N T E N T S / PAG E I
2 . F O U N DAT I O N
CONTENTS
AS S E S S M E N T A GUIDANCE
6. H
illside properties and retaining walls
6.1 Characteristics of hillside properties..............................................................................6.1
6.2 Retaining walls...............................................................................................................6.2
7. S
uperstructure assessment, repair, and
rebuild recommendations
7.1 Chimneys........................................................................................................................ 7.1
7.2 Wall bracing.................................................................................................................... 7.1
7.3 Repairing lathe and plaster interior wall linings.............................................................. 7.6
7.4 Wall and roof frame connections................................................................................... 7.6
7.5 Light gauge steel framing............................................................................................... 7.7
7.6 Pole frame structures.....................................................................................................7.8
7.7 Unreinforced brick masonry walls..................................................................................7.8
7.8 Concrete block masonry walls.......................................................................................7.9
7.9 Rebuild cladding and roofing recommendations.......................................................... 7.12
Appendix A1: Re-levelling systems and outline

method statements for relevelling and repairing
foundations and floors in TC1 and TC2
A1.1 Foundation relevelling method statements................................................................A1.4
Appendix A2: Outline method statements for

replacing foundations and slab-on-grade floors
in TC1 and TC2
Appendix A3: Assessment and repair options for

chimneys damaged in the Canterbury earthquake
sequence
A3.1 Background and context........................................................................................... A3.1
A3.2 Overview.................................................................................................................. A3.1
A3.3 Current legislation for chimneys............................................................................... A3.2
A3.4 E
nvironment Canterbury clean air requirements...................................................... A3.3
A3.5 Chimney construction materials and chimney condition.......................................... A3.4
A3.6 Assessment of damaged chimneys......................................................................... A3.5
A3.7 Repair and rebuild options........................................................................................ A3.6
A3.8 Acknowledgement..................................................................................................A3.11
C O N T E N T S / PAG E I I
GUIDANCE A 2. F OUNDATION
C ONTENTS
AS S ES S M ENT
Appendix A4: Assessment and repair options for

concrete floor slabs and perimeter foundation walls
damaged in the Canterbury earthquake sequence
A4.1 Background .............................................................................................................. A4.1
A4.2 Overview.................................................................................................................. A4.1
A4.3 S
lab cracking: diagnosis of likely cause and implications......................................... A4.3
A4.4 Crack treatment methods......................................................................................... A4.5
A4.5 Underfloor heating.................................................................................................... A4.9
A4.6 Structural slab overlays............................................................................................. A4.9
A4.7 Slab reinforcement for new houses in Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri
territorial authority areas........................................................................................ A4.10
List of figures
Figure 2.1: Dwelling foundation Types A, B and C............................................................ 2.1
Figure 2.2: Diagrammatic representations of slope and overall variation limits
from Table 2.3..................................................................................................2.8
Figure 3.1a: Technical categories of the Greater Christchurch area on the flat –
Northern Area (Waimakariri District) as at 12 November 2012.......................3.3
Figure 3.1b: Technical categories of the Greater Christchurch area on the flat –
Central Area (Christchurch City) as at 12 November 2012..............................3.4
Figure 3.1c: Technical categories of the Greater Christchurch area on the flat –
Southern Area (Selwyn District) as at 12 November 2012..............................3.5
Figure 3.2: Overview of the foundation technical category information
management process......................................................................................3.8
Figure 3.3: Determining the level of repair/rebuild required for Green Zone
houses on the flat.......................................................................................... 3.13
Figure 4.1: Overview of the process for local repairs to repairing foundations on
TC1 and TC2 sites............................................................................................4.2
Figure 4.2: Options for addressing localised settlement of Type B perimeter
concrete foundation beams (eg corners).........................................................4.4
Figure 4.2a: Example of a partial foundation wall replacement...........................................4.5
Figure 4.3: Overview of the process for relevelling foundations on TC1 and TC2 sites....4.7
Figure 5.1: Overview of process for new foundations on TC1 sites.................................5.2
Figure 5.2: Overview of process for new foundations on TC2 sites.................................5.3
Figure 5.3: Maximum building platform heights above surrounding ground
(TC1 and TC2)..................................................................................................5.5
Figure 5.4: Representative floor plan.................................................................................5.7
Figure 5.5: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 1..............................................................5.8
Figure 5.6: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 2..............................................................5.8
Figure 5.7: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 3 plan......................................................5.9
Figure 5.8: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 3 cross-section.......................................5.9
Figure 5.9: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 3 variation with post tensioning............ 5.10
C O N T E N T S / PAG E I I I
CONTENTS
Figure 5.10: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 4 plan.................................................... 5.11
Figure 5.11: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 4 cross-section..................................... 5.11
Figure 5.12: Timber floor with perimeter walls.................................................................. 5.12
Figure 5.13: Foundation plan showing design criteria for specific design......................... 5.14
Figure 5.14: Waste water pipe routing............................................................................. 5.20
Figure 5.15: Restraint of gully trap.....................................................................................5.21
Figure A1.1: Lifting option 1 – Perimeter foundation jacking using portable jacks............ A1.1
Figure A1.2: Lifting option 2 – Perimeter foundation jacking using piles
(screw or similar)............................................................................................A1.2
Figure A1.3: Lifting option 3 – Perimeter foundation jacking and slab relevelling using
engineered resin............................................................................................A1.2
thixotropic (low mobility) grout......................................................................A1.3
Figure A3.1. Failed double skin unreinforced masonry wall showing chimney cast
integrally with the wall.................................................................................. A3.1
Figure A3.2: Process for assessment and decision on repair or replacement of chimneys...9
Figure A3.3: Chimney Option 1........................................................................................A3.12
Figure A3.4: Chimney Option 2....................................................................................... A3.13
Figure A3.5: Chimney Option 3........................................................................................A3.14
Figure A4.1: Shrinkage control joints (SCJs) positioned to mitigate against diagonal
cracks forming.............................................................................................. A4.2
Figure A4.2: Typical shrinkage cracking in concrete slabs................................................ A4.3
Figure A4.3: Cracking of ceramic floor tiles over a shrinkage control joint in a floor
not affected by earthquake........................................................................... A4.4
List of tables
Table 2.1: House foundation and floor types on the flat................................................... 2.1
Table 2.2: Indicator criteria for foundation damage not requiring structural repair (all
technical categories).........................................................................................2.3
Table 2.3: Indicator criteria for floor/foundation relevel or rebuild (see also Figure 2.2)....2.6
Table 3.1: Index criteria for foundation technical categories.............................................3.6
Table 4.1: Summary of foundation relevelling approaches for TC1 and TC2 on the flat...4.8
Table 5.1: Summary of proposed foundation solutions for rebuilt foundations or
new foundations on the flat..............................................................................5.5
Table 5.2: Geotechnical requirements for rebuilt or new foundations on the flat.............5.6
Table 5.3: Liquefaction design settlements of new building foundations in TC2............ 5.14
Table 5.4: Summary of foundation rebuilding approaches for TC1 and TC2................... 5.15
Table 6.1: Damage indicators and repair options for retaining walls.................................6.3
Table 7.1: Summary of actions relating to repair/replacement of plasterboard lining....... 7.4
Table 7.2: Summary cladding weight chart for rebuilds in properties classified
as TC1, TC2 or TC3......................................................................................... 7.10
Table A4.1: Floor slab and perimeter foundation wall crack widths and repair
approaches (in the absence of vertical misalignments)................................. A4.6
C O N T E N T S / PAG E I V
GUIDANCE A 2. FOUNDATION
F OUNDATION
C ONTENTS
AS S ES S M ENT
2. F
oundation assessment
criteria and approaches
This section provides recommended criteria for the different levels of repair for house
foundations that have damage from the earthquakes. The information in this section applies
irrespective of house location – ie, both on the flat and on the Port Hills areas. Suggested
assessment approaches are also outlined.
Given the wide variation in location, distribution and effects of settlement damage within
any one house, it is expected that a certain degree of judgement and practicability will be
applied alongside these guidelines. Accordingly, the indicative criteria presented within this
section are not intended as ‘absolutes’.
2.1 Typical dwelling foundation types

Three broad groups of dwellings have been used in the subsequent sections of this
document to describe dwellings on the flat, as represented in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Dwelling foundation Types A, B and C
Type A house Type B house – timber floor Type C house

– timber floor with piles with perimeter footing – slab-on-grade
The Type B and C house foundations have been further subdivided into those supporting
light- and medium-weight claddings (B1 and C1) and those supporting heavy claddings such
as brick veneer (B2 and C2) (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1: House foundation and floor types on the flat
Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures supported only on piles. Stucco,

Type A
weatherboard or light texture-clad house.
Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures with perimeter concrete foundation.

Type B1
Stucco, weatherboard or light texture-clad house.
Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures with perimeter concrete foundation.

Type B2
Brick or concrete masonry exterior cladding (veneer).
Timber-framed dwelling on concrete floor (slab-on-grade). Stucco, weatherboard or

Type C1
light texture-clad house.
Timber-framed dwelling on concrete floor (slab-on-grade). Brick or concrete masonry

Type C2
exterior cladding (veneer).
F O U N DAT I O N A S S E S S M E N T / PAG E 2 . 1
2.2 Assessing foundation damage

For Type A and B dwellings, the foundation elements are discrete and identifiable (ie,
timber or concrete short piles; perimeter concrete foundation walls). For Type C dwellings,
the foundation includes the slab and the perimeter foundation beams.
Determining the level of foundation damage, and hence the degree of foundation structural
repair or replacement required, involves consideration of the extent and interaction of three
aspects:
1. differential and overall settlement of the dwelling

2. overall lateral extension or ‘stretch’ of the floor and foundations, and
3. damage to specific foundation elements.
For example, if significant differential and/or overall settlement (aspect 1) occurs, it

can result in the need to rebuild foundations, even if there is only minor damage to the
foundation or superstructure elements.
Conversely, severe damage to particular foundation elements (aspect 3) can be addressed

via local repairs, if the differential and/or overall settlements are minor.
This section focuses on establishing the level of foundation damage in relation to aspects 1
and 2.
For aspect 3, this section will need to be read in conjunction with sections 4, 5 and/or 7,
depending on the level of damage to the house. Section 4 is concerned with foundation
repair and relevelling. Section 5 is concerned with new foundations (including replacement
foundations). Section 7 is concerned with superstructure damage.
For a dwelling to be considered not to have foundation damage requiring structural repair,
several criteria need to be satisfied. Table 2.2 provides indicative criteria for situations
where it is considered that no specific structural repairs to foundation elements will be
necessary.
It is common for Type B house foundation walls and Type C floor slabs to have cracks
caused by shrinkage, which were present before the earthquake sequence. Some of
these may have been exacerbated by the earthquakes. When assessing the width of
fresh cracks, or the increase in crack width caused by earthquake actions, there are key
observations to establish the history.
In perimeter foundation walls, the presence of accumulated soil, moss or paint penetration
in cracks indicates that there was a crack at that location before the earthquakes. The width
may have increased as a result of the earthquakes. In tied floor slabs, shrinkage cracks are
characterised by an increase in width from the perimeter edge beam to the body of the
slab. Cracks wider than 1 mm at the edge of the floor are likely to be earthquake related,
and are a good indicator of the amount of earthquake-related stretch. These should also be
reflected on the outside of the foundation. Further information on cracking in concrete slab-
on-grade floors and concrete perimeter foundations is given in Appendix A4.
F OUNDATION
C ONTENTS
AS S ES S M ENT
Superstructure repairs may still be necessary, even if there is no foundation damage

(see section 7).
Table 2.2: Indicator criteria for foundation damage not requiring structural repair (all
technical categories)
Dwelling Lateral
Foundation Settlement Status stretch Crack widths1/Other
Type status
Pile tilt <15 mm per

Type A 1 m height and no
Vertical differential floor framing damage
settlement <50 mm and
floor slope less than and <20 mm 2
and <5 mm cracks in
Type B
1 in 200 between any perimeter foundation
two points >2 m apart
<5 mm cracks in the floor
Type C
slab
(1) Crack widths are those principally related to earthquake actions

(2) A maximum lateral stretch of 20 mm is based on a resulting potential out of plumb of house end walls of 10 mm.
Some inconsistencies have been discovered in the advice given previously in the Guidance U P DAT E :
about dealing with cracks in slabs and foundation walls. Cracks can be caused by other December 2012
The 5 mm crack width
than earthquakes, and shrinkage is a particular contributor to the formation of cracks in floor
criteria in Table 2.2 was
slabs. In perimeter foundation walls, cracks have often occurred at vents (where the cross- aimed at distinguishing
section is reduced) over the life of the foundation as a result of local foundation settlement between foundation
unrelated to earthquake activity. damage requiring specific
engineering input and
lesser structural damage
2.3 Indicator criteria for repairs and rebuilds that could be simply
repaired if found to be
caused by the earthquake.
Applicable standards for floor-level tolerance The crack-width criteria
For in-service conditions, Verification Method B1/VM4 refers in an informative Appendix B to correlate well with work
limiting a foundation design to a probable maximum differential settlement over a horizontal undertaken in the USA and
reported in the January
distance of 6 m to no more than 25 mm under serviceability limit state load combinations.
2004 CUREE publication
This could result in a slope of 1 in 240 or 0.4% over the service life of the dwelling. No. QED-02 titled
‘General guidelines for the
For construction tolerances (ie, as-completed conditions) the relevant Standards are NZS assessment and repair
3604, NZS 3109 and NZS 3114. of earthquake damage
in residential woodframe
Table 2.1 of NZS 3604:2011 states that for timber framing, the maximum deviation from buildings’.
horizontal is 5 mm in 10 m, or a total of 10 mm over any length greater than 10 m. The
bottom plate of a wall fits within the definition of ‘timber framing’, but in new concrete floor
construction this would be expected to be packed to level.
The clearest requirement for floor level tolerances for houses is included in Table 2 of NZS
3124:1987. While this Standard refers to NZS 3604 and NZS 4229 for its application, the
reference is unfortunately no longer reciprocal. NZS 3124 requires the variation in bearing
surfaces for timber to be within ±5 mm, and also requires the maximum depression from a
straight line between two high spots 3 m apart on a floor to be 8 mm. The maximum floor
slope associated with the second criterion is 0.53% (1 in 190).
NZS 3109 and NZS 3114 provide a range of acceptable surface deviations for different
situations of flatness and straightness. None of these is considered to comprehensively
address the various situations covered by this document.
A survey of new concrete floors conducted by members of the Engineering Advisory

Group in January and February 2011 found that an overall variation in floor level of between
15 mm and 20 mm was typical over a new concrete foundation slab. The same survey
found that the average slopes between two points 2 m apart varied from 0.35% to 0.65%
(approximately 1 in 300 and 1 in 150).
Furthermore, after the December 2010 guidance was issued, it was realised that the
instruments typically being used by assessors to measure floor out of tolerances were only
accurate to +/- 3 mm, a significant range of variation compared with the 5 mm tolerance
originally allowed over 2 m in that document.
The above review of relevant Standards, consideration of finished floor level survey results,
and the limitations of assessment measurement techniques has resulted in the indicator
criteria provided in Table 2.3. These indicator criteria contain out-of-level tolerances and
settlement limits that are considered to better reflect damage related to the earthquake
than general (historical) settlement or initial construction tolerances.
Indicator criteria – Table 2.3

The indicator criteria contained in Table 2.3 can be used to indicate first whether a house
is likely to need relevelling, and then secondly, if it does, whether a relevel, a foundation
rebuild or a house rebuild is likely to be required.
The indicator criteria provide guidance. They are not absolutes, as suggested by the dotted
vertical lines between the columns.
UP D A TE: The indicator criteria stated in column 2 of Table 2.3 are suggested threshold values –
December 2012
below these it is considered that no action is required to relevel or rebuild the floor. Where
these thresholds are exceeded, the recommended process to follow will be determined
by how much they are exceeded. This means that as long as the thresholds in column
3 are not exceeded, a relevel should be able to be undertaken. If the limits in column
4 are exceeded a foundation rebuild should be an option. Finally, if the damage to the
superstructure is uneconomic to repair, because the house has collapsed off the piles for
example in floor Types A and B, then a complete house rebuild is indicated. If the floor
profile fits within the criteria in column 3, the expectation is that the relevelling processes
will result in a floor that is as near as reasonably practical to level and certainly within the
criteria stated in column 2. These are the maximums of desired slope and differential
displacement, and tighter tolerances should be targeted during relevelling processes.
Some insurance policies may require a higher standard of reinstatement than suggested by
column 2 of Table 2.3.
F OUNDATION
C ONTENTS
AS S ES S M ENT
If there is a question around whether a specific criterion applies to a particular situation,

professional engineering input should be sought. Factors that need to be considered in
relation to floor-level differences in a house include:
• the intended use of the space

• construction materials of the floor surfacing
• practicality of the repair (ie, cost vs benefits)
• the effect of gradients on amenity of the space.
The criteria are intended for reasonably regular houses (for example the ‘L’-shaped dwelling
shown in section 5). They may not be readily applicable to highly irregular-shaped houses.
In some cases, a house may have settled uniformly to the extent that it no longer has the
required ground clearances around its perimeter (see section 2.6) or it will be susceptible to
future flooding (see section 8.4). While the settlement characteristics, when compared to
Table 2.3, may suggest no action is necessary, the clearance and flooding criteria will take
precedence, and a decision on the appropriate action will need to take this into account.
Table 2.3: Indicator criteria for floor/foundation relevel or rebuild (see also Figure 2.2)
Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5
Floor type NO foundation Foundation Foundation rebuild House rebuild

relevel considered relevel indicated indicated may be indicated
necessary (Partial or full)
Type A The slope of the The variation in The variation in The house has
Timber-framed floor between any floor level is >50 floor level is >100 fully or partially
suspended timber two points >2 m mm and <100 mm mm [Note c] over collapsed off
floor structures apart is <0.5% Note that the floor the floor plan the piles and
supported only on (1 in 200) [Note a] relevel is expected or repair may be
piles and to be achieved by The floor has uneconomic
The variation in packing the piles stretched >50 mm This will relate
level over the floor [Note d] to the degree of
plan is <50 mm superstructure
Note that full or
damage [Note f]
partial re-piling
is expected to
be undertaken to
achieve a level
floor
UP D A TE: Type B The slope of the The variation in The variation in The house has
December 2012 Timber-framed floor between any floor level is >50 floor level is >100 fully or partially
The criteria in Column 4 for suspended timber two points >2 m mm and <100 mm mm [Note c] over collapsed off
Type B floors have been floor structures apart is <0.5% [Note b] the floor plan the piles and
altered. Cracks >5 mm with perimeter (1 in 200) [Note a] or repair may be
require structural repair concrete and uneconomic
The floor has
as indicated in Table 2.2. foundation The variation in stretched >20 mm This will relate
Additional information to the degree of
level over the floor [Note e]
has been provided about superstructure
plan is <50 mm
structural repairs of cracks damage [Note f]
in Appendix A4.
Type C The slope of the The variation in The variation in This will relate
Timber-framed floor between any floor level is >50 level over the floor to the degree of
dwelling on two points >2 m mm and <150 mm plan is >150 mm superstructure
concrete floor apart is <0.5% and or damage [Note f]
(1 in 200) [Note a]
Services are There is
and functioning irreparable
The variation in damage to buried
level over the floor services within the
plan is <50 mm house footprint
and
There are no
cracks in ceramic
floor tiles
and
There is no
distress in vinyl
floor coverings or
carpet
UP D A TE: Note: Criteria are indicators only – a full assessment of the damage is required to make decisions on
December 2012 whether to repair or rebuild.
F OUNDATION
C ONTENTS
AS S ES S M ENT
Explanatory notes to Table 2.3

a. Floor and superstructure damage repair may still be required, even if these indicator U P D A TE:
limits are not exceeded. Floor slopes are normally established by recording levels at the December 2012
intersections of grid lines spaced at approximately 2 m in both directions and at obvious

high spots and low spots.
b. For veneer cladding to Type B construction, there may be a need to rebuild the veneer.
c. Pile packing in Type A and B construction is considered to be unstable at greater than
100 mm.
d. For most fully timber-framed (Type A) buildings, an overall stretch of less than about
50 mm can be pulled together again.
e. Where perimeter concrete foundation walls are present (Type B construction), there is
unlikely to be an opportunity to pull the foundation together again.
f. This is an economic decision for any of construction Types A, B, or C on a particular
property.
g. Any abrupt changes in floor level may require at least local relevelling, depending on the
type of floor covering.
h. Dwellings will have different degrees of damage, and in some cases the rebuilding of
foundations may only be needed in the vicinity of the damage.
i. More restrictive limits may be appropriate if there is concern that distortions in the floor
from earthquake damage may cause superstructure damage over time. For example:
• damage to partitions (gravity load bearing and/or non-gravity load bearing) supported U PD A TE:
by a floor or foundation which undergoes angular distortion. Note: Damage limits December 2012
applicable to specific types of partition are given in other Standards (eg, AS 2870 Table
8.1, ISO 4356 Annex D Table 1). AS/NZS 1170.0 Table C1 also provides guidance on
acceptable deflection limits for wall linings.
• damage to external claddings leading to a contravention of the various Building Code
performance requirements (eg, E2).
j. Foundation rebuilds are triggered by excessive differential settlements or excessive floor
stretches, as covered in Table 2.3. However, the size of crack widths determines only
whether or not a structural repair is required and this indicator criterion is already covered
in the last column of Table 2.2.
k. The indicator criteria provide guidance, they are not absolutes, as suggested by the
dotted vertical lines between the columns.
l. The column title which states “NO foundation relevel considered necessary” is intended U P D A TE:
to imply “– if all of the criteria below are met”. Accordingly, all of the criteria listed below December 2012
the title, which are actually upper limits on slopes and levels below which the floor must
be performing, must be satisfied (ie “AND” should be used). When a relevel or rebuild is
triggered by any of the situations described in the columns to the right of column 2, the
recommendation is to at least regain all of the maximums stated in column 2.
Figure 2.2: Diagrammatic representations of slope and overall variation limits
from Table 2.3
2.4 Effect on superstructure

While observations on the performance of the superstructure may indicate that differential
settlement has occurred beneath a floor (eg, creased wallpaper), the key check is to take
levels on the floor surface or a common feature near the floor such as the top of skirting
boards. Sticking doors and windows and cracked or wrinkled wall linings may suggest that
the floor is no longer level, but shaking distortion can cause similar effects.
When the floor is relevelled or rebuilt, the superstructure is likely to be stressed either
because the floor was not level before the earthquake and the process has undone
any remedial action taken on the superstructure before the earthquake, or because any
deformations caused by shaking are still present.
Situations have been observed with uniform sloping settlement greater than 100 mm
causing little damage other than sticking doors, etc. While these cases are nominally
beyond the parameters suggested in Table 2.3 for relevelling, a relevelling practitioner
should be consulted to advise on the practicality of undertaking a relevel.
2.5 Floor level investigation approaches

The degree to which the damaged floor is out of level should be established using
appropriate means, such as a dumpy or laser level and staff, or a pressure-sensitive
instrument that displays floor-level change from atmospheric pressure change. (Note:
pressure sensitive instruments must be used with extreme care; they have an accuracy
of ±3 mm and are subject to variations caused by, for example, differential heating from
sunlight. They also should be re-calibrated before and after each use.)
An appropriate allowance should be made for differences in thicknesses of floor coverings.

DEL ETI O N :
December 2012
F OUNDATION
C ONTENTS
AS S ES S M ENT
The degree of lateral extension of the ground floor plate of the house should be
established. Note that this is different from the lateral movement of the ground beneath
the house, and needs to be measured on the structure. This can be done by adding the
widths of the earthquake-induced cracks in the floor slab along the length of the floor and
across the width of the floor. For suspended timber floors supported only by piles (Type A
foundations), this will require a careful inspection of the exterior claddings at the bottom
of ground floor walls for signs of lateral extension. Here, lateral extensions are likely to be
concentrated at one or two discrete locations where connections in the framing have failed.
The degree of extension and/or flexural damage (if present) to the perimeter concrete
foundation in Type B foundations should also be established. This can be done by careful
inspection of the outside face of the foundation. Cracks should be measured and inspected
for the presence of reinforcing steel (with a torch in large cracks, a feeler gauge or a cover
meter). If the crack is wide (up to 5 mm), but there is no vertical misalignment or out-of-
plane misalignment, it is likely that reinforcing steel is present. In wider cracks it should be
possible to visually observe whether there is steel present.
2.6 Ground clearance requirements

Type A and B dwellings
For new foundations, NZS 3604 requires a crawl space of 450 mm beneath the underside
of floor joists. To maintain flooring durability, wood-based flooring is required to be a
minimum of 550 mm above the ground surface. Furthermore, NZS 3604 requires the tops
of piles supporting timber floors to be not less than 150 mm above the finished ground
level. This increases to 300 mm if the pile is timber and is cut off, and no bituminous damp
proof course (DPC) is fitted between the pile and the bearer.
Type C dwellings
Table 18 and Figure 65 of E2/AS1 provide criteria for clearances to the ground from the
finished floor level around the perimeter of a new slab-on-grade house. The required
ground clearances are summarised as follows:
• Where the adjoining ground is protected by permanent paving:

−− for masonry veneer exterior wall covering: 100 mm where the adjoining ground
adjacent to the permanent paving is at least 150 mm below the floor level
−− for any other exterior wall covering: 150 mm, or
• Where the adjoining ground is not protected by permanent paving:

−− for masonry veneer exterior wall covering: 150 mm
−− for any other exterior wall covering: 225 mm.
For situations where foundations are being replaced beneath an existing dwelling that is to
be retained, these ground clearance requirements should be met.
For properties in low-lying areas, there are additional considerations that need to be taken
into account. Section 8.4 provides an overview of flood risk and floor level considerations.
A 3. TEC H NIC A L
C ONTENTS
C ATEGOR IS ATION
3. T
echnical categorisation of
the Green Zone on the flat
3.1 Foundation technical categories U P D A TE:
December 2012
To clarify repair and reconstruction options, residential properties in the CERA Green Zone
on the flat have been assigned (on an area-wide basis) one of three foundation technical
categories (TC1, TC2 and TC3) that reflect both the liquefaction experienced to date and
future performance expectations.
The technical categories were established as a recovery measure and were intended to
have a limited life. The technical categories will facilitate the recovery by providing an
indication of what geotechnical assessments are required, and therefore:
• directing scarce engineering resources appropriately (given the observed building

performance during the earthquake sequence and the knowledge of the ground that
was available when they were established), and
• providing guidance on foundation solutions appropriate to both the ground on which
houses are situated and the level of damage sustained by the house and land.
Over time it is anticipated that the technical categories will become less important
because the detailed investigations being undertaken on TC3 properties (with results being
captured in the Canterbury Geotechnical Database) will provide extensive knowledge of
the subsurface ground conditions in these areas. This will enable appropriate foundations
to be designed for future new building work without necessarily using the TCs as a
starting point.
These technical categories are intended to guide foundation choice pathways that owners,
insurance companies, the EQC and their respective Project Management Offices (PMOs)
can use. They are a starting point for assessing a particular site, in order to determine the
appropriate foundation solution for each site.
T E C H N I C A L C AT E G O R I S AT I O N / PAG E 3 . 1
3. TECHNICAL
C AT E G O R I S AT ION A
UP D A TE: The foundation technical categories are defined as follows:

December 2012
• TC1: Future land damage from liquefaction is unlikely, and ground settlements
from liquefaction effects are expected to be within normally accepted tolerances.
Once the TC is confirmed, shallow geotechnical investigations may be required
(depending on the degree of damage, and in particular for a rebuild). If the ‘good
ground’ test is met, NZS 3604 foundations (as modified by B1/AS1) can be used.
• TC2: Liquefaction damage is possible in future large earthquakes. Once the TC
is confirmed, shallow geotechnical investigations may be required (depending on
the degree of damage, and in particular for a rebuild) and, subject to establishing
minimum bearing capacities, suspended timber floor or enhanced slab foundation
options per section 5 can be used.
• TC3: Liquefaction damage is possible in future large earthquakes. Deep
geotechnical investigation (or assessment of existing information) may be required
(depending on the degree of damage, and in particular for a rebuild) and depending
on the geotechnical assessment, might require specific engineering input for
foundations.
The technical categories are shown in the Foundation Technical Category Maps in Figures
3.1a to c on the following pages, colour-coded as follows:
• TC1 – Grey
• TC2 – Yellow
• TC3 – Blue.
UPD A TE: It is important to note that a property’s technical category does not automatically determine
December 2012 the foundation options or actual future performance for that property, either of which can
only be determined following an appropriate assessment. These assessments may lead
to different outcomes than indicated by the property’s technical category, in particular,
TC3 properties may, after specific investigation, be found to be suitable for TC2-type
foundations.
A 3. TEC H NIC A L
C ONTENTS
C ATEGOR IS ATION
Figure 3.1a: Technical categories of the Greater Christchurch area on the flat – UP D A TE:
Northern Area (Waimakariri District) as at 12 November 2012 December 2012
This map has been
updated to reflect
subsequent CERA land
zoning decisions. In
addition, checking to
confirm whether properties
were non-residential or on
the Port Hills has resulted
in about 1000 properties
changing from a technical
category to a not-applicable
(N/A) category or
vice-versa.
3. TECHNICAL
UP D A TE: Figure 3.1b: Technical categories of the Greater Christchurch area on the flat –
01.09.12. Central Area (Christchurch City) as at 12 November 2012
This map has been
updated to reflect
changing from
a technical category to
a not-applicable (N/A)
category or vice-versa.
A 3. TEC H NIC A L
C ONTENTS
C ATEGOR IS ATION
Figure 3.1c: Technical categories of the Greater Christchurch area on the flat – U PD A TE:
Southern Area (Selwyn District) as at 12 November 2012 01.09.12.
This map has been
updated to reflect
changing from
a technical category to
a not-applicable (N/A)
category or vice-versa.
The future land performance expectations for each of the foundation technical categories
are summarised below (noting that further information is provided in section 10).
3. TECHNICAL
UP D A TE: Table 3.1: Index criteria for foundation technical categories

December 2012
Foundation Nominal Nominal Nominal
Future land performance
Technical SLS land ULS land Lateral
expectation from liquefaction
Category settlement settlement Stretch
TC1 Liquefaction damage is unlikely in a 0–15 mm 0–25 mm Generally not

(where future large earthquake expected
confirmed)
TC2 Liquefaction damage is possible in a 0–50 mm 0–100 mm <50 mm

(where future large earthquake
confirmed)
TC3 Liquefaction damage is possible in a >50 mm >100 mm >50 mm

(where future large earthquake
confirmed)
UP D A TE: Un- Land in the uncategorised area will N/A N/A
December 2012 categorised contain properties that experience
future land performance as per
one of the above categories. It
also includes urban non-residential
land, unmapped rural land, the Port
Hills and Banks Peninsula. Normal
consenting conditions apply. This
may include the need for engaging a
geotechnical engineer to determine
the appropriate solution for the
property, based on a site- specific
assessment.
Note: In terms of engineering design standards, ‘small to medium-sized earthquake’ corresponds to a

serviceability limit state (SLS) event with a nominal return period of 25 years, and ‘moderate to large
earthquake’ corresponds to an ultimate limit state (ULS) event with a nominal return period of 500
years (refer to Part B, section 8.3) for importance level 2 structures.
These technical categories were derived from an analysis process which calculated a
normalised index for each property. This index represents the demand expected to be imposed
on a foundation by liquefaction-induced land deformation in future design-level earthquake
events, relative to the capacity of an enhanced foundation to withstand these demands.
TC1 is based on observations of damage in the Canterbury earthquake sequence. In

addition to such observations, TC2 includes locations where underlying soil types are
potentially susceptible to liquefaction, as well as those areas where liquefaction was
actually observed.
TC1 is generally regarded as most likely to be ‘good ground’, defined in NZS 3604 as being
suitable for standard residential construction (subject to confirmation of bearing capacity
from the standard NZS 3604 tests – Scala Penetrometer, hand auger). TC2 and TC3 are
outside the definition of ‘good ground’ for standard residential construction, and are
therefore not included within the scope of NZS 3604 with respect to foundations.
Further information about the technical categories and their relationship to future land and
building settlement performance is provided in section 10.
A 3. TEC H NIC A L
C ONTENTS
C ATEGOR IS ATION
3.2 Obtaining technical category information

Technical category and other land information can be obtained from the CERA website:
www.landcheck.org.nz. The website will advise residential property owners and their
insurers of the foundation technical category appropriate to their specific site.
Insurers, their Project Management Offices (PMOs), building consent authorities, designers
and builders will have access to the Canterbury Geotechnical Database as necessary
canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com. This facility will allow engineers to
access technical category and existing geotechnical information specific to the site, and
provides a means to enter the geotechnical data collected and facilitate building consent
applications. Users must register to gain access to the information on this site. The
Canterbury Geotechnical Database is administered by CERA.
Information from geotechnical assessments is currently being gathered and will be monitored U P D A TE:
on an area wide basis. This information includes indications of the severity of liquefaction December 2012
observed at the property, and whether significant lateral spreading has occurred, along with
flood depth parameters. This will inform repair/reconstruction pathways.
Key information needs to be submitted to the relevant building consent authority, including
geotechnical investigation reports and other simple specific information completed on a
web-based proforma. Cone Penetration Tests (CPT), borelog and lab-testing electronic data
files will also have to be provided to building consent authorities.
3. TECHNICAL
UP D A TE: Figure 3.2: Overview of the foundation technical category information management
December 2012 process
Map loaded into the

web-based system
Address checked against

valuation reference
Query by
number, QPID reference
authorised user
number, certificate of
title, legal description
and coordinates
Process map
and query
database
Output as
a summary Database classifies
page for property as either TC1,
authorised user TC2 or TC3.
A summary of land
damage, settlement and
flood risk is provided
Insurer/PMO or owner
Technician/engineer
undertakes investigation
and design according to
the technical category
TC3 TC1/TC2
Investigated
by engineer/ Engineer completes
Technician/engineer completes
technician geotechnical investigation
web-based summary form capturing
and report including
investigations data and any proposed
web-based summary form
foundation solution different to that
capturing investigations
provided in the guidance for
data and which foundation
the assigned TC
solution adopted
TC3 TC1/TC2
Processed
by building BCA checks
consent electronically uploaded
authority
geotechnical reports
(BCA)
submitted as part
of a building consent,
and releases to the
web-based system
as appropriate
A 3. TEC H NIC A L
C ONTENTS
C ATEGOR IS ATION
3.3 Confirming the foundation technical category

The first step in investigating a dwelling involves confirming the site’s technical category
before repair or replacement options for foundations can be considered. This process
involves observing the land damage at the site, as outlined below. Some aspects of land
damage may no longer be apparent for some properties, and the absolute level of land
settlement may not be readily measurable. Damage to the dwelling will in most cases
provide the best indication of the level of settlement experienced by the structure.
TC1 confirmation
Sites categorised as TC1 are not expected to display any signs of land damage. If there
has been any surface manifestation of liquefaction on the property during the sequence of
earthquakes, or any deformation of the land that indicates liquefaction of subsurface layers,
treatment of the site as TC2 or TC3 will be required.
TC2 confirmation
Some sites categorised as TC2 are expected to display some surface manifestation of
land damage, or building damage consistent with land movement. As TC2 encompasses
sites with a soil profile that is considered at some risk of ground damage from liquefaction
in future earthquakes, many sites will not have discernible land movement or foundation
damage from this earthquake sequence.
If surface manifestation of damage to the land or foundations is greater than implied by the
TC2 categorisation, then apply the approach outlined for TC3. This will involve working with
a CPEng. geotechnical engineer.
TC3 confirmation
If damage to the land or foundations is less than implied by the TC3 categorisation, then a U PD A TE:
deep geotechnical investigation (see section 3.4.2) undertaken by a CPEng. geotechnical December 2012
engineer may indicate that the expected site behaviour is such that TC2 foundation
solutions are suitable. Specific design based on the deep geotechnical investigation and
TC2 solutions signed off by a suitably qualified CPEng. geotechnical engineer can be
undertaken if approved through the BCA consenting process.
3.4 Geotechnical investigations required
3.4.1 Shallow subsurface investigation for TC1 and TC2

The investigation to determine the suitability and bearing capacity of the soil (unless being
carried out as a specific investigation and design by an appropriately qualified geotechnical
engineer) shall follow the procedure as generally outlined in NZS 3604:2011, with the
following exceptions:
• While the prescribed depth of investigation of 2 m is typically acceptable, it is
recommended that, where practical, 50 mm diameter boreholes for the examination of
soil materials extend further, to between 3 and 4 m below ground level. Significant areas
of Canterbury (in particular Christchurch) are underlain with organic peat deposits and it
is important to check for the presence of these materials.
3. TECHNICAL
• ‘Soft or very soft peat’ in the defined exclusions from ‘good ground’ is to be replaced
with ‘peat’ in the list of unacceptable materials.
• For foundation Options 1–4 in section 5 of this document, Scala blows per 100 mm
shall be minimum 2 blows (ie, 50 mm per blow) for ground deemed to have 200 kPa
geotechnical ultimate bearing capacity. For other foundation types (eg, in TC1), 300 kPa
will need to be confirmed in accordance with NZS 3604.
Note that the ‘300 kPa’ and ‘200 kPa’ values discussed above are only ‘index’ values for
use in conjunction with NZS 3604 or this document. The actual geotechnical ultimate
bearing capacity for a particular foundation for design purposes, when estimated from
scala penetrometer test results, is subject to modifications that depend on the soil type,
foundation geometry and water table depth. (Furthermore, scala penetrometer testing as
a means of determining bearing capacities is only appropriate for residential structures,
particularly those within NZS 3604). Where the specified ‘200 kPa’ or ‘300 kPa’ criteria
are not met on a site, a specific engineering design calculation should be carried out to
determine the actual static loads being applied to the foundations. In many cases this will
allow the use of Options 1 to 4 on ground with less than ‘200 kPa’ geotechnical ultimate,
or for the appropriate resizing of other foundation footing dimensions without the need to
excavate down to depths where 200 kPa or 300 kPa soils are located. Due regard must
be given to soil type, foundation geometry and water table depth in carrying out these
calculations. 150 kPa geotechnical ultimate (raw) should however be considered as the
lower limit of acceptable soil strength, in the absence of specialist geotechnical advice.
Due regard must always be given to other potential issues, for example peat deposits and
non-engineered fill.
Shallow subsurface investigations can be carried out by a soils technician or other suitably
trained and supervised person. In TC2 this needs to be under the guidance of a CPEng.
qualified engineer.
3.4.2 Deep geotechnical site investigation for TC3

The scope of a deep geotechnical investigation must be determined by a CPEng.
geotechnical engineer, in consultation with guidance provided in this document.
Residential sites in TC3 will require more significant geotechnical investigations than those
required for TC1 and TC2. These are necessary to better understand local site conditions so
that informed engineering judgements can be made on the appropriate foundation solution
for the site. Suburb-wide geotechnical investigations have recently been undertaken in
most areas within TC3 in the Christchurch area. However, those investigations are typically
spaced hundreds of metres apart and, due to the significant local variability in ground
conditions in these areas, site-specific information is considered necessary to make good
engineering judgements.
A 3. TEC H NIC A L
C ONTENTS
C ATEGOR IS ATION
The geotechnical investigation process in TC3 is outlined in Part C and broadly

U PD A TE:
follows the subdivision investigation requirements set out in Part D of the guidance
December 2012
and at www.dbh.govt.nz/subdivisions-assessment-guide. Generally at least two deep
investigation points (CPTs, boreholes with SPTs, etc) to 10 to 15 m depth would be
expected, where practical, supplemented by shallower investigation points using (for
example) hand augers and Scala Penetrometer testing. (In some cases where CPT testing
is hampered by gravel layers, a single borehole with SPT testing may be appropriate,
augmented by shallower investigations). Groundwater measurements following the
investigations should also be taken. Liquefaction assessments should be carried out
following the guidelines contained in Part C, and appropriate foundation or ground
remediation solutions designed.
See Part C for further information on deep geotechnical site investigation

requirements.
3.4.3 Individual investigations on land that is not categorised. U P D A TE:

December 2012
Land that is not categorised is expected to display a wide range of liquefaction
performance, depending on location. Reference should be made to GNS Science
Consultancy Report 2012/218 ‘Review of liquefaction hazard information in eastern
Canterbury, including Christchurch City and parts of Selwyn, Waimakariri and Hurunui
Districts’, and also to Part D of this document for guidance on an appropriate level of
investigation and assessment. Following such an assessment, foundation solutions from
the applicable section of these guidelines can be adopted.
In some areas (for example land that are within the Ecan/GNS assessment area defined as
‘damaging liquefaction unlikely’) it is expected that simple TC1-like assessment procedures
will be appropriate for an individual house site; in other areas deeper geotechnical
investigations will be required to determine appropriate foundation solutions. (In all areas
due regard to other potential hazards is needed.)
3.5 O
verview of the process for repairing and
rebuilding houses
Figure 3.3 provides a flowchart illustrating the general process for determining the level of
repair or rebuild required for houses on the flat.
This figure indicates the four principal outcome options, with corresponding references to
subsequent sections of this document:
• Repairing superstructure only (section 7)

• Repairing and/or relevelling foundations (section 4 and Appendix A1) and then
repairing superstructure (section 7)
• Replacing foundations (section 5 and Appendix A2) and then repairing
superstructure (section 7)
• Rebuilding the dwelling on a new foundation (section 5).
3. TECHNICAL
Refer to Table 2.3 for guidance on whether to repair and relevel foundations, or to replace
with new foundations.
Recommendations for the assessment and repair of damaged superstructure elements

such as wall bracing, and wall and roof-frame connections, are provided in section 7.
Guidance on the approach for repairing or replacing unreinforced brick and stone masonry
foundations and concrete block masonry foundations is also presented in section 7. For the
assessment and repair of chimneys, refer to Appendix A3.
For all technical categories where no foundation damage is evident, and where the
indicator criteria in Table 2.3 suggest that a relevel or rebuild is unnecessary, superstructure
repairs can be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations in section 7, with no
need for a subsurface investigation.
For dwellings in TC3, appropriate foundation repair solutions may involve undertaking
a deep geotechnical investigation. Guidance on repairs to house foundations in TC3 is
provided in Part C.
T E C H N I C A L C AT E G O R I S AT I O N / PAG E 3 . 1 2
A 3. TEC H NIC A L
C ONTENTS
C ATEGOR IS ATION
Figure 3.3: Determining the level of repair/rebuild required for Green Zone houses U PD A TE:
on the flat December 2012
Figure 3.3 has been
amended to introduce the
Obtain initial TC classification option of a partial repair
from database of foundations.
Site data indicates

Confirm TC classification
performance akin
on site (section 3.3)
to a different TC
Refer to TC classification
geotechnical confirmed
engineer
Determine whether
No structural
there is structural
foundation
foundation damage
damage
(section 2)
Structural foundation damage
Minor crack Repair/relevel foundations New foundations

repairs if (section 4) (section 5)
required
(Appendix A4)
Re-level Partial
foundations foundation Existing
and repair replacement / superstructure New dwelling
cracks relevel retained
New superstructure
Repair superstructure (section 7) (eg, NZS 3604,
NZS 4229)
3. TECHNICAL
3.6 Building consent information

See sections 8.2.4 and 8.2.5 of this guidance for information on building consent processes
and the format supporting information should take.
T E C H N I C A L C AT E G O R I S AT I O N / PAG E 3 . 1 4
A 4. R EPA IR ING
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
4. Repairing house foundations

4.1 General
This section contains suggested approaches for the repair and reinstatement of house
foundations where the level of damage does not require foundation replacement or
complete rebuilding. Note that these approaches will not suit all houses that are considered
repairable, and that each house will require careful consideration.
Reference is made throughout this section to the standard foundation Types A, B and C as
defined in Figure 2.1 and Table 2.1.
Situations involving the complete replacement of the foundations beneath an existing

house are addressed in section 5.5.
Repair approaches for TC3

Appropriate foundation repair solutions for TC3 may involve undertaking a deep
geotechnical site investigation (refer to section 3.4.2) and making decisions based on
the results of this investigation. Guidance on repairs to house foundations is provided
in Part C.
The approaches outlined in this section are not applicable for properties where lateral
spreading of >50 mm across the building footprint could occur in a future SLS event.
For foundations on hillsides that rely on retaining walls for support of either the structure or
the ground immediately above or below the structure, see section 6.
4.2 Local repairs (TC1 and TC2)

An overview of the process for repairing existing foundations on TC1 and TC2 sites is
provided in Figure 4.1. Re-levelling may also be required in conjunction with local repairs
(see section 4.3).
For dwellings with Type A foundations, local settlement or pile damage can be addressed
by repacking and/or pile replacement as appropriate.
If all piles are leaning in the same direction by more than 15 mm per 1 m of height, the
overall bracing capacity should be reviewed against the provisions of NZS 3604.
For Type B foundations, local or partial replacement of the perimeter foundation wall may
be all that is required to reinstate the foundation, provided adequate bearing is established
from shallow subsurface investigations.
R E PA I R I N G F O U N DAT I O N S / PAG E 4 . 1
4 . R E PA I R I N G
F O U N DAT I O N S A
UP D A TE: Figure 4.1: Overview of the process for local repairs to repairing foundations on
December 2012 TC1 and TC2 sites
Local repair of foundations

(section 4.2)
Crack repairs only Shallow subsurface

required investigation
Geotechnical UBC Geotechnical UBC

>300 kPa <300 kPa
Types A Specific engineering

Repair/replace piles in design
accordance with NZS 3604
and relevel as required
(section 4.2)
Type B
Enhanced foundation
Type B or C repair
wall and/or repair cracks
cracks (Appendix
(Appendix A4) plus repair/
A4)
replace piles in accordance
with NZS 3604 and relevel
as required (section 4.2)
Type C
Repair cracks (Appendix
A4) and relevel as required
(Table 2.3 and Appendix A1)
Engineer sign-off (TC2

only): Engineer sign-off:
Construction is in accordance Specific engineering design
with NZS 3604 and section 4.2
A 4. R EPA IR ING
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
Figure 4.2 provides suggested options for repair or partial replacement for Type B U P D A TE:
foundations in TC1 and TC2 where only a small proportion of the foundation has settled. December 2012
Figure 4.2a shows a typical plan of such a Type B foundation where settlement of only part
of the foundation wall has occurred. In this scenario, a limited number of piles are also likely
to have settled, and packing or replacement will be required, depending on the amount of
settlement.
When damage is not sufficient to require replacement of sections of the perimeter

foundation, (ie, the perimeter foundation is only moderately cracked) then the settlement
may be corrected using an appropriate lifting or packing option in Figure 4.2. Crack repairs
may be undertaken in accordance with Appendix A4.
If the section of foundation wall is to be replaced, it will need to have enhanced strength
and stiffness to span possible future differential settlements beneath it.
The wall section detailed in Figure 4.2a has sufficient strength and stiffness to span a
4 m loss of support for a single-storey dwelling with heavy wall cladding (eg, brick veneer),
or a two-storey dwelling with a light- or medium-weight cladding. A suitable connection
between the old and the new section of foundation wall must be provided.
If there is no reinforcing steel present in the existing foundation, starter bars should be
epoxied or grouted into the existing concrete. If reinforcing steel is present, the existing
concrete should be broken back to expose sufficient steel to allow it to be lapped onto the
steel in the new section of foundation (see Figure 4.2a).
For situations where more extensive settlement has occurred, the full replacement of the U P D A TE:
perimeter concrete foundation is likely to be required to provide an effective foundation, December 2012
in addition to maintaining the style of the dwelling. A shallow subsurface investigation

in accordance with section 3.4.1 will be required to confirm 300 kPa geotechnical ULS
bearing capacity. If the full perimeter concrete wall is being replaced and the geotechnical
ULS bearing capacity is confirmed to be greater than 300 kPa, the typical wall section
shown in Figure 4.2a should be used. For lower bearing capacities, specific design will be
required.
For Type C dwellings, guidance for relevelling the foundation is given in section 4.3, while
repair of cracks in concrete foundations is outlined in Appendix A4. This guidance extends
beyond cracks of 5 mm width. Table 2.2 indicates that a structural repair is not likely to be
required if the crack is less than 5 mm, and the stretch is less than 20 mm, and the slope
is less than 1 in 200, and the differential settlement is less than 50 mm. However, crack
filling in accordance with Appendix A4 may be necessary to ensure the durability of any
embedded reinforcing steel, or to provide support for some floor coverings (eg vinyl), or to
provide an aesthetically acceptable appearance in the case of perimeter foundations.
UP D A TE: Figure 4.2: Options for addressing localised settlement of Type B perimeter concrete
December 2012 foundation beams (eg corners)
Type B foundation
has settled locally
Options
Pack off Lifting Lifting Lifting Lifting Demolish

perimeter Option 1 – Option 2 – Option 3 – Option 4 – and rebuild
foundation jacking jacking off resin LMG section
beam up to towards screw piles injection injection
50 mm and level and fill towards towards towards
fill cracks cracks level and fill level and fill level and fill
cracks cracks cracks
Consideration
Suitable Suitable Suitable Less Less Suitable –

(but may be (remove suitable suitable foundation
restricted piles once – care – may can be
if ground lifted) required to introduce widened
Ground support control flow uneven to reduce
bearing less
beneath May ground bearing
than 300kPa
jacking pads introduce stiffness pressure
is <100kPa) uneven
ground
stiffness
Less Less Less Less Less Suitable

suitable suitable suitable suitable suitable Mechanical
Treatment – care connection
Vertical offset
of offset required to provided
at individual
cracks >10 mm to be control flow
separately
Mechanical connection (eg dowels) may be required
considered
across cracks prior to lifting
Less Suitable if Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable

Heavy cladding suitable sufficient (remove (depending (depending with
(eg brick soil bearing piles once on bearing) on bearing) cladding
veneer) strength (ie lifted) removal and
>100kPa) rebuild
Note: Lifting Options 1 to 4 are presented in Appendix A1.
A 4. R EPA IR ING
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
Figure 4.2a: Example of a partial foundation wall replacement
Plan and cross-section
Elevation of suggested joint

Section through enhanced between old and new foundation
foundation wall
4.3 Re-levelling floors (TC1 and TC2)
4.3.1 Overview of relevelling options

An overview of the process for relevelling existing foundations on TC1 and TC2 sites is
provided in Figure 4.3. Table 4.1 summarises the relevelling strategies and likely occupancy
implications.
For Type A dwellings, the basic relevelling operation will draw on standard methods for
relevelling and re-piling houses. Method statements are given in Appendix A1.
When timber and concrete piles must be packed to relevel the floor, a single packer (or two
opposing wedges) should be used and should have an equivalent area to the smallest of
the bearing areas of the pile top or the bearer originally in contact. The packer should be
fixed with a minimum of two wire dogs and two skew nails (timber piles) or 4 mm wire and
staples (concrete piles) or equivalent strength fixings. If the piles have a bracing function for
the subfloor, then the required connections should be determined from NZS 3604. Settled
stone piles should not be packed but replaced.
For Type B and C dwellings, the four options considered most suitable for relevelling are
summarised in Appendix A1, along with detailed sample method statements.
For Type C dwellings, any services beneath the foundation slab must be considered as
there is a possibility they could be damaged during the relevelling process. Type A and B
dwellings are more likely to have the services suspended between the floor and the ground
where any damage can be detected. However, Type B dwellings may include waste pipes
that pass through or under the perimeter foundation wall, and care will be required to
identify and protect these during any lifting operations.
Table 4.1 summarises the relevelling strategies and likely occupancy implications.
Building Code issues

Re-levelling foundations and floor slabs using any of the options listed in Appendix A1 is
building work. Building work includes sitework, which is defined as ’work on a building
site, including earthworks, preparatory to, or associated with, the construction, alteration
(repair), demolition or removal of a building‘.
Underpinning grout or engineered resin forms part of the foundation system.
UP D A TE: For regulatory and Building Code issuses relating to relevelling foundations and floor slabs,
December 2012
refer to sections 8.2, 8.4 and Appendix C1.
A 4. R EPA IR ING
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
Figure 4.3: Overview of the process for relevelling foundations on TC1 and TC2 sites
Re-level floor/foundations
(section 4.3)
Shallow subsurface
investigation
Geotechnical UBC Geotechnical UBC

>300 kPa <300 kPa
Type A
Specific engineering
Re-level using standard
design (primarily a simple
methods (section 4.3, Table
check of actual applied
4.1)
bearing stresses compared to
Type B measured soil strength)
Re-level using
approach depending on
superstructure weights
(section 4.3, Table 4.1)
Type C
Re-level using
approach depending on
superstructure weights
(section 4.3, Table 4.1).
Repair cracks (Appendix A4)
Engineer sign-off
(TC2 only):
Engineer sign-off:
Construction is in accordance
Specific engineering design
with section 4.3 and
Appendix A1
UP D A TE: Table 4.1: Summary of foundation relevelling approaches for TC1 and TC2 on the flat
December 2012
Foundation relevelling
Foundation type Occupancy during
Re-levelling strategy
relevelling operations
Type A Remove base skirt, disconnect Yes Minor disruption to
Foundation: Timber-framed services if adjacent to works, occupants during relevelling
suspended timber floor pack and (for some piles) repile of piles
structures supported only affected area. Repiling may
on piles require lifting of flooring in some
areas. Reconnect services and
Cladding: Light- and
reskirt perimeter
medium-weight
Type B1 Disconnect services if adjacent to Yes As for Type A regarding pile

Foundation: Timber-framed works, expose affected perimeter relevelling. Relevelling the
suspended timber floor concrete foundation wall and perimeter concrete foundation
structures with perimeter relevel, repile affected floor area. wall using low mobility grout
concrete foundation Repiling may require lifting of or engineered resin may
flooring in some areas. Inject permit occupancy during the
relevant cracks in foundation wall, work. Jacking may require
medium-weight
reconnect services and reinstate vacancy depending on which
ground to foundation wall part of the foundation wall is
to be relevelled
Type B2 Disconnect services if adjacent No Perimeter will be disrupted

Foundation: Timber-framed to works, possibly partial to give access to foundation
suspended timber floor removal of cladding, and relevel, wall and will disrupt services
structures with perimeter repile affected floor area (may Partial foundation wall
concrete foundation require lifting of flooring in some and cladding removal and
areas). Inject relevant cracks reinstatement is considered
Cladding: Heavy-weight
in foundation wall, reconnect (see section 4.2)
(veneer)
services and reinstate ground to
foundation wall
Type C1 Re-level using low mobility grout Case This procedure is generally
Foundation: Timber-framed or engineered resin by limited to slabs with crack
dwelling on concrete floor Disconnect and reinstate case width <5 mm
(slab-on-grade) services, if necessary The process requires
Cladding: Light- and or stripping out of the interior
medium-weight floor coverings
Re-level using slab and edge
foundation jacking and grout
Disconnect and reinstate
services, if necessary
or
Re-level using screw piles and
grout
Disconnect and reinstate services
Inject relevant cracks in slab
A 4. R EPA IR ING
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
Foundation relevelling
Foundation type Occupancy during
Re-levelling strategy
relevelling operations
Type C2 Disconnect services if adjacent Case This procedure is generally
Foundation: Timber-framed to works, possibly partial removal by limited to slabs with crack
dwelling on concrete floor of cladding, and relevel, inject case width <5 mm and only minor
(slab-on-grade) relevant cracks in slab, reconnect cracking to veneer mortar.
services The process requires
(veneer) stripping out of the interior
floor coverings
Notes to Table 4.1:

1. It may be necessary to remove decking and paths in order to expose the foundation wall (Type B) or the
perimeter foundation (Type C) for relevelling and rebuilding works.
2. It may be necessary to demolish chimney bases if they are cast integrally with the foundation wall to
allow the foundation wall to be lifted (Type B).
3. For definitions of light-, medium- and heavy-weight claddings see Glossary.
4.3.2 Re-levelling concrete or timber piles throughout (Type A)

These foundation systems are often present where the dwelling is clad with light-weight
(eg, timber or fibre cement weatherboards, sheet claddings, EIFS) or medium-weight
materials (eg, stucco).
In these instances, it may be possible to relevel the existing foundation or lift the
superstructure, including the timber floor, and remediate any damage caused to the
claddings and linings of the structure. A summary of the process is given in Table 4.1, with
a more detailed process description included in Appendix A1.
4.3.3 Re-levelling perimeter concrete foundation wall

(light- or medium-weight claddings) (Type B1)
These foundation systems are often present where the dwelling is clad with light-weight
materials (eg, timber or fibre cement weatherboards, sheet claddings, EIFS) or medium-
weight materials (eg, stucco).
In these instances, it may be possible to relevel the superstructure, including the floor,
and remediate any damage caused to the claddings and linings of the structure, without
relevelling the foundation wall. A summary of the process is given in Table 4.1 with a more
detailed process description included in Appendix A1.
4.3.4 Re-levelling perimeter concrete foundation wall

(heavy veneer cladding) (Type B2)
This continuous foundation wall is always present where the dwelling has a timber floor
and heavy cladding materials (eg, brick or concrete masonry veneer).
In these instances, it can be very difficult to lift the foundation without causing significant
damage to the veneer cladding. Consideration should be given to relevelling with the
veneer in place. A decision should also be made on the possibility of repairing the existing
veneer, rather than immediately demolishing and rebuilding once the foundation is level.
If the veneer must be removed and insulation is not already in place, the owner may
choose to have insulation installed in the exterior walls at their own expense. The Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) Warm Up NZ programme might be an option.
All four relevelling options given in Appendix A1 may be used. A summary of the process is
given in Table 4.1 and a more detailed process description included in Appendix A1.
4.3.5 Re-levelling slab-on-grade floors (light- or medium-weight

claddings) (Type C1)
In instances of slab-on-grade floors where the dwelling is clad with light-weight materials
(eg, timber or fibre cement weatherboards, sheet claddings, EIFS) or medium-weight
materials (eg, stucco), it may be possible to relevel the superstructure, including the floor,
and remediate any damage caused to the claddings and linings of the structure. A summary
of the process is given in Table 4.1 with a more detailed process description included in
Appendix A1.
4.3.6 Re-levelling slab-on-grade floors (heavy veneer cladding)

(Type C2)
Concrete slab-on-grade floor systems are often used with heavy cladding materials (eg,
brick or concrete masonry veneer). In these instances, it can be very difficult to relevel
the floor without causing significant damage to the veneer cladding. However, it is
recommended that the relevelling operation is undertaken with the veneer in place and a
decision made on the possibility of repairing the existing veneer rather than immediately
demolishing and rebuilding once the floor is level.
If the veneer must be removed and insulation is not already in place, the owner may
choose to have insulation installed in the exterior walls at their own expense.
All four lifting options given in Appendix A1 may be used. A summary of the process is
given in Table 4.1, with a more detailed process description included in Appendix A1.
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
5. New foundations in TC1

and TC2
5.1 General
This section covers both foundations for new houses and situations where foundations U PD A TE:
are completely rebuilt for existing houses in the Green Zone on the flat. These foundation December 2012
solutions are primarily for properties classified TC1 or TC2. Some of these foundation
solutions may also be applicable on some sites currently classifed TC3, following
site-specific investigation and assessment (refer to section 13.6). Refer to Table 2.3
for guidance on whether a foundation can be relevelled or should be rebuilt.
New foundation options are outlined in sections 5.2 and 5.3, and guidance for specific
engineering design is provided in section 5.4. Additional considerations for replacement
foundations beneath existing houses are provided in section 5.5. Detailing considerations
for services are outlined in section 5.6.
New foundations for the above situations will require a foundation system suitable for
the foundation technical category confirmed for the site. The choice of foundation option
for TC1 and TC2 will depend on the results of a shallow subsurface investigation (refer to
section 3.4.1).
An overview of the process for new foundations on TC1 and TC2 sites is provided in
Figures 5.1 and 5.2 respectively.
In TC1, foundation Types A and B can be built as per NZS 3604. Type C foundations will
require reinforced concrete slabs as provided in NZS 3604 Timber Framed Buildings, as
modified by B1/AS1, which requires ductile reinforcing in slabs: refer to the Ministry’s
information sheet at www.dbh.govt.nz/seismicity-info
For all three foundation types in TC1, the geotechnical ultimate bearing capacity must U P D A TE:
be greater than 300 kPa in order to use standard foundation details unmodified, without December 2012
specific consideration of actual building weights, imposed bearing stresses and actual
soil strengths. Alternatively, a stiffened raft in accordance with section 5.3 may be used
if the geotechnical ultimate bearing capacity is greater than 200 kPa, otherwise a specific
engineering design is required. (This will primarily consist of a simple calculation of
specifically imposed bearing stresses and actual soil strengths (section section 3.4.1)).
In TC2, new foundations will need to be capable of resisting tension effects from nominal
lateral spreading. They must also be capable of accommodating settlement of the ground
beneath the house. Options 1 to 5 in this section are considered to be suitable for TC2. Specific
information regarding deep pile options is provided in Part C. The deep pile options will require
deep geotechnical investigation and specific design.
Refer to Part C for TC3 foundation options. Specific design will be required for any
deep piled raft option or any alternative designs and will need to be undertaken in
consultation with a geotechnical engineer.
N E W F O U N DAT I O N S / PAG E 5 . 1
5 . N E W
Dwellings that require reconstruction because they are a total loss can normally be
designed to provide more resilience than existing structures. It is noted that light dwellings
are likely to perform better than heavy dwellings. They can be more easily re-levelled or
repaired if damaged in a future large earthquake and are likely to undergo lower amounts of
settlement. Therefore the use of light timber or steel framing, light-weight cladding
systems and light-weight roofing materials is recommended wherever possible for
rebuilding houses and building new houses, particularly where liquefaction is possible.
UP D A TE: Figure 5.1: Overview of process for new foundations on TC1 sites
December 2012
New foundations
(section 5.2)
Shallow subsurface
investigation
Geotechnical UBC >300 kPa Geotechnical UBC <300 kPa
Types A & B Specific engineering

Shallow pile foundation design
system in accordance with Note that if geotechnical
NZS 3604 (section 5.2) ULS bearing is between 200
kPa and 300 kPa, stiffened
Type C
raft from section 5.3 can be
Slab-on-grade foundations
used. Otherwise, primarily a
in accordance with
simple calculation to check
NZS 3604
actual bearing stresses
(tied slab) (refer to
against soil strengths (refer
section 5.2)
to section 3.4.1)
No engineer sign-off
required: Engineer sign-off:
Construction is in accordance Specific engineering design
with NZS 3604 and section 5.2
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
Figure 5.2: Overview of process for new foundations on TC2 sites
New foundations
(section 5.2)
Shallow subsurface
investigation
Geotechnical UBC Geotechnical UBC Geotechnical UBC

>300 kPa >200 kPa <200 kPa
Types A & B Type C Specific engineering U P D A TE:

Shallow pile/foundation Stiffened raft slab design December 2012
wall system in foundations (refer to section 3.4.1)
accordance with (refer to section 5.3) Note that a deep piled
NZS 3604 (refer section raft solution can be used
5.2) (Types A & B often provided that a deep
suitable for <300 kPa geotechnical investigation
bearing pressure where is undertaken and certain
specifically designed) criteria are met
(refer to section 3.4.1) (refer to Part C, section 15.2)
Engineer sign-off: Engineer sign-off:

Construction is in accordance with section 5 Specific engineering design
The use of NZS 3604 for the design of the superstructure (ie, everything from the ground
floor plate up) is acceptable for the construction of any house within the scope of NZS
3604 (ie, the dimensional limitations are adhered to, and the use is limited to Importance
Level 2 (AS/NZS 1170.0)).
5 . N E W
5.2 Overview of new foundation options

TC1
Type A dwellings within the scope of NZS 3604 could generally be founded on shallow
piles, if ground conditions permit, in TC1. While Type B dwellings are now rarely
constructed on the flat in Christchurch, they are still suitable for TC1. NZS 3604 Type C
foundation options, (with B1/AS1 modifications) are considered suitable.1
TC2
A light clad house structure supported fully on short timber or concrete piles (Type A)
is considered to be a valid option in TC2. It is the most easily repaired form of dwelling
construction. Type B construction is also considered suitable for TC2 areas. Provisions are
given in this section.
The principal objectives in designing new concrete slab foundation systems for rebuilding in
TC2 ground damaged land should be that any settlements that occur in future earthquakes
will be constrained to cope with settlements outlined in Table 3.1. In many areas of greater
Christchurch, the ‘good ground’ provisions of NZS 3604 may not apply, and therefore the
concrete foundation and flooring provisions of that Standard should not be used in these
areas without specific engineering design input (see section 3.4.1).
Providing stiffened and better-tied-together floor slabs for Type C houses in TC2 areas will
reduce hogging or other undue deformation of the slab as a result of future earthquake
induced land damage and will enable them to be more readily relevelled.
UP D A TE: Foundation Options 1 to 4 in this section are considered to provide sufficient stiffness
December 2012 to accommodate the expected future ground movements for TC2 for all but two-storey
houses with heavy-weight cladding extending over both storeys. Thickening of the slab in
Option 2 will allow its use with heavy-weight (brick venner) cladding and a heavyweight
roof. Structure cladding weight limits are also specified for Options 3 and 4, above for
which specific engineering design would be required to stiffen the options to satisfy the
performance criteria in section 5.4. A summary of the wall and roof cladding weight limits
for Options 1 to 4 is provided in Table 7.2
Options 1 to 4 are expected to be able to bridge a length of up to 4 m of settled soil (or

sudden lack of support) beneath the foundation and cantilever a distance of up to 2 m over
settled soil at the building footprint extremities, within acceptable deformation limits.
While it is not envisaged that these foundation and floor options will require specific
engineering design, their documentation will require oversight by structural engineers.
UP D A TE: Flood risk mitigation requirements may require the building platform to be constructed
December 2012
to a height greater than the land surrounding the dwelling (see section 8). However, the
potential for future liquefaction-induced settlement in properties in TC2 leads to the
geotechnical requirement to limit the increase in mass added to the land. The maximum
recommended increase in height of building platforms2 above the surrounding land is
400 mm (refer to Figure 5.3). Greater increases may be allowable on a site-by-site basis
following geotechnical investigation.
(1) Refer to www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/
(2) See the glossary for definition of ‘building platform’.
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
Figure 5.3: Maximum building platform heights above surrounding ground (TC1 and TC2)
In uncategorised areas on the flat, a geotechnical engineer should be engaged to undertake

a site-specific investigation to determine which of the above foundation technical
categories best fits the site and recommend appropriate investigations and foundations
accordingly.
A summary of proposed foundation solutions for the three technical categories is given in
Table 5.1, and the corresponding geotechnical requirements are given in Table 5.2.
Table 5.1: Summary of proposed foundation solutions for rebuilt foundations or new U P D A TE:
foundations on the flat December 2012
TC2 TC3
TC1
Minor liquefaction likely Future liquefaction expected
Future liquefaction unlikely
and SLS spreading <50 mm and SLS spreading >50 mm
NZS 3604 timber piles Light construction with timber Deep piles (section 15.2)2
and floor or tied concrete floors and shallow piles as per NZS or
slabs (as modified by B1/ 3604 where ULS bearing capacity
Site ground improvement
AS1) where ULS bearing > 300 kPa (shallow geotechnical
(section 15.3)2
capacity > 300 kPa (shallow investigation required1)
subsurface investigation or
or
required1) Surface structures with
Enhanced perimeter foundation wall
otherwise shallow foundations (section
(see section 4.2) and shallow piles as
15.4)2, whichever is the most
Raft foundations per NZS 3604 (shallow geotechnical
appropriate for the site,
(Options 1-4) investigation required1)
or
or or
Specific engineering design3
Specific engineering design3 Raft foundations (Options 1–4)
(including deep piles) or
Specific engineering design3
(including deep piles)
(1) Shallow subsurface investigation – refer to section 3.4.1

(2) See Part C
(3) See section 3.4.1
In uncategorised areas on the flat, a geotechnical engineer should be engaged to undertake

a site-specific investigation to determine which of the above foundation technical
categories best fits the site and recommend appropriate investigations and foundations
accordingly.
5 . N E W
UP D A TE: Table 5.2: Geotechnical requirements for rebuilt or new foundations on the flat
December 2012
Foundation
technical Geotechnical requirements
category
TC1 Foundations for new dwellings should include a shallow1 subsurface investigation to
determine the bearing capacity of the soil.
1. If the investigation determines the site is ‘good ground’ (geotechnical ULS bearing
capacity is greater than 300 kPa), NZS 3604 timber piles or tied NZS 3604 slabs
are acceptable.
2. If the investigation determines the site’s geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is
greater than 200 kPa but less than 300 kPa, use TC2 enhanced slab solutions
(Options 1-4) or other specific engineering design (including deep piles).
less than 200 kPa or affected by other hazards (eg, peat), foundations should be
specifically designed.
TC2 Foundations for new dwellings should include a shallow1 subsurface investigation
to determine the bearing capacity of the soil (or for deep piles, a deep investigation2).
greater than 300 kPa, NZS 3604 timber piled foundations (Type A) or an enhanced
perimeter foundation wall as per Figure 4.2 (Type B) may be used, or specific
engineering design carried out.
greater than 200 kPa, use enhanced slab TC2 solutions (Options 1 - 4) or other
specific engineering design1.
3. If the investigation determines the site’s geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is less
than 200 kPa, foundations should be specifically designed1.
TC2 sites generally require only a shallow investigation to provide the information
necessary for foundation assessment. However, in some circumstances deep
investigations may have been carried out in TC2 areas for other reasons. If a TC2
site has been ‘well-tested’ by the Canterbury earthquakes (refer to section 13.5.1)
and damage to the land or foundations is not greater than implied by the TC2
categorisation, then the site observations implicit in the TC2 categorisation, as well
as the actual site observations, provide strong evidence that the TC2 foundation
assessment process is appropriate, at the discretion of a CPEng. geotechnical
engineer. (In applying engineering judgement to reach a balance between predicted
settlement and observed damage, consideration could be given to factors such as
the severity of liquefaction and strength-loss predicted, the depth below the surface
where liquefaction is predicted, and the thickness and quality of the surface crust).
TC3 A site-specific deep investigation2 including CPTs or deep boreholes (or data from
an appropriate area-wide investigation), and geotechnical analysis of the site is
required to determine the land performance in future SLS and ULS events.
1. If data confirms TC3 performance then a range of technical solutions are given
in Part C.
2. If the data shows the site has performance equal to a TC2 site then TC2 solutions
from this document can be implemented.
3. In some cases, the data will show that the site is a ‘hybrid’ between TC2 and
TC3 (ie, part of the site has TC2 characteristics and part has TC3 characteristics;
solutions for this are contained in Part C.
(1) Shallow subsurface investigation – refer to section 3.4.1.

(2) Deep geotechnical investigation – refer to section 3.4.2.
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
5.3 D
escription of indicative new foundation
and floor options
Site investigation requirements are as outlined in Table 5.2.
Site preparation should ensure that all grass and topsoil is removed before the placement
of foundations or gravel fill. A well-graded sandy gravel aggregate that can be adequately
compacted with a plate compactor (eg, pit run, river run, AP 40 or AP65) should be used as
subgrade fill beneath any new concrete slabs. The aggregate should be placed in maximum
200 mm layers compacted with (as a minimum) a plate compactor. The top 75 mm of fill
should be AP40 to ensure a finer grading in contact with the damp proof course where pit
run or river run has been used for bulk filling.
Poorly graded river gravels (tailings or 20/40 rounded river stone) that have commonly
been used in Christchurch as subgrade material should not be used. This type of material
is prone to forming unstable stone arrangements (bridges) that may collapse with future
vibrations, leading to a localised loss of support to the overlying slab. There is also a
tendency for finer subgrade materials to migrate into the tailings, particularly when wet
and subjected to vibration. Compacted, well-graded sandy gravels will provide additional
stiffness and therefore better performance in seismic conditions.
Insulation has not been shown beneath the floors in the proposed options. Insulation
requirements will need to be established in conjunction with the insulating characteristics
of the walls and roof of the dwelling.
The representative floor plan on which the development and modelling of these details has
been based on is shown in Figure 5.4. The details in this section should only be applied to
simple house plan shapes such as rectangular, L, T or boomerang shapes.
Figure 5.4: Representative floor plan
5 . N E W
5.3.1 Reinforced concrete floor construction in TC2

Several options may be used, but each has limitations that must be recognised. In all
options the NZS 3604 ground clearances adjacent to the house foundation must be
complied with. Note that for clarity the damp proof membrane (DPM) has not been shown
in these representative details.
New flood freeboard requirements will also need to be considered if there has been
uniform settlement over several properties (see section 8).
Option 1 – Excavation and replacement of the upper layers of soil with compacted,
well-graded gravels and construction of a reinforced NZS 3604 slab foundation.
The ground immediately beneath the compacted gravel fill must have a minimum
geotechnical ultimate bearing capacity of 200 kPa, or the slab should be subject to specific
engineering design (see section 3.4.1).
External service lines will need to be beyond the outer extent of the gravel raft and/or have
flexible connections (refer to section 5.6).
Figure 5.5: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 1
Option 2 – Construct a thick slab foundation over the existing soil.
Figure 5.6: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 2
Note: NZS ground clearances adjacent to house foundation must be complied with. DPC omitted for clarity.
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
The ground immediately beneath the slab must have a minimum geotechnical ultimate
bearing capacity of 200 kPa, or the slab should be subject to specific engineering design
(see section 3.4.1). Note: The thickness needs to increase to 400 mm for two-storey U P D A TE:
heavy-weight (brick veneer) construction with either a heavy or light roof cladding. December 2012
The treatment of service lines as they enter and travel within the slab requires careful
consideration (refer to section 5.6).
Option 3 – Construct a generic beam grid and slab foundation.
Figure 5.7: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 3 plan
Note: Reinforcing details are not sufficient for two-storey heavy-weight cladding (brick veneer) with a U P D A TE:
heavy roof but can be used for a two-storey heavy-weight cladding with a light-weight roof.
December 2012
Figure 5.8: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 3 cross-section
5 . N E W
The ground immediately beneath the slab must have a minimum geotechnical ultimate
bearing strength of 200 kPa, or the slab should be subject to specific engineering design
(see section 3.4.1).
A variation to this option involves post-tensioning the slab using single 12.9 mm or 15.2
mm strand tendons in an unbonded format. The factory-applied greased and sheathed
strands are supported in the slab on bar chairs and tensioned through mono-strand
anchorages fixed at both ends through the perimeter formwork. Tensioning is carried out
using calibrated centre-hole hydraulic jacks.
Post-tensioned slabs are tensioned to between 0.5 and 1 MPa (in time) to overcome
drying shrinkage and give some bridging capacity. Spacing of the tendons is nominally 1 m
centres each way.
This option requires specific engineering design. 3
UP D A TE: Figure 5.9: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 3 variation with post tensioning
December 2012
Note: Post tensioning strands are either 12.9 mm or 15.2 mm diameter and factory coated with grease
inside an HDPE sheath, giving an overall outside diameter of 17 to 20 mm respectively. Strands are
tensioned to provide 0.5-1.0 MPa compressive stress in the concrete.
For both Option 3 variations, it may be easier and more economical to construct the
concrete foundation by replacing the compacted hardfill and soil beneath the slab down to
the underside of the beams with polystyrene pods.
(3) Refer also to U.S. Post Tensioning Institute publications: Design and Construction of Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-
Ground and Construction and Maintenance Procedures Manual for Post-Tensioned Slabs-On-Ground
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
Option 4 – Construct a waffle slab over the existing soil
Figure 5.10: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 4 plan
Note: Reinforcing details are not sufficient for two-storey heavy-weight cladding (brick veneer) with either
a heavy or light roof.
Figure 5.11: Enhanced foundation slab – Option 4 cross-section
The ground immediately beneath the polystyrene and ribs must have a minimum
geotechnical ultimate bearing strength of 200 kPa, or the system should be subject to
specific engineering design (refer to section 3.4.1). Shear ties in accordance with NZS 3101
are required in the ribs.
5 . N E W
UP D A TE: Option 5 – Deep piles

December 2012
Install piles to a dense non-liquefiable bearing layer and construct a floor slab (refer to
section 15.2)
DEL ETI O N :
December 2012
Guidance on the use of
5.3.2 Timber floor construction in TC2
deep piles is contained Timber floors in combination with light-weight claddings and roofing provide several
in Part C. Figure 5.11 advantages with regard to ease of repair and relevelling.
has been deleted and
is superseded by new A rebuilt timber ground floor should generally be constructed in accordance with NZS
guidance in Part C. 3604. The advantage of this type of floor is that it is easy to relevel or repair because of
the easy access, and its elemental nature allows straightforward replacement of damaged
elements. Bracing demand will be low and standard details can be used.
The soil conditions at each site should be confirmed as suitable in accordance with the
modified NZS 3604 procedure, as detailed in Table 5.2 and section 3.4.1.
Driven timber piles to NZS 3604 are suitable under suspended floors.
The level of timber floors should be set to provide a minimum crawl space under the joists
of at least 450 mm (NZS 3604 requirement).
Type A dwellings
A one or two storey house with a light roof and light- or medium-weight wall cladding
supported fully on an NZS 3604 shallow timber or concrete pile foundation is considered to
be a valid option in TC2.
Type B dwellings
New foundation walls for one or two storey dwellings with light- or medium-weight
cladding and roofing in TC2 should follow the details in Figure 5.12 below. Reinforcing
details should be as shown in Figure 4.2a.
Deep piles installed under foundation walls are not within the scope of NZS 3604.
A suitable driving set and founding depth will be required to achieve the required bearing
capacity, and the foundation wall will also need to be designed to span between the piles.
Figure 5.12: Timber floor with perimeter walls
Note: Reinforcement details as per Figure 4.2a
N E W F O U N DAT I O N S / PAG E 5 . 1 2
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
The vents in the foundation wall must be positioned near the middle of the wall below the
top reinforcing bar, and not notched out of the top of the wall as is common in older houses
in Christchurch.
Floor construction details in NZS 3604 are generally adequate, but in practice the jointing
between members often falls short of what is required. This is particularly important where
resistance to lateral spreading is required. The following should be noted:
• Pile to bearer connection: Ordinary pile connections in Figure 6.3 of NZS 3604.
Braced pile connections in Figures 6.6 to 6.8. Anchor pile connection in Figure 6.9.
• Bearer to foundation wall connection: See Figure 6.17 of NZS 3604.
• Bearer butt end joints: See Figure 6.19 of NZS 3604.
• Joist butt end joints: See Figure 7.1 of NZS 3604.
5.4 Guidance for specific engineering design

U P D A TE:
In many cases the ‘300 kPa’ requirement for ‘good ground’ or the ‘200 kPa’ requirement
December 2012
for Options 1 – 4 may not be met. Often, simple calculations of actual bearing stresses
will allow redimensioning of foundations (refer section 3.4.1 for details). In other cases,
specifically designed solutions other than those provided above may be devised. In these
cases, the following criteria should be satisfied:
• Geotechnical investigations of the site in accordance with Table 5.2 are to be carried
out before designing the foundation system.
• Design for the potential for lateral ground spreading to the extent indicated from the
geotechnical investigation.
For Type C house foundations in TC2
• Design Type C house foundations for the potential for differential settlement of the
supporting ground that will allow a maximum unsupported length for the ground
floor of 4 m beneath sections of the floor and 2 m at the extremes of the floor (ie,
ends and outer corners).
• Design to ensure that the floor does not hog or sag more than:
−− 1 in 400 (ie, 5 mm hog or sag at the centre of a 4 m length) for the case of no
support over 4 m (see Figure 5.13), and
−− no more than 1 in 200 for the case of no support of a 2 m cantilever at the
extremes of the floor (see Figure 5.13).
• Appropriate provision should be made for ’flexible‘ services entry to the dwelling to
accommodate the potential differential settlement of the foundation as indicated in
the geotechnical report.
• Designs should accommodate settlements as indicated in Table 5.3.
5 . N E W
Table 5.3: Liquefaction design settlements of new building foundations in TC2
Type SLS(1) ULS(2)
Total settlement (mm) Up to 50 mm Up to 100 mm
(1) SLS – serviceability limit state

(2) ULS – ultimate limit state
(3) Part C covers liquefaction settlement limits for foundations in TC3.
UP D A TE: Where possible, reinforced concrete foundation systems should have sufficient stiffness
December 2012
to permit relevelling by jacking at perimeter points, accompanied by pressure grouting or
resin injection beneath the house interior. With regard to lateral spreading, the foundation
system should also have sufficient tensile strength to permit sliding of the house in relation
to the ground without breaking or distorting. The strength should be sufficient to withstand
forces equal to frictional resistance to sliding over half the house footprint. Timber floors
are expected to be readily relevellable by the packing of piles.
Figure 5.13: Foundation plan showing design criteria for specific design
5.5 R eplacing foundations

(retaining the superstructure)
A house superstructure that is still reasonably intact may be able to be temporarily lifted
off existing foundations so that new foundations can be built. The new foundation will be
required to fully comply with the Building Code.
Figure 5.1 shows the process for TC1 and Figure 5.2 shows the process for TC2. A
summary of the steps for each foundation type in TC1 and TC2 is provided in Table 5.4 and
in more detail on subsequent pages.
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
Replacement approaches for TC3

Appropriate replacement solutions for TC3 will involve undertaking a geotechnical
investigation and making decisions based on the results of this investigation.
Guidance for house foundation replacement options in TC3 is given in Part C.
Specifically engineered solutions (eg, stiffened surface structures, deep piles, ground
improvement) are required to meet the performance requirements of the Building
Code.
For foundations on hillsides that rely on retaining walls for support of either the structure or
the ground immediately above or below the structure, see section 6.
Table 5.4: Summary of foundation rebuilding approaches for TC1 and TC2 U P D A TE:
December 2012
Foundation rebuild
Foundation type Occupancy during rebuild
Rebuild strategy
operations
Type A Remove base skirt, disconnect No Usually only minor disruption

Foundation: Timber-framed services if adjacent to works, to occupants. Need to
suspended timber floor repile affected area, reconnect consider distress to framing,
structures supported only services and reskirt perimeter trusses and bracing at this
on piles Re-establish minimum ground level of foundation damage
Cladding: Light- and clearances in accordance with

medium-weight section 2.6
Type B1 Disconnect services, temporarily No As for Type A regarding pile

Foundation: Timber-framed raise house as necessary, relevelling. Replacing the
suspended timber floor remove perimeter concrete wall will require vacancy as
structures with perimeter foundation wall and replace, the perimeter
concrete foundation repile, reconnect services and of the house will be
reinstate ground to wall disrupted
medium-weight Re-establish minimum ground
clearances in accordance with
section 2.6
Type B2 Disconnect services, remove No Perimeter will be disrupted

Foundation: Timber-framed exterior cladding, temporarily to give access to wall and
suspended timber floor raise house as necessary, will disrupt services
structures with perimeter remove perimeter concrete
concrete foundation foundation wall, and replace,
repile, reconnect services and
reinstate ground to wall, replace
(veneer)
cladding
Re-establish minimum ground
clearances in accordance with
section 2.6
Type C1 Disconnect services, temporarily No Severely cracked slab with

Foundation: Timber-framed raise house superstructure, differential settlement over
dwelling on concrete floor remove and replace slab, 150 mm may have caused
(slab-on-grade) reinstate house and reconnect severe damage to the timber
services. framing, trusses and bracing
medium-weight
5 . N E W
Foundation rebuild
Foundation type Occupancy during rebuild
Rebuild strategy
operations
Type C2 Disconnect services, remove No Severely cracked slab with

Foundation: Timber-framed exterior cladding, temporarily differential settlement over
dwelling on concrete floor raise house superstructure, 150 mm may have caused
(slab-on-grade) remove and replace slab, severe damage to the timber
reinstate house and reconnect framing, trusses and bracing
services, replace cladding
(veneer)
Note: It may be necessary to remove decking and paths in order to expose the foundation wall (Types A
and B) or the perimeter foundation (Type C) for relevelling and rebuilding works.
Type A foundation – concrete or timber piles throughout

In these instances, it may be possible to lift the superstructure, including the floor, rebuild
the pile system beneath the house and remediate any damage caused to the claddings and
linings of the structure.
Provided the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is greater than 300 kPa, the process will
be very similar to that employed by a house removal company engaged to relocate or repile
a house. A summary of the process is given in Table 5.4 with a more detailed process
description included in Appendix A2. If the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is less than
300 kPa, then specific engineering design is required (see section 3.4.1).
Type B1 perimeter concrete foundation wall (light or medium-weight claddings)

There will be cases where only sections of the foundation wall will need to be replaced.
The building work, which is the repair of a building element (the section of perimeter
wall), needs to comply with the Building Code and therefore should be designed as if the
perimeter foundation wall was new. For guidance, refer to section 4.2.
In TC1, provided the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is greater than 300 kPa, this
would amount to simple replacement of the existing foundation wall with an NZS 3604
foundation wall, as liquefaction and future settlement is not anticipated. Otherwise, specific
engineering design is required (see section 3.4.1).
In TC2, provided the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is greater than 300 kPa, an
enhanced reinforced foundation wall would be required to withstand the differential
settlement anticipated with future minor liquefaction. Refer to Figure 4.2a and section
5.3.2 for indicative cross-sections. Otherwise, specific engineering design is required
(see section 3.4.1).
A summary of the process is given in Table 5.4 with a more detailed process description
included in Appendix A2.
Type B2 perimeter concrete foundation wall (heavy veneer cladding)

In these instances, it may be very difficult to lift the superstructure, including veneer
cladding, without causing irreparable damage to the cladding. It will probably be necessary
to demolish the veneer and rebuild it once the new foundation has been constructed and
the house superstructure has been re-installed on the new foundation.
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
If the veneer is removed, the owner may choose to have insulation installed in the exterior
walls if this was not already in place, but this will be at the owner’s expense.
In TC1, provided the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is greater than 300 kPa, this would
amount to simple replacement of the existing foundation wall with an NZS 3604 foundation
wall, as damaging liquefaction and future settlement is not anticipated. Otherwise specific
engineering design is required (see section 3.4.1).
In TC2, provided the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is greater than 300 kPa, an
enhanced reinforced foundation wall (refer to Figure 4.2a and section 5.3.2) would be
required to withstand the differential settlement anticipated with future minor liquefaction.
Otherwise specific engineering design is required (see section 3.4.1).
The veneer may be rebuilt on the new foundation. Alternatively, the owner may choose an
alternative lighter cladding system if acceptable to the insurance company.
For cases where partial replacement of the perimeter foundation wall may be all that is
required to reinstate the foundation, see Type B1 above and section 4.2 for guidance.
A summary of the process is given in Table 5.4 and a more detailed process description
Type C1 slab-on-grade floors (light- or medium-weight claddings)

The degree of settlement that has occurred in this instance will be such that the floor
slab and edge thickening are expected to be heavily damaged and not easily repairable.
The slab is likely to be deformed and cracked. The repair process will involve lifting the
superstructure (including the bottom plates), demolishing the existing slab, building a
new foundation, and re-installing the superstructure on the new foundation. If foundation
Option 1 is used then the house will need to be temporarily moved off the site to allow
construction of a compacted gravel raft.
In TC1, provided the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is greater than 300 kPa, the
foundation replacement may be in accordance with NZS 3604 (as modified by B1/AS1).
If the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is between 200 kPa and 300 kPa, stiffened raft
foundations (Options 1 to 4 in section 5.3) could be used or specific engineering design. If
the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is less than 200 kPa, specific engineering design is
required (see section 3.4.1).
In TC2, provided the geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is greater than 200 kPa and there
are no other geotechnical constraints (eg, peat deposits), the new foundation will need
to be a stiffened raft foundation (Options 1 to 4 in section 5.3). If the geotechnical ULS
bearing capacity is less than 200 kPa, specific engineering design is required (refer to
section 3.4.1).
Alternatively, replace the foundation with a shallow pile and timber floor option in
accordance with NZS 3604. The superstructure is then reconnected to the new foundation
system.
5 . N E W
Type C2 slab-on-grade floors (heavy veneer cladding)

The process for Type C2 is the same as for Type C1, with the following additional guidance.
UP D A TE: The veneer must be demolished to allow the superstructure to be lifted off the existing
December 2012
concrete slab. The repair process will involve lifting the superstructure (including the
bottom plates), demolishing the existing slab, building a new foundation, and re-installing
the superstructure on the new foundation. If foundation Option 1 is used then the house
will need to be temporarily moved off the site to allow construction of a compacted gravel
raft.
If the veneer is removed, the owner may choose to have insulation installed in the exterior
walls, if this was not already in place, at the owner’s expense.
The veneer may be rebuilt on the new foundation. Alternatively, the owner may choose an
alternative lighter cladding system if acceptable to the insurance company.
5.6 Garage structures and outbuildings

Uninhabited detached garages (ie, that are not constructed as an integral part of a house)
and outbuildings are considered to be Importance Level 1 (IL1) structures. If these
structures are currently habitable or of significant value, Importance Level 2 (IL2) applies.
Refer to DBH Codewords No 35 – March 2009 ‘Guidance on garage classification’
www.dbh.govt.nz/codewords-35-1.
UP D A TE: IL1 structures have no seismic load requirements (under AS/NZS 1170.0) at Serviceability
December 2012 Limit State (SLS), and therefore have no amenity requirements relating to liquefaction
deformations at SLS levels of shaking. This leaves a ‘life safety’ design requirement at
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) for a 1/100 year event, which should be able to be provided in
most cases on a TC2 site by a suitably detailed structure on a TC1 type foundation system.
Alternatively, a specific design can be determined by applying the 1/100 year design event
loadings at ULS.
Conversely, attached or integral garages need to be designed to the same level of

performance as the main structure.
Refer to Section 11.3 for garage structures and outbuildings on properties designated
as TC3.
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
5.7 Services
If lateral spread or differential settlement of the ground occurs, there is potential for
damage to services, and provision must be made for the design and installation of services
to minimise the effects of ground movement. This is particularly important when services
penetrate or are attached to concrete floor systems. Flexibility in service lines is the key to
good performance.
Drinking water
Modern drinking water supply to a property is delivered via flexible ’plastic’ pipes. When
installed in a trench, they may be laid down in a snake pattern, which provides extra length
should ground extensions occur. Where the pipe penetrates the foundation and the floor
slab, a duct/sleeve 125 mm greater in diameter than the pipe should be provided to allow
the pipe to move independently. The sleeve may be filled with a compressible filler, which
allows differential movement but which also provides limited access beneath the slab
should a leakage issue arise.
Sewer pipes
Sewer pipes from the house to the sewer in the street are generally formed in uPVC
plastic, which possesses some flexibility in itself. Waste pipes may pass through the
floor of the dwelling to serve plumbing fixtures such as baths, showers, basins, and soil
pipes from toilets. These pipes will pass below the floor in Options 1 and 2 (see section
5.3.1), although there is scope (while maintaining the required falls) for passing the waste
pipes through the beams and ribs of the foundation in Options 3 and 4. If there is vertical
or horizontal movement between the foundations and the ground in Options 3 and 4, the
expected failure plane is across the bottom of the beams or ribs. Consideration will need to
be given to the connections beyond the outside face of the foundation.
Flexible connections should be considered between the straight lengths of pipe, and
located outside the building footprint. Greater pipeline flexibility is achieved by using rubber
ring joint pipes.
Consideration should also be given to the provision of greater falls in the lines than the
minimums required by the Standards. This will make the continued operation of the system
more viable should tilting of the ground occur during any future liquefaction event.
Where the pipes pass through the slab, a duct or sleeve is recommended (see Figure 5.14).
Ideally, the duct should have a diameter 125 mm greater than the service pipe. Otherwise,
a flexible seal should be employed to allow some movement between the pipe and the
floor.
Where sewer pipes are installed in a trench parallel to the foundation, the branch drains,
such as those connecting to gully traps, should contain a flexible connection adjacent to the
foundation.
5 . N E W
Figure 5.14: Waste water pipe routing
Plumbing codes require at least one gully trap on the perimeter of a house. Invariably,
waste pipes pass through the foundation slab and discharge into the gully trap from above
it. Sometimes the waste pipes enter via the side wall of the gully trap. It is recommended
that the gully traps be encapsulated in concrete which is tied to the house foundation
(hooped reinforcing bars), preventing differential movement should there be ground
spreading or settlement adjacent to the foundation (see Figure 5.15).
A 5. N EW
C ONTENTS
FOUNDATIONS
Figure 5.15: Restraint of gully trap
Stormwater pipes
Where storm water pipes are installed in a trench parallel to the foundation, the branch
connections to the downpipes should contain a flexible connection.
Underground power and communications cables

Fortunately, these cables are quite flexible. Underground power cables may be ducted or
buried directly in a trench. In either case there is scope for accommodating unexpected
extensions by ‘snaking‘ the cables or looping within access chambers. Consideration
should be given to accommodating the cables in oversize ducts where they pass through
the floor.
5 . N E W
A 6. H ILLSIDE/
C ONTENTS
RETAINING WALLS
6. H
illside properties and
retaining walls
This section contains guidance information relating to the assessment of hillside property
and retaining wall damage. The close location of the 22 February 2011, 13 June 2011, and
other aftershocks to the Port Hills of Christchurch resulted in wide-ranging damage to
hillside houses and the ground around them.
6.1 Characteristics of hillside properties

Hillside properties are generally more complex than level-ground properties, and do not
lend themselves easily to a standard approach with regard to foundations and stability
issues. In most cases, a suitably qualified CPEng. geotechnical engineer or suitably
experienced engineering geologist should be engaged to advise on site suitability, stability,
foundations and retaining wall issues.
It should be noted that the presence of an existing house on a site does not necessarily
mean that a prudent engineer or geologist will consider the site suitable for a new
structure. In addition, Christchurch is likely to be subjected to an ongoing and active
sequence of aftershocks for the foreseeable future, due to the presence of the previously
unknown fault zone that partly underlies the Port Hills.
Three studies on the life safety risks associated with cliff collapse or falling boulders have U P D A TE:
December 2012
been commissioned for the Port Hills area. These studies include: The GNS Science study
for the Christchurch City Council; a ‘ground truthing’ of the GNS model undertaken by the
Port Hills Geotechnical Group for the Christchurch City Council; and a 3D rock fall study
undertaken for CERA.
The GNS Science study is investigating seismic rockfall hazards. The enhanced seismicity
referred to in section 8.3 needs to be allowed for in any consideration of future behaviour of
both buildings and supporting structures, as well as land stability.
Furthermore, topographical enhancement effects were noted in the February and June
2011 events (ie, increased accelerations on ridgelines, slope and cliff crests). These factors
should also be taken into account.
H I L L S I D E / R E TA I N I N G W A L L S / PAG E 6 . 1
6. H ILLSIDE/
RETAINING WALLS A
Matters to consider in relation to site suitability and stability include:
• overall stability of site (slope angles, depth to rock, presence of watercourses,

seepages or unusually damp areas)
• proximity to the base or crest of a steep slope or cliff (potential for instability and/or
debris inundation)
• vulnerability to uphill hazards such as debris flows from steep land, rockfall hazard,
consequences of retaining wall failures etc (Territorial authorities will likely require
more than just the house platform to be protected from rockfall hazard. In addition
to Building Act matters, public safety issues should be taken into account.)
• presence of and proximity to areas of past instability (landslip scars, surface or
subsurface erosion)
• local stability of site (localised steepenings and scarps, unretained cuts and fills,
vulnerable retaining structures, etc)
• existing earthworks or support systems on adjacent sites that might provide support
to the site add surcharge loads to the site or (in the case of cuts) decrease stability
of the site
• vulnerability to stormwater inflows from upslope (eg, uphill catchment size, adverse
road drainage conditions taking into account snow events)
• safe disposal options for stormwater and sewerage (soak holes and field tiles are
generally not appropriate in Port Hills loess)
• presence of non-engineered fill, buried weak layers and the like
• presence of subsurface erosion features (ie, ‘tunnel gullies’ or ‘under-runners’).
6.2 Retaining walls
6.2.1 General considerations

Unlike a building structure where linings, for example, can often be removed, it is normally
very difficult to determine the extent or severity of damage to most retaining structures.
It is not normally practical to excavate retained fill to allow an examination of the rear of
a wall, or to determine below-ground damage to embedded components. In most cases
the only indication of the degree of damage will be the apparent movement of the wall, by
viewing the exposed elements and deformation of land in proximity to the wall.
Given the largely uncertain nature of the construction of retaining walls and the inherent
difficulty in predicting their future performance, particular care needs to be taken in
assessing and reporting on these structures.
In the case of most retaining structures, horizontal translation is often acceptable (in the
absence of any foundation issues) and it is normally vertical rotation or damage to structural
components that will potentially lead to unacceptable stability issues. Where a wall has
undergone such movement, however, it is important to consider possible damage to drainage
systems, which could eventually result in adverse water pressure loadings on the wall.
A 6. H ILLSIDE/
C ONTENTS
RETAINING WALLS
In all cases, knowledge of the pre-earthquake condition is a considerable advantage in

assessing damage to a wall. In many cases, especially for recently constructed engineered
walls, building consent drawings should be available from the relevant territorial authority.
For all walls, the foundations should be assessed for movement, differential settlement,
rotation, cracking, intact drainage measures, etc. The global stability of the wall should
also be considered, that is, slope failures that encompass the entire wall (which might
otherwise appear to be undamaged).
In assessing walls where EQC has been involved, it is important to remember that EQC
only considers walls that support land within certain distances of insured assets (refer to
section 8.1), and damage that is likely to occur as a result of the insured event within a 12
month ‘imminent loss’ timeframe. Damage and stability issues outside the EQC insured
scope may also need to be considered.
Table 6.1 provides summary guidance on damage indicators for a range of retaining wall
types and possible repair/replacement options.
Table 6.1: Damage indicators and repair options for retaining walls
Wall type Damage indicators Possible outcomes
Embedded • Rotation beyond vertical Damaged walls can be demolished

(cantilevered) • Obvious bending or fresh cracking and rebuilt, or in some cases it
timber pole walls of vertical members may be possible to install additional
poles or drilled-in anchors through
• Horizontal extension in the plane of
the wall attached to a waler beam
the wall, reducing support to rails
on the wall exterior (with obvious
• Land deformation behind or in front aesthetical implications) or, with
of the wall some excavation, a waler beam can
be hidden behind a wall and bolted to
each post.
Timber crib walls • Rotation beyond 1:4.6 (in most Damaged walls will probably need to
(proprietary cases, this will leave a residual be deconstructed and rebuilt, unless
components) factor of safety in the order of 90% an alternative is used such as walers
of original) and tie-backs.
• Rotated headers >5%
• Significant loss of infill gravel
• Land deformation behind or in front
of the wall
Timber crib walls • Rotation of more than 2 degrees or Severely damaged walls, particularly
(informal railway beyond vertical (this requires somewhere they are providing critical
sleeper components) knowledge or assumption of the support, should be dismantled and
Typically non- pre-earthquake condition) replaced with a properly engineered
engineered structures • Fresh cracking of timber wall, or otherwise stabilised. It
components should be noted however that many
of these walls were likely already
• Significant loss of fill material
suffering from durability issues
• Land deformation behind or in front before the earthquake events.
of the wall
6. H ILLSIDE/
RETAINING WALLS A
Wall type Damage indicators Possible outcomes
Concrete crib walls • Rotation beyond 1:4.6 (in most Damaged walls will likely need to be
cases this will leave a residual deconstructed and rebuilt, unless an
factor of safety in the order of 90% alternative such as the construction
of original) of a new wall in front (where
• Cracked stretchers geometry permits), or installing
tiebacks can be considered.
• Rotated headers >5%
• Significant loss of infill material
of the wall
Concrete masonry • Rotation beyond vertical (or 1 Damaged walls will need to be
block wall degree beyond determined as- demolished and rebuilt. In some
designed face geometry) cases it will be possible to install
• Compression crushing within the drilled-in anchors and a new facing
front face of reinforced concrete, and cantilever
posts in front of the wall (with
• Wall out of shape – ie, barrelling,
obvious aesthetic implications) or
bulging, etc
possibly construct a new wall in front
• Cracking in a yield line failure of the damaged one.
pattern
of the wall
Stacked stone walls • Barrelling of wall face These are almost always non-
• Loss of wall elements engineered structures, and generally
should be considered as facing
walls only (in an engineering sense).
of the wall
In some rare instances, however,
these walls have substantial wall
thicknesses and are acting as gravity
structures
Gabion basket walls In most cases it is very difficult to determine gross rotational movement
without knowing the original design configuration for the wall.
If it can be determined that horizontal panels are present within the retained
fill (ie, ‘terramesh’ components) and there is no rotational movement beyond
vertical, the wall is likely to be able to be left in place once disturbed backfill
behind the wall is reconstituted. In some cases the upper layer of baskets
has rotated and these can relatively easily be put back in place.
Rotational movement beyond 2 degrees or beyond vertical in non-
terrameshed basket structures is likely to be unacceptable and baskets
should be deconstructed and rebuilt, or other stabilising measures put in
place.
A 6. H ILLSIDE/
C ONTENTS
RETAINING WALLS
6.2.2 General wall design principles

When designing replacement walls, some obvious basic considerations are as follows:
• Walls that have backfill that is not level have a significantly higher load on them, and
this must be taken into account when evaluating design forces on the wall.
• Walls founded in sloping ground have much lower lateral resistance and foundation-
bearing capacity available to them (in particular embedded cantilever walls) and
this must be taken into account – ‘rule of thumb’ design methods for walls on level
ground can be dangerously inadequate on sloping ground.
• Stepped wall systems must take into account the surcharge loading from the wall
above.
• On steep ground in particular, global stability issues must be considered, especially
for gravity structures.
• Stiff non-yielding walls should be designed for at-rest pressures, not active
pressures.
• Appropriate drainage measures behind a wall are critical – the use of no-fines
‘rounds’ is discouraged.
6.2.3 Walls deemed as ‘not requiring a building consent’

Walls less than a certain height (normally 1.5 m, but in some cases different heights are
applicable) that are not surcharged are often exempt from requiring a building consent (or
are assumed to be exempt) under the Building Act 2004 (see Schedule 1). This has led to a
great number of inadequately designed and constructed walls being present in the building
stock. Walls that genuinely fall into the category of ‘not requiring a building consent’ are
generally walls that are genuinely not surcharged (ie, not loaded by sloping backfill, traffic
loads, building loads or stepped upper walls).
It has been common practice to avoid the need for a consent by stepping a wall system
to ensure each individual wall is less than the designated height. However, the lower wall
in the stepped system is generally surcharged by the wall above, in which case a building
consent is required.
If a wall genuinely does not require a building consent, it is important to note that there
is still a legal obligation on the designer and builder (under section 17 of the Building Act
2004) to ensure the wall complies with the Building Code. This applies to the strength,
stability and durability of the wall.
6. H ILLSIDE/
RETAINING WALLS A
A 7. S UPERSTRUCTURE
C ONTENTS
7. S
uperstructure assessment,
repair, and rebuild
recommendations
This section provides guidance on the assessment of superstructure damage and
suggested remedial actions. Coverage is limited to structural elements such as bracing
walls and framing. Guidance is general rather than specific because of the wide variety of
situations encountered.
7.1 Chimneys
Chimneys are likely to be constructed using clay bricks, concrete bricks, precast concrete
elements or steel/stainless steel flues. They can be situated either on the outside of the
house or internally. Some houses may have both cases.
Earthquake damage in chimneys may not always be easy to detect, particularly if the
chimneys are situated internally with wall surrounds. A guide for the assessment, repair
and rebuilding of chimneys is provided in Appendix A3.
7.2 Wall bracing
7.2.1 Types of wall bracing

In timber-framed houses built before 1978 (the first publication of NZS 3604), the wall
bracing was generally provided by either flush timber braces or solid braces. The former are
either 4” x 1” or 6” x 1” members on an angle, cut in flush with the surface of the studs,
while the latter are either 3” x 2” or 4” x 2” blocks fitted between the studs on an angled
line. The internal linings had no designated structural function.
Since the advent of NZS 3604, the lining materials (primarily plasterboard) have been relied
on to provide the bracing function in some (or all) walls of the dwelling and sometimes in
conjunction with light gauge let-in steel angle braces. The strength and stiffness of the
sheet linings coupled with their fixings provides strength to resist the lateral loads from
earthquakes and wind.
Fibrous plaster sheets have been available for many years, and were also used as a
sheet bracing material in the 1980s and 1990s. They provided a very smooth finish for
wallpapering, but the sheets had square edges (ie, they were not tapered) and reinforcing
tape, and feathered stopping was not used on joints. Cracking on joints between the
sheets is often not on a single line because the stopping compound filled the gap between
the sheets and if shrinkage occurred, the bond between the stopping compound and the
sheet edge could fail on either sheet edge at the joint.
S U P E R S T R U C T U R E / PAG E 7. 1
7. S UPERSTRUCTURE
A
Fibrous plaster sheets used as bracing elements were required to have galvanised clouts
at 200 mm centres on the perimeter of the bracing element. Glue was also used to fix the
sheet to the framing. If fibrous plaster sheet bracing elements need to be refixed to the
framing, clouts should be used at 200 mm centres to all framing. Fibrous plaster sheets
sometimes contained heating elements (particularly when used on ceilings) and care
should be taken to ensure the heating element has been decommissioned before refixing
or replacing sheets.
Both forms of bracing are expected to ’loosen‘ to some extent after design-level
earthquake events. This typically involves a reduction in stiffness rather than loss of
strength. Where movement damage in relation to fixings is apparent, it may be necessary
to refix or replace affected bracing elements.
7.2.2 Identification of wall bracing damage

If it is necessary to refix and restop any joints on a plasterboard wall face, then the skirting
boards should be removed to check the need to refix the sheets behind the skirting. If the
cornice joints have broken, the cornice should also be removed for refixing the top edge of
the sheets, and then replaced.
It has been reported that even quite minor damage in internal lining sheets has led to houses
being perceived to be more flexible during more frequent service-level events such as strong
winds and small aftershocks than they were before September 2010. Re-fixing of sheets
through the addition of more fixings between the existing fixings around the perimeter
of sheets has been shown to restore the majority of the previous stiffness and all of the
strength. This is considered to be an acceptable repair for this level of minor damage.
Where there is evidence of significant racking of walls (eg, major shear deformations on
interior sheet lining junctions and associated nail/screw popping, lifting of sheets from
behind skirting boards and/or diagonal cracking of sheets), the walls may need to be
replumbed and the wall linings replaced, restopped and redecorated. In many instances,
these wall linings will have a bracing function. In more modern houses, the council will hold
a bracing plan on file from which the bracing elements may be identified. For older houses
it can be assumed that diagonal timber braces will be present wherever the length of the
wall allows their installation.
7.2.3 Repairing and replacing bracing elements

Table 7.1 summarises the decision criteria and actions relating to the repair and
replacement of plasterboard lining.
Where minor cracking (ie, <0.5 mm) is present at bracing sheet junctions, cosmetic repairs
should be enough. Where larger cracking is in evidence at sheet junctions, with minor
movement of perimeter sheet fixings (ie, >0.5 mm), refixing around the perimeter of sheets
is recommended. All new fixings must meet the requirements of the Building Code.
Where there is significant damage to sheets (eg, diagonal cracking or panel fracture),
and/or significant movement of perimeter sheet fixings, the affected sheets should be
replaced with a comparable component (eg, a standard or enhanced plasterboard system,
as applicable), fixed as if a bracing element (ie, maximum fastener spacing
C ONTENTS
of 150 mm). Include the checking of framing fixings. The resulting bracing capacity will in all
likelihood be an improvement over what was present before to the work. A similar logic for
replacing part of a wall or a foundation applies (refer to Figure 4.2a).
A similar approach can be taken for the reconstruction of whole walls or rooms, where the
limited extent of the work does not lead to the need to review the bracing of the building as
a whole.
If all linings are removed and replaced, the bracing performance of the complete house U P D A TE:
must achieve compliance with the Building Code. However, it is recommended that if a December 2012
substantial proportion of the lining is being repaired or replaced, consideration should be

given to providing bracing to NZS 3604, as modified by Amendment 11 to B1/AS1.
An alternative to refixing plasterboard bracing elements involves installing additional

linings over the existing damaged linings, fixed at a bracing pattern. Over-lining can often
be accommodated by removing skirtings and scotias and installing the new linings using
fasteners with an increased length. Skirtings can then be refixed and scotias re-formed. A
new architrave detail may need to be designed around window and door openings.
The addition of over-linings provides the opportunity to create small penetrations through
the existing linings to check the bottom plate connections.
Further details of repair approaches are given in BRANZ Bulletin 548, published in June U PD A TE:
December 2012
2012 and available for free download from www.branz.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=
c31dd5e0aeb804b21e506c379238dba9432c6f71
External sheet cladding connections and joints should also be checked and refixed. If the
cladding has a bracing function (likely in houses built since 1978), then the sheet fixings
should be checked. If they are found to be damaged, appropriate fixings will need to be
installed in intervening gaps and the finish reinstated. Any exterior sheet claddings with
diagonal cracking should be replaced.
If damage to sheet bracing elements located in the drainage cavity is suspected but cannot
be confirmed without unnecessary removal of the exterior cladding (eg, brick veneer),
reinstatement of the structure’s bracing capacity may be achieved by the addition of a high
performance internal lining system.
Where the replacement of bracing elements allows access to wall cavities and insulation is
not already in place, the owner may choose to have insulation installed in the exterior walls
at their own expense.
7. S UPERSTRUCTURE
A
Table 7.1: Summary of actions relating to repair/replacement of plasterboard lining
Review of
Extent of wall Building consent/
Repair/replacement action bracing Comments
damage evident compliance basis
requirement
1. Minor cracking Scraping out old stopping Not required Schedule 1(a) and Cosmetic
at sheet joints (taking care not to damage 1(ah) exemption repairs
(< 0.5 mm) paper facing), restopping • Applies to bracing
(Note a) and repainting and non-bracing
No signs of Check for ‘drumminess’ of elements
movement at sheets (Note c)
skirting board
2. Moderate Refixing of sheets adjacent Not required Schedule 1(a) Superficial

cracking at to existing fixings and and 1(ah) and
sheet joints (>restopping of joints. • Repairs in localised
0.5 mm) (Note When sheet edges are accordance with repairs
b) too damaged to allow this guidance Note:
Minor refixing, replacing affected document where
movement sheet(s) with comparable panels are
of perimeter component or assembly replaced,
sheet fixings or (eg, standard or enhanced compliance
movement of plasterboard (as applicable)), with other
sheets evident fixed as a bracing element clauses of
at skirting (Note d), check and the Building
board make good any damaged Code (eg,
framing connections where B2, E3)
reasonably practicable must be
Check for ‘drumminess’ of achieved
sheets (Note c) (Note f)
C ONTENTS
Review of
Extent of wall Building consent/
Repair/replacement action bracing Comments
damage evident compliance basis
requirement
3. Cracking If the diagonal cracks at the A new Schedule 1(ah) Possibly

damage corners of openings are bracing exemption for any complete
within sheets. <50 mm long and where element sheet replacement or
Damage may wall-to-ceiling or wall-to-wall at least and/or refixing substantial
include: junctions show stress by matches Schedule 1(a) repairs
(a) significant l ining visible cracking, fastener the bracing exemption for (Notes f
separation movement, wallpaper capacity any framing and/ and g)
from wall creasing or similar, refixing provided by or connection
framing of the sheets adjacent the replaced work if it does not
to existing fixings and element involve complete
(b) damage to
restopping of joints (Note e) or substantial
timber-framing
connections If the diagonal cracks at the replacement of
corners of openings are any component or
(c) walls out
>50 mm long and where assembly contributing
of plumb
wall-to-ceiling or wall-to-wall to the building’s
in either
junctions show stress by structural behaviour
direction more
visible cracking, fastener If framing and/or
than 10 mm
movement, wallpaper connections work
per storey, or
creasing or similar, replace involves complete
(d) bottom affected sheet(s) with a or substantial
plates have comparable component or replacement of
shifted from assembly (eg, standard or any component or
their original enhanced plasterboard as assembly contributing
position applicable), fixed as a bracing to the building’s
element (Note f). Check and structural behaviour
make good any damaged then building consent
framing connections where or possible item (k)
reasonably practicable. exemption required
Check for ‘drumminess of (Note g), making
sheets (Note c) reference to section
7 of this guidance
document
Notes :
a. The cracking is generally confined to the top and/or bottom corners of openings, extending vertically
from the corner along the sheet joint.
b. Cracking will be evident as in (1) above, but there is also likely to be cracking of the joint at wall junctions
c. The wall-lining glue fixings may have detached from the studs intermediate between the sheet edges
or screw fixings may have been partially pulled through the sheet at studs intermediate between
sheet edges. This may be checked by striking the wall linings gently with the palm of a hand to detect
’drumminess‘ due to the disconnection of the glue fixing or loss of screw fixing. Re-fixing with nails or
screws at 200 mm centres, restopping and repainting will be required. Note that the glue fixings were not
necessary for the provision of bracing resistance when the sheets were first installed.
d. Check bracing fixing patterns for proprietary plasterboard bracing systems in manufacturers’ literature.
Bracing elements should have fixing spacings of 150 mm or less.
e. An estimation of the capacity of the replaced element may be determined from the fixing pattern and
material used or from a bracing plan, if available.
f. Where the entire bracing system is replaced, the bracing performance of the complete house must
achieve compliance with the Building Code (eg, demonstrating compliance with NZS 3604 by way of
Amendment 11 to B1/AS1).
g. The compliance pathway sought by each practitioner/PMO will depend on their relationship with the
council (eg, PMOs who have established relationships may seek an item (k) exemption because of their
overarching quality assurance practices and use of third-party review) and the level of repair required.
Note: refer to Table 8.2 for a summary of the risk-based consenting pathways available.
7. S UPERSTRUCTURE
A
UP D A TE:
December 2012
7.3 Repairing lathe and plaster interior
wall linings
Lathe and plaster does not provide a wall-bracing function in houses but because it is very
stiff, it tends to be the first line of resistance to racking under earthquake actions, before
diagonal timber bracing in the framing takes up the load. Three options for lathe and plaster
repair are:
1. Minor cracks – rack out and restop

The crack in the plaster is prepared in a similar fashion to minor cracks in the joints
between plasterboard sheets. The crack is successively filled with the inclusion
of reinforcing tape. For this solution to be viable, the plaster must still be well
connected to the wooden lathe strips. If the plaster feels loose and drummy when
tapped, the repair should follow case 2 or 3 below. Overlaying with plasterboard
sheets is not recommended because it is not easy to ensure that the sheet fixings
are into the timber framing.
2. Some plaster fall-out – patch with new plasterboard and make good
If the area is extensively cracked or feels loose when touched then removal of the
plaster in the damaged area is recommended (the area should not be overlaid with
plasterboard sheets). This may involve careful removal of the trims such as skirtings
and scotias and retention for re-use. If the lathes are still sound the damaged plaster
may be replaced with plasterboard, with junctions stopped to provide a smooth
finish. If the lathes are damaged, they should be removed and an appropriate
packing thickness of up to about 20 mm placed over the studs, and fixed with
8 g x 45 mm long high thread countersunk wood screws at 300 mm centres.
Plasterboard may then be fixed through the packing with sufficiently long screws
to penetrate the studs with sheet junctions stopped to provide a smooth finish.
3. Major “drumminess” or damage to plaster or plaster fallout – remove and reline
with plasterboard, stop and paint/wallpaper.
In instances of severe damage to the plaster, the plaster and lathes should be
removed and replaced with plasterboard sheets. These may be fixed directly to the
framing, or over-packing to take up the thickness of the removed lathe and plaster.
This provides an opportunity for the bracing (likely to be either flush timber or solid
timber) and its connections to be checked for damage.
7.4 Wall and roof frame connections

Apart from where chimneys have fallen and broken timber members in the roof, there have
generally been few instances of failure of framing members. Significant damage to the
framing is unlikely unless there has been substantial spreading or abrupt-change differential
settlement beneath the house. Lateral spreading of foundations and severe liquefaction
has caused some framing members to fracture, but more often it is the joints between the
members that pull apart.
C ONTENTS
Any damage to the wall-framing members will need to be repaired to ensure their
continued function. Joints between members that have been pulled apart must be
reinstated and refixed. Such damage in walls will generally only be expected if the wall
linings are showing signs of severe distress (such as detached sheets).
However, studs and/or bottom plates of wall bracing elements may have lifted and possibly
resettled. In some instances wall bottom plates that are nailed to the timber floor system
have separated from the floor. Thick floor coverings, such as carpet, may disguise the fact
that the plate has lifted, and a careful inspection should be made to establish whether plate
lifting has occurred. Reinstate wall-to-floor connections and framing junctions wherever
there is obvious distress. This may require the removal of linings for access.
For timber floors, renail bottom plates. For concrete floors, carefully check the integrity
of any shot-fired pin connections and replace with proprietary bolt anchors. Any bracing
element stud-to-plate connections (such as nail straps) and plate-to-floor connections that
are distressed should be replaced, as these are critical to the overall stiffness and strength
of the system.
Roof framing is generally triangulated, meaning that it is self-bracing. The exception is a

gable-ended roof where roof-plane or roof-space bracing is relied on to provide bracing
in the ridgeline direction. If the roof shows signs of major distortion (which could be as a
result of ground disturbance or ground shaking), a check of all roof space connections will
be necessary, and repairs undertaken to reinstate the bracing function of these elements.
Such damage is more likely with a heavy roof cladding, such as concrete or clay tiles.
If the wall or ceiling linings have separated more than 10 mm from the wall/ceiling junction,
it may be necessary to remove the ceiling or soffit linings to gain access to the joints so
they can be reconnected.
7.5 Light gauge steel framing

Deformations of linings and claddings (particularly out of plane) will indicate that the
support framing is likely to have buckled. Linings and claddings will need to be removed for
inspection of the framing, and bent and buckled framing members must be replaced.
Steel framing members are connected by shear connectors such as rivets and screws. If
these have been significantly stressed, there is a potential for the fixings to pull through
the thin metal edges of the members. If linings or claddings are removed because they are
damaged beyond repair, a careful inspection of the framing connections should be made.
Otherwise, repair to light-gauge steel frame structures is similar to the above

recommendations for light timber framing.
7. S UPERSTRUCTURE
A
7.6 Pole frame structures

Pole frame houses generally rely on either cantilever action of the poles or cross-bracing
between the poles for lateral load resistance. The nature of the system makes it suitable
for sloping sites.
If cantilever action is relied on for bracing, a careful inspection of where the pole is embedded
in the ground is recommended to ascertain whether there has been any soil failure.
Cross-braces may not appear to be damaged but bolted connections can deform quite
severely at the junction between the pole and the brace. If there is any doubt about the
amount of damage present, the braces should be removed one at a time for inspection.
Drilling the holes with a larger diameter drill and fitting a larger bolt is a suggested repair for
damaged connections.
When pole frame structures are connected to stiffer elements such as reinforced concrete
or masonry foundations, this induces large stresses in the connection as the lateral
earthquake forces transfer to the stiffer element. Careful inspections of the junctions
should be carried out for signs of distress.
7.7 Unreinforced brick masonry walls

A number of older houses were either constructed wholly from double-skin unreinforced
brick masonry or featured major brick boundary wall elements. Many of these types of
house in the affected areas sustained significant damage.
Unreinforced masonry structures require much more careful assessment than masonry
veneer houses. The key issues to be established during assessment include the:
• adequacy and condition of lateral restraint at floor and roof levels

• effectiveness of connection between masonry wall elements
• adequacy and condition of the foundations
• condition of the mortar.
While the first two items can be addressed in repair measures, the latter two provide a
more fundamental pointer as to the feasibility of repairs. If damage has occurred to the
foundations or if only nominal foundations are present, and/or if the mortar between the
masonry elements is in poor condition, then repairs are unlikely to be effective.
Following assessment, if it is established that damaged unreinforced brick masonry wall

elements can be repaired, then the engineering principles applied to commercial buildings
should be followed. For regulatory and insurance requirements, in most cases the repair
methodology should focus on the reinstatement of pre-damage element strength rather
than upgrading to a higher standard, noting the requirement of section 17 of the Building
Act that all work must comply with the Building Code.
C ONTENTS
The core reference for unreinforced masonry buildings is contained in the NZ Society for
Earthquake Engineering’s 2006 guidelines document Assessment and Improvement of the
Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes. Useful (more conservative) parameters
for existing materials can be obtained from the earlier versions of the same document,
including the 1995 Draft Guidelines (particularly Appendix H (Typical Securing Details) and
Table 6.1/Strength values for existing materials).
Repair treatment to double-skin masonry needs to differentiate solutions between inner

(load bearing) and outer (weatherskin).
7.8 Concrete block masonry walls

Concrete-block masonry walls have been used to build houses for many decades. While
they have been more common as basement walls for houses on the hills, there are
occurrences of superstructures that have been constructed with concrete-block masonry.
Damage to concrete-block masonry walls is expected to vary depending on the age of the
wall and the standard to which it was constructed. The key aspect to be ascertained is
whether or not grouting within the block cores and reinforcement is present.
Unreinforced concrete-block walls (commonly found in garages and sometimes in houses)

are likely to have fared no better than unreinforced brick masonry walls.
Walls that have basketting reinforcement (ie, both horizontal and vertical) and that are
adequately restrained at floor and roof level should have sustained only minor damage.
Repairs to any cracking can be achieved by grout or epoxy injection and re-pointing affected
mortar joints.
While it must be assumed that original construction details complied with the
bylaw/approved New Zealand Standards relevant at the time, these were not as demanding
as modern standards. Unreinforced construction, even if complying with NZS 1900 Chapter
6.2 Table 3 and dating from before 1986, has not performed well. Examples have been
observed of houses constructed to this earlier Standard where the earthquakes have
caused severe damage and near collapse of the dwelling.
An early consideration in the assessment process should be:
a. the extent of structural damage and the likely seismic performance of any repair,
and
b. given (a), whether it is practical to demolish and rebuild to the same general form
as existing.
While insurance expectations are that repairs should be to a level to reinstate the strength
before the earthquake rather than to provide improved seismic performance, often the
damage sustained by concrete-block masonry walls is such that a repair is not practical
and replacement is the only option. Any replacement will be required to satisfy the
requirements of the Building Code.
7. S UPERSTRUCTURE
A
UP D A TE: Table 7.2: Summary cladding weight chart for rebuilds in properties classified
December 2012 as TC1, TC2 or TC3
Wall cladding Roof cladding
Maximum recommended Maximum

Technical
Foundation type weights recommended weight
Category
The following cladding weights are default listings only,
which may be varied by specific engineering design
TC1 NZS 3604 Type C 1 H H
NZS 3604 Type A 1 M H
NZS 3604 Type B 1 H H
TC2 NZS 3604 Type A M L
NZS 3604 Single storey M L

Type B (enhanced) Two storey M L
Options Single storey
1 H H
Concrete Raft 2 (300 mm) H H
3 H H
4 H H
Options Two storey

(Simple floor layout)
Refer to section 5.3 1 M L
2 (300 mm) M H
2 (400 mm) H H
3 H L
4 M L
TC2 / TC3 Hybrid Timber floor M L
Concrete floor Single storey H

H
Two storey L
M
TC3 Deep Piles Concrete raft H H

Options 2,4
modified
Site Ground Improvement For use with all TC2 foundation options and cladding
weights
Surface Structures Type M L

1, 2
(Simple floor layout) Type 3 Single storey L
Refer to section 15.4
M
Two storey L
M
(1) Refer to section 2.1 for descriptions of house foundation types.
C ONTENTS
The nature of block masonry construction means that any surface manifestation of rupture
will generally indicate hidden damage to grout infill and corresponding loss of shear and
flexural capacity as compared to the ’unstrained‘ wall, which will in most cases be difficult
to restore.
If a section of wall is to be repaired, then:
• the reinstatement should also incorporate ’newly grouted‘ and ’newly reinforced‘
wall panels whose future performance can be reliably predicted, and
• conservative assumptions need to be made on the residual strengths of walls which
are to remain.
For guidance as to whether or not repairs will be practicable for a particular area of wall:
• slight cracking (<1.0 mm) confined to mortar courses (eg, in a staircase pattern)
and not extending into face shells may be repairable using injection joint reinforcing
or similar techniques
• moderate cracking (>1.0 mm) in mortar courses and extending to rupture of face
shells may indicate internal rupture and significant loss of strength that may not
be repairable.
Decisions on repair will also need to consider:
• the date of construction and applicable Compliance Document

• the inferred quality of the original construction, and
• the extent of damage visible and inferred.
The recommended aim of repairs should be to achieve the better of:
• reinstating the pre-damage strength level at the position of rupture concerned, or

• providing minimum strength equivalent to demand from moderate earthquake
excitation, as per the amended ’dangerous building‘ threshold (BA section 121/
CERA section 7).
In both cases, pre-damage stiffness may need to be compensated for by adding reinforcing
structural material or by other means.
Unreinforced concrete block masonry

NZS 1900 Chapter 6.2 (no longer a current Standard) includes a definition of previously
permitted ’unreinforced masonry‘ that included:
• D12 vertical bars at wall corners and as trimmers around opening, and
• horizontal bond beams with minimum levels of continuous reinforcement as
intermediate and/or top bonds, to tie the block panels together.
Unreinforced concrete-block masonry of this form may well occur in residential

construction (eg, basements) where gravity loads must be supported, but it will have
minimal capacity to provide seismic shear resistance without the addition of supplementary
elements.
7. S UPERSTRUCTURE
A
Any repairs to earthquake-damaged unreinforced concrete-block masonry need to

focus on:
• adding structural basketting (eg, surface-mounted FPP or bonded metal strips, at

chosen centres to control local failures), and
• providing alternative load paths for the potential loss of gravity support (eg, internal
SHS props to underside of timber floor, or to support the top bond beam).
New vertical reinforcing can be inserted into selected vertical cells and grouted to provide
supplementary vertical spanning capacity of block panels. However, supplementary
horizontal reinforcement is normally only possible from interior surfaces using bonded
surface strips or incorporating proprietary reinforcing into the horizontal mortar courses.
Note: Normally it will be difficult to add sufficient cross-sectional area using proprietary
systems, due to the size limitations in the proprietary bars.
Partially filled vs fully grouted concrete-block masonry

Previous non-specific design standards for block masonry (eg, NZS 4229:1986) imposed
restrictions on the use of partially filled masonry. Partial filled construction was only
permitted in seismic Zones B and C, with Zone A applications requiring fully grouted
treatment. The introduction of the 1999 version of this Standard saw a relaxation that
allows partial filled construction in Zone A.
In repair or upgrade situations, a general requirement that designers ’demonstrate that the
existing masonry construction satisfied the requirements of B1/AS1‘ for existing blockwork
may bring with it obligations beyond merely the demonstration of a minimum flexural
and/or shear capacity. For example, ’upgrading‘ the Canterbury Earthquake Region to Zone
A standards (as required by Amendment 10 to B1/AS1) may require designers to fill all cells
to ensure the equivalent of Zone A performance is achieved.
NZS 4229:1999 allows the use of partially and fully grouted walls together.
UP D A TE:
December 2012 7.9 Rebuild cladding and roofing
recommendations
If the superstructure is being rebuilt, follow the relevant Building Code requirements.
Acceptable Solutions B1/AS1 (which references NZS 3604) provides solutions for structural
requirements and E2/AS1 for wall cladding and roofing details.
Table 7.2 summarises the maximum weight of wall and roof cladding materials that can be
used when following this guidance, depending on the foundation option chosen. Refer to
glossary for details of heavy (H), medium (M) and light (L) wall and roof materials. While
the chart illustrates maximum recommended weights, the use of lesser weight claddings
will reduce the overall weight of the superstructure leading to greater resilience in possible
future earthquake events.
S U P E R S T R U C T U R E / PAG E 7. 1 2
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A1
Appendix A1: Re-levelling systems and

outline method statements for relevelling
and repairing foundations and floors in
TC1 and TC2
The four foundation lifting methods presented below have all been used extensively over
many years for relevelling foundations that have settled.
Figure A1.1: Lifting option 1 – Perimeter foundation jacking using portable jacks
Foundation relevelling involves excavating pits at discrete locations to the perimeter of the
foundation wall, and installing jacks in each pit to the underside of the wall to raise it to the
correct level. With the foundation repositioned, flowable grout is introduced to the cavity
created under the raised foundation. Once the grout is cured, the jacks are removed and
the pits refilled.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E A 1. 1
APPENDIX A1
A
Figure A1.2: Lifting option 2 – Perimeter foundation jacking using piles (screw or similar)
Foundation relevelling using screw piles involves installing piles at discrete locations to
the perimeter of the foundation wall, along with under-wall shoes fitted with jacks or
bolted jacking brackets to raise the foundation to the correct level. With the foundation
repositioned, flowable grout is introduced to the cavity created under the raised foundation.
Once the grout is cured, the jacks are removed. The screw piles may also be used as a
permanent support.
engineered resin
Cracks in walls
usually close up
as footings
are lifted
Stage 1:
Resin lifts
footings
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A1
This option is a proprietary lifting process where engineered resin is injected into the
ground at multiple points along the foundation. The expanding resin lifts the foundation.
This process also densifies the adjacent ground which serves as a reaction layer for the
lifting operation. This should be carried out by specialist contractors using materials that
meet the following minimum requirements:
• Inert and non-toxic

• Non-leaching
• Warranted durability for 50 years – no significant loss of density, corrosive strength,
or shrinkage, demonstrated by proven in-ground history or accelerated testing.
thixotropic (low mobility) grout
This process involves drilling and inserting grout injection ports at predetermined locations
and depths beneath the structure to permit the injection of grout. The thixotropic or low
mobility grout (LMG) is introduced in a number of stages and at optimum pressures into
the ground beneath the foundations (typically 1 m to 3 m below the foundations) to raise
the ground immediately below the structure together with the structure back to its original
level. This process has been shown to improve the ground bearing capacity.
APPENDIX A1
A
For each of these four relevelling processes, it is important that specialist contractors be
used who are familiar with and adhere to the ASCE standard ASCE/G-I 53/10 “Compaction
Grouting Consensus Guide”. Practitioners must be able to demonstrate an appropriate
track record with experienced personnel and purpose-built equipment, together with
suitable levels of quality control and sufficient resources.
The tables on the following pages provide suggested outline method statements in their
broadly recommended sequence for relevelling foundations and floor slabs of existing
houses as summarised in section 4.
Note:
These approaches will not suit all houses that are considered repairable; each house
will require careful consideration.
These approaches address only the structural aspects, with reference to damage to
finishes only where they relate to relevelling works.
All aspects associated with weathertightness and making good finishes shall be
separately specified by appropriately qualified persons.
UP D A TE: A1.1 Foundation relevelling method

December 2012
There are several
statements
references in the repair
method statements where A1.1.1 Type A: Pile foundation and light-clad exterior walls repair
the advice on crack filling
method statement
has been altered based on
further advice to the EAG. Refer to section 4.3.2.
Step Activity
1. Remove the cladding attached to the exterior piles to expose the piles and retain if
possible.
2. Locate services entry points to the house and allow for disconnection or relief of these
during the floor-lifting operation. For example, dig away soil at water, waste, power and
telephone connections to allow these to lift with the house.
3. Check the vertical alignment of the piles. If existing piles are leaning at an angle of more
than 15 mm per 1 m height, new piles will be required (see point 7 below).
4. Detach the piles from the bearers.
5. Install jacking equipment and sequentially lift the affected areas. Make sure that no
differential displacement is created throughout this process that exceeds the requirements
in Column 2 of Table 2.3. During the jacking process, make allowance for lateral stability of
the detached structure.
6. For floor lifts of up to 100 mm at any pile, fit H5 treated timber packing (preferably as a
single thickness piece) and connect to the existing pile top and the underside of the bearer
as per the requirements of NZS 3604 (for piles without a bracing function, use pairs of wire
dogs and 100 mm skewed nails for timber piles and 4 mm wire and staples for concrete
piles).
If all piles are fixed in this manner, the lateral load-resisting capacity ought to match what it
was before the earthquake. However, this may be less than the requirements of NZS 3604.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A1
Step Activity
7. For lifts greater than 100 mm at any pile, new piles will be required to be fitted that may
be connected directly to the existing bearers. Timber piles may be connected either by
scarfing and bolting or by fixing with wire dogs and skewed nails as above. Concrete
piles should be set so that the bearer rests directly on the pile once installed, and the two
connected with wire and staples.
8. For dwellings that have settled more than 100 mm, no pile tops should be less than 150
mm above the ground level (NZS 3604 requirement). If piles have settled to a level less
than this, either packing or new piles will be required. Between 150 mm and 300 mm
above the existing ground, a DPC should be installed between the pile top and the floor
framing (this NZS 3604 requirement may be greater than what was in place before the
earthquakes).
If no piles extend more than 300 mm above the surrounding ground, additional bracing
is unlikely to be needed. (This is less than the requirement for a new NZS 3604 building,
but would reinstate the house to its pre-earthquake condition.) For piles with greater than
300 mm exposed height, consideration should be given to installing appropriate bracing
in the two main orthogonal directions. This could include the addition of cantilever piles,
anchor piles or braced piles (the latter case for pile heights greater than 600 mm.)
9. Reattach the cladding to the outside of the piles.
10. Re-compact soil around the services. If the lifting process has reduced the cover to the
services to a value less than allowed by the Building Code for safety reasons, appropriate
remediation will be required to satisfy the Building Code.
11. For assessment of and repairs to the superstructure, refer to Section 7.

Ancillary attachments to the house such as heavy chimney foundations and breastworks,
concrete steps, and concrete terrace and timber deck areas will need to be remediated if
their levels no longer align with the new floor level.
A1.1.2 Type B: Perimeter concrete foundation wall repair method

statement
Refer to section 4.3.3 for light- or medium-weight claddings and section 4.3.4 for heavy
veneer claddings.
Preparatory work
Step Activity
B1 Establish whether there is adequate bearing capacity for remedial works

(eg, using a hand-held Scala Penetrometer).
It is recognised that there will be liquefiable soils at some depth beneath the house
because this is the reason for its current condition.
B2 Locate services entry points to the house and allow for disconnection or relief of these
B3 Check the vertical alignment of the internal piles. If existing piles are leaning at an angle of
more than 50 mm per 1 m height, new piles will be required. Leans of less than this value
are considered to be acceptable if there is a perimeter foundation present.
B4 Disconnect the internal piles from the bearers.
B5 Demolish ancillary structures such as steps and terraces as necessary. Chimney

foundations and breastworks may be lifted using the process described below if they are
not being demolished.
APPENDIX A1
A
Lifting option 1: Perimeter foundation jacking using portable jacks

Step Activity
B1.1 Clear the perimeter of the foundation. At a spacing of about 2 m centres around the
perimeter of and under the foundation, excavate 500 mm square access pits beneath
the foundation to a suitable bearing layer. Install dunnage and jacks. It is preferable to
have a number of jacks available to allow the entire foundation to be lifted sequentially by
maximum 3 mm increments. Detach the piles from the bearers.
Start the lifting process by creating a planar floor plate, even if this is sloping, and then
sequentially lift the foundation until a horizontal floor plate is achieved. Make sure no
in column 2 of Table 2.3.
The jacks may alternatively be placed adjacent to the outside face of the foundation and
an ‘L’ shaped shoe used to lift on the edge of the foundation, reacting on timber or steel
dunnage. Ensure the services are able to accommodate the lift heights or detach these
before the lift begins.
B1.2 Concurrently with the wall jacking, jack the underside of the bearers beneath the house to
create and maintain the planar floor.
B1.3 For floor lifts of up to 100 mm at any pile, fit H5 treated timber packing (preferably as a single
thickness piece) and connect to the existing pile top and the underside of the bearer as per
the requirements of NZS 3604 (for piles without a bracing function, use pairs of wire dogs
and 100 mm skewed nails for timber piles and 4 mm wire and staples for concrete piles).
B1.4 For lifts greater than 100 mm at any pile, new piles will be required to be fitted that may
be connected directly to the existing bearers either by scarfing and bolting or by fixing with
wire dogs and skewed nails as above.
B1.5 Seal each side of the space between the foundation and the dunnage, fit grout injection
ports and pump non-shrink flowable grout under the elevated foundation. Leave to cure for
12 to 24 hours and remove the jacking equipment.
B1.6 Fill the space between the underside of the foundation and the ground in each pit with
concrete, backfill the pits and reinstate the adjacent ground.
UP D A TE: B1.7 Seal the exposed cracks in edge beams and fill the cracks in accordance with Appendix
December 2012 A4.4.
B1.8 Reconnect any services that had been disconnected before the lift.
B1.9 Reinstate the adjacent ground.
B1.10 For assessment of and repairs to the superstructure, refer to section 7.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A1
Lifting option 2: Perimeter foundation jacking using piles (screw or similar)

Step Activity
B2.1 Clear the perimeter of the foundation. At a spacing of about 2 m around the perimeter
install proprietary screw piles to the required depth to obtain sufficient bearing capacity.
B2.2 Ensure the services can accommodate the lift heights or detach these before the lift begins.
B2.3 Detach the piles from the bearers.
B2.4 Fit the lifting components to the tops of the screw piles and under the edge of the
foundation. Lift the foundation sequentially by a small amount (increments of 3 mm
maximum). Start the lifting process by creating a planar floor plate, even if this is sloping,
and then sequentially lift the foundation until a horizontal floor plate is achieved. Make
sure no differential displacement is created throughout this process that exceeds the
requirements in column 2 of Table 2.3.
B2.5 Install grout injection ports and fill the space between the underside of the foundation and
the existing ground with grout. Wait for 24 hours before removing the screw piles (if they
are to be removed).
B2.6 The screw piles may be left in place or removed.
B2.7 Concurrently with the foundation wall jacking, jack the underside of the bearers beneath
the house to create and maintain the planar floor.
B2.8 For floor lifts of up to 100 mm at any pile, fit H5 treated timber packing (preferably as a
single thickness piece) and connect to the existing pile top and the underside of the bearer
as per the requirements of NZS 3604 (for piles without a bracing function, use pairs of wire
dogs and 100 mm skewed nails for timber piles and 4 mm wire and staples for concrete
piles).
B2.10 Seal the exposed cracks in edge beams and fill the cracks in accordance with U P D A TE:
Appendix A4.4. December 2012
APPENDIX A1
A
Lifting option 3: Perimeter foundation jacking using engineered resin

Step Activity
B3.1 Ensure the services can accommodate the lift heights or detach these before the lift
begins.
B3.2 Set up laser equipment for monitoring floor movement.
B3.4 Install injection ports to the predetermined pattern and spacing along that section of
foundation to be relevelled. Commence injection below the perimeter foundation wall,
making sure no differential displacement is created throughout this process that exceeds
the requirements of column 2 of Table 2.3.
B3.5 Carry out injection in a controlled manner, monitored by suitable equipment such as a laser
and staff, to gradually raise the foundation to the required level.
B3.6 Concurrently with the foundation wall lifting, jack the underside of the bearers beneath the
house to create and maintain a planar floor.
UP D A TE: B3.9 Seal the exposed cracks in edge beams and fill the cracks in accordance with
December 2012 Appendix A4.4.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A1
Lifting option 4: Perimeter foundation jacking using thixotropic or low mobility

grout (LMG)
Step Activity
B4.1 Ensure the services can accommodate the lift heights or detach these before the lift begins.
B4.2 Set up laser equipment for monitoring floor movement.
B4.4 Install injection ports to the predetermined pattern and spacing along that section of
foundation to be relevelled. Commence injection below the perimeter foundation wall,
making sure no differential displacement is created throughout this process that exceeds
the requirements of column 2 of Table 2.3.
B4.5 Carry out injection in a controlled manner, monitored by suitable equipment such as a laser
and staff, to gradually raise the foundation to the required level.
B4.6 Concurrently with the foundation wall lifting, jack the underside of the bearers beneath the
house to create and maintain a planar floor.
B4.9 Seal the exposed cracks in edge beams and fill the cracks in accordance with U P D A TE:
Appendix A4.4. December 2012
A1.1.3 Type C: Slab-on-grade method statement

Refer to section 4.3.5 for light- or medium-weight claddings and section 4.3.6 for heavy
veneer claddings.
Preparatory Work
Step Activity
C1 Establish whether there is adequate bearing capacity for remedial works (eg, using a hand-
held Scala Penetrometer).
C2 Locate services entry points to the house and allow for disconnection or relief of these
C3 Demolish ancillary structures such as steps and terraces as necessary. Chimney

foundations and breastworks may be lifted using the process described below if they are
not being demolished.
APPENDIX A1
A
Lifting option 1: Perimeter foundation jacking using portable jacks

Step Activity
C1.1 Take up all floor coverings in the areas where the floor is to be relevelled (lifted).
C1.2 Ensure the services can accommodate the lift heights by exposing and allowing them to lift
with the wall, or detach these before the lift begins.
C1.3 Clear the perimeter of the foundation. At a spacing of about 2 m centres around the
perimeter, excavate 500 mm square access pits beneath the foundation to a suitable
bearing layer. Install dunnage and jacks. It is preferable to have a number of jacks available
to allow the entire foundation wall to be lifted sequentially by increments of 3 mm
maximum. Make sure no differential displacement is created throughout this process that
exceeds the requirements of column 2 of Table 2.3.
Alternatively, the jacks may be placed adjacent to the outside face of the foundation wall
and ‘L’-shaped shoes bolted to the wall to act as a lifting bracket.
C1.4 Concurrently with the perimeter edge beam jacking, drill and inject grout through the floor
slab on a suitable grid pattern, monitoring the slab lift to match the wall lifting.
C1.5 Start the edge beam lifting process by creating a planar floor plate, even if this is sloping,
and then sequentially lift the foundation wall and slab until a horizontal floor plate is
achieved.
C1.6 Install grout injection ports and pump non-shrink flowable grout under the elevated
foundation. Leave to cure for 12 to 24 hours and remove the jacking equipment.
C1.7 Fill the space between the underside of the foundation and the ground at the jack pits
between the jacks with grout or concrete.
UP D A TE: C1.8 Seal the exposed cracks in the outside face of the perimeter edge beam and fill the cracks
December 2012 in accordance with Appendix A4.4.
C1.9 Reconnect any services that had been disconnected before the lift.
C1.10 Reinstate the adjacent ground.
C1.11 Relay the floor coverings.
C1.12 For assessment of and repairs to the superstructure, refer to section 7.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A1
Lifting option 2: Perimeter foundation jacking using piles (screw or similar)

Step Activity
C2.1 Take up all floor coverings in the areas where the floor is to be relevelled (lifted).
C2.2 Clear the perimeter of the foundation. At a spacing of about 2 m around the perimeter,
install proprietary screw piles to the required depth to obtain sufficient bearing capacity.
C2.3 Ensure the services can accommodate the lift heights or detach these before the lift begins.
C2.4 Fit the lifting components to the tops of the screw piles and under the edge beam. Lift
the perimeter edge beam sequentially by a small amount (increments of 3 mm maximum).
Start the lifting process by creating a planar floor plate, even if this is sloping, and then
sequentially lift the edge beams until a horizontal floor plate is achieved. Make sure no
of column 2 of Table 2.3.
Concurrently with the perimeter edge beam jacking, drill and inject grout through the floor
slab on a suitable grid pattern, monitoring the slab lift to match the beam lift. This is a
specialist process requiring skilled operators.
C2.5 Install grout injection ports and fill the space between the underside of the foundation and
the existing ground with grout. Wait for 24 hours before removal of the screw piles (if they
are to be removed).
C2.6 The screw piles may be left in provided a permanent connection is made between the
beam and the piles.
C2.7 Seal the exposed cracks in the outside face of the perimeter edge beam and fill the cracks U P D A TE:
in accordance with Appendix A4.4. December 2012
APPENDIX A1
A
Lifting option 3: Perimeter foundation jacking and slab relevelling using

engineered resin
Step Activity
C3.1 Take up all floor coverings in the areas where the floor is to be lifted.
C3.2 Ensure the services can accommodate the lift heights or detach these before the lift
begins.
C3.3 Install grout injection ports to the predetermined pattern under the foundation wall and
slab. Set up laser equipment for monitoring floor movement.
C3.4 Commence injection below the edge beam to lift the foundations and floor slab.
C3.5 Carry out injection in a controlled manner, monitored by a laser and staff or similar, to
gradually raise the perimeter edge beam to the required level. Make sure no differential
displacement is created throughout this process that exceeds the requirements of column
2 of Table 2.3.
C3.6 Once the edge beams have been raised to the final level, it may be necessary to
commence additional injection via the ports in the floor slab to relevel it. Further controlled
injection via these ports will raise the slab to the same level as the perimeter edge beams.
This may be done concurrently with the perimeter edge beam lifting.
UP D A TE: C3.7 Seal the exposed cracks in the outside face of the perimeter edge beam and fill the cracks
December 2012 in accordance with Appendix A4.4.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E A 1. 1 2
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A1
Lifting option 4: Perimeter foundation jacking and slab relevelling using

thixotropic or low mobility grout (LMG)
Step Activity
C4.1 Take up all floor coverings in the areas where the floor is to be lifted.
C4.2 Ensure the services can accommodate the lift heights or detach these before the lift begins.
C4.3 Install grout injection ports to the predetermined pattern under the foundation wall and
slab. Set up laser equipment for monitoring floor movement.
C4.4 Commence injection below the edge beam to lift the foundations and floor slab.
C4.5 Carry out injection in a controlled manner, monitored by a laser and staff or similar, to
gradually raise the perimeter edge beam to the required level. Make sure no differential
displacement is created throughout this process that exceeds the requirements of column
2 of Table 2.3.
C4.6 Once the edge beams have been raised to the final level it may be necessary to
commence additional injection via the ports in the floor slab to relevel it. Further controlled
injection via these ports will raise the slab to the same level as the perimeter edge beams.
This may be done concurrently with the perimeter edge beam lifting.
C4.7 Seal the exposed cracks in the outside face of the perimeter edge beam and fill the cracks U P D A TE:
in accordance with Appendix A4.4. December 2012
APPENDIX A1
A
A P P E N D I X / PAG E A 1. 1 4
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A2
Appendix A2: Outline method

statements for replacing foundations and
slab-on-grade floors in TC1 and TC2
The tables on the following pages provide outline method statements in their broadly
recommended sequence for replacing foundations and floor slabs in existing houses, as
summarised in section 5.5.
Note:
These approaches will not suit all houses that are considered repairable; each house
will require careful consideration.
These approaches address only the structural aspects, with reference to damage to
finishes only where they relate to relevelling works.
All aspects associated with weathertightness and making good finishes shall be
separately specified by appropriately qualified persons.
In each of the types described below, once the house has been re-established on the new
foundation system, consideration will need to be given to the reinstatement of the internal
linings and external claddings. This will be dependent on the degree of deformation that
the house has undergone during the earthquake and the subsequent lifting. See section 7
for guidance.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E A 2 . 1
APPENDIX A2
A
Type A: Pile foundation replacement method statement

Refer to section 5.5.
Step Activity
A1 Remove the cladding attached to the exterior piles to expose the piles.
A2 Locate services entry points to the house and disconnect to allow the house to be lifted
without damaging the services.
A3 Demolish or disconnect from the foundation of the house any chimney foundations, steps
or terraces that may prevent the house from being lifted.
A4 Disconnect all existing piles from the bearers.
A5 Fit a multiple lifting system (eg, a house mover’s jacking system) around the perimeter
of the house and within the footprint if the sagging between the perimeter lift points is
going to be excessive. Incrementally jack the house to a common horizontal floor plane
sufficiently high above the ground to allow the construction of a new pile system.
The maximum general height above the ground required by the house mover is 2 m so
that their equipment can be used to best advantage beneath the house. Secure the house
against possible instability of the temporary supports during the re-piling operation. If there
is space on the site or alternative space nearby to which the dwelling may be temporarily
moved, this is another option.
A6 Pull together any gaps that had opened in the floor plate during the earthquake and splice
joints between ends of joists and bearers that have parted. Repair any tension failures of
bottom plates (likely to be at plate joints rather than in an individual piece). This will require
removal of either linings or claddings in the area of the failure for access.
A7 Remove all piles that have settled more than 100 mm beyond the expected new common
level or piles raked at an angle of greater than 15 mm per 1 m height.
A8 Replace removed piles with timber or concrete piles in accordance with the requirements
of NZS 3604.
A9 Lower the superstructure on to the completed pile array and connect all piles to bearers in
accordance with the requirements of NZS 3604.
A10 Reconnect all services previously disconnected.
A11 Fit new base boards to the perimeter piles.
A12 Reinstate the adjacent ground.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A2
Type B: Perimeter concrete foundation wall replacement method

statement
Refer to section 5.5 for light- or medium-weight claddings and heavy-weight claddings.
Step Activity
B1 Establish whether there is adequate bearing capacity for remedial works (eg, using a hand-
held Scala Penetrometer).
B2 Locate services entry points to the house and disconnect to allow the house to be lifted
without damaging the services.
B3 Check the vertical alignment of the internal piles. If existing piles are leaning at an angle of
more than 50 mm per 1 m height, new piles will be required. Leans of less than this value
are considered to be acceptable if there is a perimeter foundation present.
B4 Disconnect the internal piles from the bearers and the outer bearers, and plates from the
existing perimeter foundation.
B5 Demolish ancillary structures such as chimney foundations, steps and terraces.
B6 Fit a multiple lifting system (eg, a house mover’s jacking system) around the perimeter
of the house and within the footprint if the sagging between the perimeter lift points is
going to be excessive. Incrementally jack the house to a common horizontal floor plane
sufficiently high above the ground to allow the installation of steel sliding beams. Slide
the superstructure to the side of the site to replace damaged/leaning piles and demolish
and construct a new perimeter foundation. This requirement is to aid the removal and
replacement of the damaged piles and particularly the perimeter foundation walls with
mechanical equipment. It also prevents the need to demolish parts of the foundation wall
adjacent to the lifting jacks, which could lead to collapse of the temporary support.
If lack of space on the site prevents the superstructure from being fully removed from the
foundation, it may be necessary to shift it first in one direction to undertake a part rebuild
of the foundation and then in the other direction to complete the rebuild. This is a specialist
operation requiring skilled operators. If there is space on the site or alternative space
nearby to which the dwelling may be temporarily moved, this is another option.
B7 Pull together any gaps that had opened in the floor plate during the earthquake and splice
joints between ends of joists and bearers that have parted. Repair any tension failures of
bottom plates (likely to be at plate joints rather than in an individual piece). This will require
removal of either linings or claddings in the area of the failure for access.
B8 Demolish the existing damaged perimeter foundation and construct a new foundation,
reinforced as detailed in Figure 4.2 or 5.12, as appropriate. Install replacement piles.
B9 After 7 days, slide the superstructure over the new foundation, lower it on to the piles
and foundation and reattach the plates to the foundation in accordance with NZS 3604.
Reattach the piles to the bearers with stapled wire (concrete piles) or wire dogs and skew
nails (timber piles), packing as required.
B10 Reconnect all services previously disconnected.
B11 Reinstate the adjacent ground and landscape any areas affected by the lateral shifting of
the superstructure.
APPENDIX A2
A
Type C: Slab-on-grade floor replacement method statement

Refer to section 5.5 for light- or medium-weight claddings and heavy veneer claddings.
Step Activity
C1 Establish whether there is adequate bearing capacity for a new floor slab
(eg, using a hand-held Scala Penetrometer).
C2 Locate services entry points to the house and disconnect these remote from the
foundation pad.
C3 Remove any fixtures such as toilet pans and cabinets such as kitchen cabinets and
benches that will hinder the lift and lateral shift of the structure.
C4 Remove plasterboard linings from one side of the internal walls to a height of about 600
mm above the floor. (If it can be determined which side of the wall has the bracing system
applied, this should be left untouched and the lining on the other side removed.)
For light- and medium-weight wall claddings, remove the plasterboard linings from the
inside face of the exterior walls to a height of about 600 mm above the floor. (There may
be bracing elements included on these wall lines which will require reinstatement once
the house is re-established on the new foundation.) For heavy-weight exterior claddings,
remove all the cladding and leave the lining intact on the inside face.
C5 Disconnect all hold-down fixings (ie, bolts or bent bars) to allow the superstructure to lift
above the floor slab.
C6 In both orthogonal directions, install 200 mm x 50 mm or 250 mm x 50 mm timber

members through the space created in the walls and screw to the wall framing. This is
an operation best undertaken by a specialist house moving company that has the correct
equipment and the experience with such lifts. The heavy timber members serve to couple
the wall frames together and brace the superstructure to allow it to be lifted fractionally off
the floor slab.
C7 Install a multiple lifting system beneath the temporary bracing members and lift the
framing off the floor slab by 150 mm and support on blocks. Reinstall the lifting system,
now jacking on the underside of the bottom plates.
C8 Pull together any gaps that had opened in the framing during the earthquake and repair
any tension failures of bottom plates (likely to be at plate joints rather than in an individual
piece).
C9 Install steel sliding beams and slide the superstructure to the side of the site to allow the
new floor to be constructed.
If lack of space on the site prevents the superstructure from being fully removed from the
foundation, it will be necessary to shift it first in one direction to undertake a part rebuild of
the foundation and then in the other direction to complete the rebuild. If there is space on
the site or alternative space nearby to which the dwelling may be temporarily moved, this
is another option. Construct new floor slab in accordance with the requirements for the TC
(see section 5.5).
C10 After 7 days, slide the superstructure over the new foundation, and lower to its final
position. Reattach the bottom plates to the new floor at the same locations as the removed
bolts. Approved proprietary hold-down bolts are the best for this purpose, installed at 900
mm maximum centres.
C11 Reconnect all services previously disconnected.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A2
Step Activity
C12 The earlier removal of the wall linings will expose the bracing elements in the structure.
For houses built before the 1970s, the bracing is more likely to be let in 6” x 1” diagonal
timber members or fitted 4” x 2” diagonal frames. In this case, no special hold-down
requirements will be needed.
Newer houses will be using sheet bracing (primarily plasterboard) and the bracing elements
will need to be identified. Council records should show the positions. In these areas, it
will be necessary to reinstate the bracing element by back-blocking the horizontal joint
and fixing the replacement linings in accordance with the bracing product manufacturer’s
specification. In other areas, the lower section of removed plasterboard may be replaced
with a new section of plasterboard without the back-blocking. See section 7 for guidance.
C13 Re-stop the wall linings, refit any trims that were removed and redecorate.
C14 External sheet cladding connections and joints must also be checked and refixed. If the
cladding has a bracing function, the sheet fixings must be checked and, if damaged, fixings
must be installed in the intervening gaps. See section 7 for guidance. Cracks in EIFS
claddings can be repaired and repainted, but it may be necessary to apply a new texture
coating if the texture match cannot be made during the crack repair. If there is severe
cracking in the EIFS cladding, the polystyrene backing will need to be renailed to the
framing in the affected area.
C15 Relay the floor coverings.
C16 Reinstate the adjacent ground and landscape any areas affected by the lateral shifting of
the superstructure.
APPENDIX A2
A
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A3
Appendix A3: Assessment and repair

options for chimneys damaged in the
A3.1 Background and context
This appendix contains information about the assessment of chimney damage and the
selection of repair or rebuild options. The time that has passed since the publication of
the Ministry’s guidance document in December 2010 has allowed for greater guidance
information to be formulated for assessing and repairing damaged chimneys.
A3.2 Overview
Chimney failures were widespread in the Christchurch area following the 4 September
2010 earthquake and were often the most obvious sign of earthquake damage at any
property. Further failures occurred in the 22 February 2011 aftershock. Older chimneys
tend to be constructed with clay bricks, cemented together with cement or lime mortar.
The predominance of brick veneer cladding on Christchurch houses meant that the
chimney was built to match the veneer and if it was situated on the exterior of the house,
it was often built integral with the veneer. Many older houses were also constructed with
unreinforced brick load-bearing walls and the chimneys were built integral with the wall
(see Figure A3.1).
Figure A3.1. Failed double skin unreinforced masonry wall showing chimney cast
integrally with the wall
Note: The chimney is no longer in service and the roof has been re-clad.
APPENDIX A3
A
Other older chimney styles included precast pumice concrete blocks which provided for
vertical bars to be grouted into the four corners of the chimney, although sometimes no
reinforcement or grout was ever installed.
Modern brick chimneys are built to satisfy the provisions of the Building Code with a
reinforced concrete flue within the brickwork and tied to the house framing.
Chimneys cantilever (unsupported) above the roof of the house and are heavy. This makes
them particularly susceptible to the lateral ground motions of an earthquake. If they are not
properly designed, they will fail at the roof level, toppling on to either the roof or the ground
beside the house.
The 22 February 2011 aftershock had an unusually large vertical acceleration component
(greater than 1 g) and this caused some of the weaker chimneys in the hill suburbs to lift
off and impact down on their foundations. Combined with the high horizontal acceleration
component, this caused them to bulge outwards, often pushing the adjacent wall linings
into the surrounding rooms.
A3.3 Current legislation for chimneys

The Ministry’s document Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Information for Home Owners
and Building Practitioners – Building Work that does not require a Building Consent as at
20 September 2010 notes that repairing or replacing a chimney or flue does not require a
building consent.
However, despite this exemption, repaired or new chimneys must still meet the Building
Code performance requirements. The most relevant Building Code requirements are those
relating to Structure (Clause B1), Fire Safety (Clause C) and External Moisture (Clause
E2). Any repairs or rebuilds must be done correctly to prevent the possibility of a potential
chimney collapse, house fire or weathertightness failure.
The Ministry issues Acceptable Solutions and Verification Methods (Compliance Documents)
under the Building Act that correlate to clauses in the Building Code. These documents are
voluntary, but if they are followed, the work will be Building Code compliant.
UP D A TE:
Acceptable Solution B1/AS3 provides full details for the construction of new chimney
December 2012
foundations, fireplaces and chimneys, covering brick chimneys with and without liners, and
pumice concrete. Restraint details for the chimney stack at the ceiling level and at floor
levels are also provided, along with a table of extra bracing demands on a supporting NZS
3604 or NZS 4229 structure. Users of this table (Table 2 in B1/AS3) are reminded that they
should use the earthquake Zone A demands if the house is located in Christchurch City,
Waimakariri District, or Selwyn District as of 19 May 2011.
Acceptable Solution C/AS1 Part 9 details modifications to three Standards for solid fuel
appliances (AS/NZS 2918), gas burning appliances (NZS 5261) and oil fired appliances
(AS1691) for each type to satisfy the Building Code requirements, particularly with respect
to the provision of restraint against earthquake actions. C/AS1 also stipulates required
minimum dimensions and clearances for fireplaces and flues to ensure the risk of outbreak
of fire is kept to an acceptable minimum.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A3
Acceptable Solution E2/AS1 notes that the intersection of roofs and chimneys is a ‘very
high risk area’ for potential weathertightness issues. Accordingly, E2/AS1 requires
treatment of the roof in the chimney penetration area.
Compliance Documents may be downloaded free from www.dbh.govt.nz/building-code-

compliance-documents-downloads
As noted above, various Standards are relevant for the consideration of chimney repairs and
rebuilds. These are:
• NZS 1170.5 Structural Design Actions – Earthquake Actions – New Zealand

• NZS 3101 Concrete Structures Standard
• NZS 3109 Concrete Construction
• NZS 4210 Masonry Construction: Materials and Workmanship
• AS/NZS 2918 Domestic Solid Fuel Heating Appliances Installation
• NZS 5261 Gas Installation
• AS 1691 Domestic Oil-fired Appliances – Installation.
A3.4 E
nvironment Canterbury clean air
requirements
U P D A TE:
Environment Canterbury has Home Heating Rules for various parts of the Canterbury December 2012
region. The Home Heating Rules and maps of Clean Air Zones can be found at: ecan.govt.
nz/advice/your-home/home-heating/pages/Default.aspx. Outside the Christchurch, Kaiapoi,
Rangiora and Ashburton Clean Air Zones 1, open fires are permissible.
In Christchurch Clean Air Zone 1 – use of an open fire or a greater than 15 year old
solid fuel burner is permissible outside of the winter period (defined dates – see the
Environment Canterbury website for details), but only with dry wood.
In Christchurch Clean Air Zone 2 – existing open fires and solid fuel burners are
permissible, but only with dry wood.
In Kaiapoi Clean Air Zone 1 – it is illegal to use an open fire or a solid fuel burner that is
older than 15 years (ie, from the 15th anniversary of its first installation, as recorded on a
building permit or consent) without a resource consent.
U P D A TE:
Kaiapoi Clean Air Zone 2 has no restrictions provided only dry wood is burned. December 2012
In Rangiora Clean Air Zone 1 – it will be illegal to use an open fire or a solid fuel burner
that is older than 15 years (ie, from the 15th anniversary of its first installation, as recorded
on a building permit or consent) without a resource consent from May 2012.
U P D A TE:
Rangiora Clean Air Zone 2 has no restrictions provided only dry wood is burned.
December 2012
APPENDIX A3
A
In Ashburton Clean Air Zone 1:
• an open fire must not be used

• a solid fuel burner not approved by Environment Canterbury that was installed before
1 January 2001 must not be used unless a resource consent has been granted
• a solid fuel burner not approved by Environment Canterbury that was installed after
1 January 2001 must not be used after 15 years from that date
• a solid fuel burner approved by Environment Canterbury must not be used after
15 years from installation.
EECA is taking the opportunity to encourage the replacement of inefficient

smoke-producing open fireplaces with more efficient wood burners, pellet burners, gas
burners or heat pumps, but the owner has the right to request a rebuild to match the style
originally present. This is particularly important for heritage structures where the chimneys
are an important part of the house style. This can still be achieved, however, while using
lighter materials and more earthquake-resistant construction.
A3.5 C himney construction materials

and chimney condition
If the chimney has failed there will be an opportunity to discover its construction. Careful
inspection preferably by an engineer, or otherwise a brick layer, will be required to
determine the status of the remaining structure. This will determine possible repair options
or whether complete demolition of the chimney is necessary.
A3.5.1 Recognising materials

Brick chimneys are likely to have a brick exterior if they are part of a brick veneer clad
house. Similarly, they may have a stucco exterior coating if they are part of a stucco clad
house. Pumice concrete chimneys may also be overclad with stucco.
The crack pattern on the exterior may be the key to deciding which type is present.
Pumice concrete stack blocks are approximately 150 mm high, whereas brick courses are
approximately 75 mm high.
Pumice concrete chimney construction

If built correctly, there will be vertical reinforcing bars in each corner of the pumice concrete
stack and the chimney ought not to be stressed significantly by the earthquake. However,
it has been known for the grout to be left out of the corner ducts preventing the reinforcing
steel from working as intended.
If present, crack patterns in pumice concrete chimneys generally follow the horizontal joints
between blocks. Fine cracks would suggest that the chimney is reinforced. If the cracks are
wider and/or the blocks are displaced from each other horizontally, it is likely that there is
no grout in the corner ducts. Placing reinforcement in the ducts and grouting in accordance
with B1/AS3 may be all that is necessary to repair damaged pumice concrete chimneys.
However, a check should be made to ensure the chimney is correctly restrained to the
structure at the roof and floor levels.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A3
Clay brick chimney construction

Clay brick chimneys will have been constructed with either lime or cement mortar. Lime
mortar can be easily scraped from the joints and, because of its weak nature, chimneys
constructed with lime mortar are likely to have many cracks through the mortar joints if
the chimney has not already fallen in the earthquake. Chimneys with cement mortar are
more likely to survive an earthquake because of the greater bond between the mortar and
the bricks.
Concrete brick chimney construction

Concrete brick chimneys are associated with more modern construction and the bricks will
be joined together with cement mortar. Chimneys in the hill suburbs have been subjected
to very high vertical accelerations, which may have been sufficient to cause the bond
between the mortar and the bricks to be broken. If unreinforced, these chimneys are not
expected to be any stronger than clay brick chimneys with lime mortar.
A3.6 Assessment of damaged chimneys

The flowchart in Figure A3.2 provides a process for assessing and deciding on repair or
replacement of chimneys. While the aim may be to install a clean heating device such as a
heat pump, the owner may wish to retain the style of the house by rebuilding the chimney.
APPENDIX A3
A
A3.7 Repair and rebuild options
A3.7.1 Exterior chimneys

Chimney damaged over full height
If the chimney is damaged over its full height, it is very likely that it will need to be
demolished. The options include installing a heat pump and making good the wall and roof
where the chimney was situated, or rebuilding the chimney to the requirements of the
Building Code. Detailed construction information is contained in the Acceptable Solutions
B1/AS1, B1/AS3, C/AS1 and E2/AS1 for heavy chimney construction.
If a solid fuel burner, pellet burner or gas fire is to be installed, this equipment will have a
metal flue which can be extended above roof level or enclosed in a light-weight chimney
surround to keep the weight of the new construction to a minimum. Externally below
roof level, this surround may be timber-framed and clad with 20 mm thick brick slips or
plastered to match the surrounding wall cladding.
The framing should be at maximum 600 mm centres with dwangs at maximum 1200 mm
centres. It should be clad with 9 mm fibre cement sheets fixed at 150 mm centres with 40
mm x 2.5 mm galvanised or 316 stainless steel flat head nails. Brick slips require correct
backing substrate and adhesive products and should be supported by 20 x 10 mm x 1.2
mm stainless steel angles fixed to the frame at maximum 2 m centres.
UP D A TE:
Appropriate clearance between the framing and the flue is paramount. Where the flue
December 2012
is enclosed and/or within and above the roof space, a triple flue is necessary. Generally,
depending on the heating device, the inner flue will have a 150 mm minimum diameter
and the space between concentric casings is 25 mm, which results in a 250 mm diameter
for the outer casing. A 25 mm clearance must be provided between the outer casing and
any framing. The minimum inside dimension for the framing is therefore 300 mm. Free-
standing solid fuel burners may have a single skin flue up to ceiling level. Inbuilt burners
with ‘zero clearance cabinets’ can be built into framed-up walls. In the case of an open fire,
the inner flue is commonly 250 mm diameter.
While the weight of this style of chimney is significantly less than a traditional brick
chimney, it should still be tied to the house framing at the roof and floor levels.
Proprietary light-weight chimney options made up to a standard design or to replicate

the original brick chimney, and fit over a timber or steel framework secured to the house,
include Heritage Replica Chimneys (brick slips), Quake Safe Chimneys (moulded fibreglass)
and Chim-Lite Chimneys (pressed steel).
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A3
Figure A3.2: Process for assessment and decision on repair or replacement of chimneys
Existing chimney –
determine material and
condition
Partial demolition and

repair/full demolition
engineer assessment
Heating options – owner preference
Heat pump Open fire – chimney repair Flued heating device*
Demolish Chimney Chimney Demolish

chimney repair repair chimney
Partial demolition
Install new heating

Seal off fireplace Install metal flue
device and flue
Install heat pump
Install light-weight Flash flue OR Encapsulate flue

chimney at roof in new light-weight
(for effect) penetration chimney
Make good to roof, cladding, etc
Note: Approved heating unit – log burner/pellet fire/gas fire.
APPENDIX A3
A
Chimney damaged over part of its height

A careful inspection should be made to determine the extent of damage. It is likely that the
section above the roof will be the worst affected, but this does not preclude the presence
of damage below the roof line. If there is any doubt about the structural integrity of the
chimney over its full height, it should be confirmed as safe by an engineer or demolished.
UP D A TE:
If it is established that the chimney is sound below the roof, it is still not recommended that
December 2012
Figures A3.3 and A3.4 the section above the roof be rebuilt with similar heavy materials if this can be avoided.
from the November 2011 Instead, the chimney should be dismantled to a point below the roof plane and a light-
version of this guidance weight flue installed (see Figure A3.5). If the brick chimney is replaced above the roof and
contained incorrect an open fire is retained, then a stainless steel box sized to fit snugly into the remaining
information regarding
section of chimney below the roof and sealed to the existing chimney with a fire cement
the requirements for
ventilation of chimneys.
seal at its bottom edge is recommended. A concrete cap should be formed around the new
It is very important that stainless steel flue on top of the remaining brickwork and the upper section of brickwork
the space between the rebuilt as a veneer, fixed to the box with metal ties (see Figure A3.3). It is important that
metal inner flue and the the flue extends the maximum possible distance down the existing brick flue to provide the
old brick chimney flue is anchorage for the section cantilevering above the roof. At a minimum, the length below the
ventilated to the outside
roof should equal the length above the roof. This may mean that the section of brick above
when a solid fuel burner is
installed in the fireplace. To the roof will have to be shorter than the original length.
this end, the intermediate
casing must extend down If a solid fuel burner is installed during the repair process, the space between the burner
through the concrete cap. flue and the new brickwork must be ventilated. To achieve the required ventilation, an inner
The three new figures and an outer casing are installed from the new concrete cap to the top of the new chimney
Figure A3.3, A3.4 and A3.5 flue (see Figure A3.4). A purpose-built stainless steel cap should be installed as formwork
provide correct information
for the cap and to envelope the top of the remaining chimney.
on ventilation..
The reinforced concrete cap should be tied to the roof framing with a 50 mm x 4 mm metal
strap bolted or coach screwed to the roof framing with three M12 coach screws (see B1/
AS1, Figure 6).
Alternatively, the new brick veneer chimney may be omitted (see Figure A3.5).
Details of the three options are given in Figures A3.3, A3.4, and A3.5 of this document.
A3.7.2 Internal chimneys

Chimney damaged over full height
It is more difficult to determine the condition of an internal chimney because these are
generally enclosed within wall framing and not easy to inspect. However, a damaged
internal chimney poses a greater fire hazard than an external chimney so if there is any
doubt about the integrity of the flue, the surrounding wall linings should be removed for a
thorough inspection.
It is recommended that if there is any concern about the chimney it should be

demolished and replaced with a modern metal flue system, in conjunction with a solid
fuel burner, pellet fire or gas fire. Alternatively, other heating options could be chosen
that do not require a flue, such as a heat pump.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A3
The design of the exterior portion of the chimney can be replicated, if required, to maintain
the style of the house – refer to light-weight chimney information under A3.7.1.
Chimney damaged only over the upper part of its height

If it can be confidently established that the chimney is damaged over only the upper
section, then it should be possible to demolish the damaged section and cap the lower
section, installing a metal flue system and light-weight surround in much the same
manner as the exterior chimney case. To maintain the style of the exterior of the house, a
fibreglass, pressed steel or brick slip system is recommended.
A rebuild of the upper section of the chimney with new or recycled bricks is not
recommended because this will add significant weight to the unreinforced lower section.
Therefore, while the upper section will be soundly constructed, there is the potential for
this weight to cause collapse of the lower section in future events. This may also lead
to a massive section of chimney falling through the roof rather than individual bricks that
may be supported by the roof cladding.
Note: Second-hand brick use must be supported by a bond strength test on the
mortared bricks. This is a relatively simple test that is carried out by BRANZ and other
agencies.
A3.8 Acknowledgement
The assistance of Fletcher EQR and the Home Heating Association of NZ in the preparation U P D A TE:
of this Appendix is greatly appreciated. December 2012
APPENDIX A3
A
UP D A TE: Figure A3.3: Chimney Option 1

December 2012
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A3
Figure A3.4: Chimney Option 2 U P D A TE:

December 2012
APPENDIX A3
A
UP D A TE: Figure A3.5: Chimney Option 3

December 2012
A P P E N D I X / PAG E A 3 . 1 2
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A4
Appendix A4: Assessment and

repair options for concrete floor slabs and
perimeter foundation walls damaged in the
A4.1 Background
U PD A TE:
This appendix contains information on the assessment and repair of concrete floor slabs December 2012
and foundation wall elements. Discussions subsequent to the publication of the Ministry’s Appendix A4 has been
December 2010 document have highlighted the need for greater guidance on floor slabs updated to provide
additional guidance related
and foundation walls.
to cracks in perimeter
foundation walls
A4.2 Overview
Concrete as a construction medium has been used extensively for many years and offers
an economical and durable foundation and flooring material. The product can be cast to
suit specific shapes and applications and is manufactured, supplied and placed under strict
guidelines. It does however have one drawback: as it cures and gains strength, it shrinks.
Shrinkage typically occurs in thin-section floor slabs such as those used in houses at a rate
of 1 mm per 1 metre length of slab, continuing for up to 2 years.
The shrinkage can be minimised by good mix design and control, correctly detailed and
placed reinforcing, adequate curing and correctly detailed and positioned shrinkage control
joints. These practices will not eliminate the cracking, but they do ensure the cracks are
minimised and confined to acceptable locations.
U P D A TE:
A4.2.1 Normal crack control – floor slabs December 2012
To counteract the effects of random cracking of new floor slabs, shrinkage control joints are
deliberately cut in the slab to a depth of one quarter of the slab thickness, generally within
24 hours of the slab being poured. These do not prevent the floor from cracking, but they
seek to ensure the cracks form in predetermined lines, delineated by the saw cuts. As an
alternative, a crack former can be cast in the bottom of the slab to cause the initiation of
cracks in predetermined positions. It effectively reduces the thickness of the slab at that
point, creating a weakness where the crack will form.
At internal corners of a concrete slab, the concrete can shrink away from the corner in two
orthogonal directions, thus creating a diagonal crack from the corner into the slab. Placing
a shrinkage control joint (SCJ) in each of the two directions at the corner will mitigate the
potential for the diagonal crack to form (see Figure A4.1).
Random cracks can still occur despite shrinkage control measures. This can result from
excessive delays before the cutting is carried out, the concrete mix being too wet at the
time of pouring, or incorrect curing, in which case the shrinkage is greater than expected
and is not totally accommodated by the shrinkage control cuts or formers.
APPENDIX A4
A
UP D A TE: Figure A4.1: Shrinkage control joints (SCJs) positioned to mitigate against diagonal
December 2012 cracks forming
A4.2.2 Slab reinforcement

UP D A TE:
December 2012 Floor slabs in houses designed in accordance with NZS 3604 before the 2011 citation
update (see below) may or may not be reinforced. The reinforcement may be mesh,
polypropylene fibre or rebar. The function of the reinforcement is to prevent the occurrence
of large single shrinkage cracks by forcing the cracks to be greater in number but much
finer, and therefore acceptable.
It was never intended by the NZS 3604 drafting committee that it would be required to
prevent tension failure of the slab when subjected to ground spreading beneath.
For the Canterbury earthquake region, the Ministry has issued an amendment to the
citation of NZS 3604 requiring all slabs to be reinforced with ductile reinforcing steel or
ductile mesh. Shrinkage control joints must still be cut in reinforced slabs at maximum
6 m centres, and bays may have a length-to-width ratio of up to 2:1. If the slab is not
reinforced, the length of bays between joints must be a maximum of 3 m and the ratio of
bay length to bay width must not exceed 1.3:1. See section A4.7 for slab reinforcement
recommendations for new houses built within the Canterbury earthquake region (ie,
Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri territorial authority areas).
UP D A TE: A4.2.3 Perimeter foundation wall reinforcement

December 2012
Perimeter foundation beams constructed since 1944 are expected to contain
reinforcement. This may be only one plain round bar but in more recent years the bars
will be deformed. Since 1978 there has always been a requirement for at least one D12
bar at the top of the wall and one D12 bar at the bottom. Walls greater than 450 mm high
should have bars at maximum 450 mm centres up to the height of the wall. The presence
of horizontal reinforcing steel should control the amount of cracking present in a foundation
wall unless it has been affected by severe lateral ground spreading, in which case the
bars may have yielded. Its presence should also minimise the vertical offset that occurs at
vertical cracks.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A4
A4.2.4 Slab/foundation connection

U P D A TE:
It is now a requirement, via the citation of NZS 3604 as an Acceptable Solution to the December 2012
Building Code , that all slab on grade floors are reinforced. This ensures that the slab is
tied to the edge foundation and that a tension tie is provided in both directions over the
footprint of the dwelling. Between 1990 and 2011, slabs for single-storey dwellings could
be constructed with no reinforcing steel present. Restraint of the slab was provided by an
upstand from the edge of the foundation around the perimeter of the slab.
Before the first publication of NZS 3604 (in 1978), it was possible for the slab to be fully
disconnected from the foundation and sitting on top of the foundation over its full width.
The 1987 Edgecumbe earthquake highlighted the shortcomings of this detail. Slabs were
observed to slide over the foundation walls, severing services and causing misalignment of
brick veneer claddings.
All foundation walls constructed since 1978 are expected to contain at least two D12
longitudinal steel bars, one at the top of the foundation and the other(s) at the bottom, with
tie bars at a maximum of 600 mm centres between the top and bottom bars.
A4.3 S
lab cracking: diagnosis of likely cause
and implications
A4.3.1 Investigation and diagnosis

Crack widths in slabs may be determined by laying a graduated steel rule over the crack
or by inserting a triangular probe which has width graduations marked up its length (see
Figure A4.2).
The presence of floor coverings can mask the existence of cracks in the floor. Some
floor coverings can accommodate separation of the slab at cracks. Ceramic floor tiles are
probably the most susceptible to cracking in the slab (see Figure A4.3). At the other end of
the spectrum, carpet will span over cracks up to 10 to 15 mm without any obvious distress,
provided it has an underlay, although over time the crack may become obvious as the
carpet wears. Vinyl floor coverings may stretch or crack depending on their age and the
amount of foot traffic over the crack.
Figure A4.2: Typical shrinkage cracking in concrete slabs
30-year-old slab 6-month-old slab
APPENDIX A4
A
Figure A4.3: Cracking of ceramic floor tiles over a shrinkage control joint in a floor not
affected by earthquake
Random cracks in the floor slab which reduce in width to close to indiscernible as they
approach the perimeter foundation (or any internal foundation) are shrinkage cracks and are
not caused by an earthquake.
As shrinkage cracks occur frequently in concrete floor slabs, it is considered that small
cracks (up to 1 mm, see Figure A4.2), whether caused by an earthquake or by shrinkage,
can be left unrepaired, unless the shrinkage has had a visible effect on the floor covering.
UP D A TE:
December 2012 Fine vertical cracks of uniform width in the exterior foundation of the house are likely to be
caused by shrinkage, and may align with shrinkage control joints cut in the floor slab (Type
C dwellings). Cracks in the foundation that widen with height are a good indicator that there
has been some differential settlement of the foundation, which may be the result of the
earthquake or they may be caused by long-term differential settlement of the foundations
on weak soils.
UP D A TE:
When the crack in a floor slab is greater than 10 mm and up to 30 mm, there is a potential
December 2012
for there to be a vertical differential displacement across the crack. Any differential
displacement will need to be remedied if the covering is vinyl flooring. For carpet coverings,
a differential displacement of up to 2 mm is likely to be accommodated. Options for
remediation include grinding the concrete on the high side of the joint or filling the low side
with floor levelling compound (FLC) or breaking back the slab on either side of the crack
and refilling with concrete. All three cases aim to achieve a maximum slope of the floor of
1 in 200 (0.5%).
NZS 3604 limits the dimensions of floor slabs to a maximum of 24 m between free joints
or between free joints and slab edges to further control shrinkage in large slabs. Free joints
provide no restraint against spreading action in floor slabs, and a clean separation of the
slabs on either side of the joint may be expected. If free joints that have separated are
seen, repairs should follow the methods outlined in this guidance document.
UP D A TE:
The assessment and repair decisions in relation to individual cracks must take into account
December 2012
the overall movement of the structure and slab. For example, if the overall ‘stretch’ of the
floor is greater than 20 mm, reconstruction of all or part of the slab is likely to be necessary
in order to maintain the plumb of the walls of the superstructure.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A4
A4.3.2 The damp proof membrane (DPM)

Damp proof membranes are installed beneath slabs during construction of a building to
prevent moisture vapour rising from the soil beneath into the concrete by capillary action
and then into the interior of the building.
U P D A TE:
Polyethylene sheet is the most common DPM used beneath Type C house floors and this December 2012
product has the ability to stretch significant distances. When slab cracks are greater than
100 mm wide, there may be an associated rupture of the DPM which will need to be made
good before the section of concrete is recast. If the crack is too small to see the bottom,
there is very little likelihood that the DPM has been ruptured.
NZS 3604 has minimum particle size requirements for the grading of the compacted fill
beneath the floor slab to prevent moisture from rising through the fill. In Canterbury, many
of the houses with slab-on-grade foundations have a fill layer of rounded stones (tailings)
over which the DPM has been placed. There is very little likelihood that moisture will
permeate upwards through this sort of fill material. If liquefaction has occurred beneath
the foundation, it is possible that fine sand particles have migrated into the gaps between
the tailings material. This creates the potential for moisture vapour to more easily reach the
underside of the DPM. DPMs that were damaged and not repaired during initial installation
may allow moisture vapour to pass through the damaged areas into the concrete floor slab
more easily with the sand in the tailings.
There are concrete surface coatings available that act as a vapour barrier and eliminate both
dampness and water penetration if there is concern about the integrity of the DPM. These
products would be suitable for use where there is a repaired section of slab or crack over
an inaccessible DPM.
A4.4 Crack treatment methods
A4.4.1 Repair criteria

U P D A TE:
Table A4.1 below should be used as a general guide to the nature and scale of repairs December 2012
required to repair cracks in floor slabs and perimeter foundation walls in the absence of
vertical misalignments or other earthquake-induced effects.
The repair materials considered most appropriate are epoxy resin for cracks up to 10 mm
wide and cementitious grouts and mortars for cracks wider than 10 mm. These widths
are offered as a guide only; variations can be made to these parameters in the hands of
experienced operators.
APPENDIX A4
A
UP D A TE: Table A4.1: Floor slab and perimeter foundation wall crack widths and repair approaches
December 2012 (in the absence of vertical misalignments)
No action Repair by Repair by Break out

necessary epoxy injection grout injection and recast
Crack widths Less than 1 mm Between 1 mm Between 10 mm Greater than

and 10 mm and 20 mm 20 mm
Considerations Vertical misalignments across cracks are sufficiently minor

to have negligible effect on the finished surface
UP D A TE:
These criteria are intended to provide guidance, rather than represent absolute criteria.
December 2012
The update of the crack However professional engineering input into the diagnosis and repair specification should
width criteria to 5 mm be sought where cracks greater than 5 mm are purely related to earthquake (and don’t
aligns with Table 2.2 involve shrinkage considerations) and in all cases where cracks greater than 20 mm wide
and relaxes the need for are encountered.
engineer involvement.
Repair decisions and specifications should also take into account other structural repairs
being undertaken, such as relevelling. No crack repairs should be undertaken before the
relevelling is completed except where the crack repair is required to contain the grout being
used to relevel the slab.
In preparing this guide, it has been assumed that the polythene DPM is intact in most
cases, as indicated by research and observations in the field. Limited capillary action
is expected through the rounded stones that have been commonly used as hardfill in
Canterbury (see also section A4.3.2).
A4.4.2 Repair materials

Epoxy resin injection
The majority of professional injection processes offer either low pressure, two-part
metering and pumping kits, or batch premixed and pressure pumping kits.
Pre-packaged hand-held self-mixing epoxy resin cartridges are readily available for minor work.
Cementitious (cement) grout injection

Grout for crack repair comes in packages for mixing in high speed shear mixers and can be
placed using low-pressure, low-volume displacement pumps.
UP D A TE:
There are other grouts suitable for this purpose, but they are usually applied in wet
December 2012
conditions, as might be expected in a perimeter foundation wall. Guidance given below for
slab repairs assumes that the slabs are dry (ie. interior slabs).
Grout is used in this guide to describe both epoxy resin and cementitious grout. The reader
should refer to the relevant section header to verify which grout is being described.
Repair mortars and cast concrete

Large cracks (>20 mm and say up to 50 mm) with no vertical displacement differential can
be repaired with proprietary mortar. Cracks that have been broken out to correct vertical
displacement (level tolerances) and to reconnect rebar may be repaired with fresh concrete.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A4
A4.4.3 Repair processes – floor slabs U P D A TE:

December 2012
Note: it cannot be assured that a crack will not reopen after the completion of any of
the processes described below.
By virtue of their location, floor slab crack repairs only offer access to the top surface.
Cleaning of the crack, successfully injecting the correct grout and filling the crack completely
all require good operator skills.
The repair process usually involves the following steps:
1. Establishing the cause and extent of the crack – length, width and depth
2. Clearing away any detritus from inside the crack and then cleaning the crack
surfaces of dust, dirt, sand or water
3. Preparing the surface of the crack for injection
4. Injecting a suitable material
5. Making good the affected area.
Crack cleaning
A clean crack can be re-bonded, thus resealing the slab. If the crack is not cleaned correctly,
the injected resin or grout will only act as a gap filler and leave potential moisture paths
either side of the grout.
If the crack is recent, clean and dry with no contaminants, proceed directly to surface
preparation.
For cracks that are contaminated with sands and silts (liquefaction product), cleaning will
require the use of high pressure water and air and a wet vacuum.
U P D A TE:
Should contamination be involved or suspected, and the crack is fine (say less than 2 mm) December 2012
and cannot be cleaned with any certainty, it is suggested that the crack be chased out to 6
to 10 mm wide and 25 to 30 mm deep with a crack-chasing grinder. Any deeper chase may
cut through the slab steel, if it is present.
Surface preparation
Once the crack is cleaned and dried, the adjacent slab surface should be lightly sanded and
vacuum cleaned to remove any remaining surface laitance. Care is needed to ensure any
material removed from the surface is not allowed to enter the cleaned crack. Careful use of
sanders or grinders fitted up to a vacuum will give the required outcome.
If there is a minor vertical offset (<2 mm) across the crack, this may be remedied by
grinding the high side of the crack before cleaning and filling is carried out. The distance
over which the grinding would be required beyond the crack will be determined by the floor
covering to be subsequently laid. An alternative would be to use floor-levelling compound to
smooth the surface.
APPENDIX A4
A
Crack injection
The crack width largely determines the product and process to be used. The following
guidance is provided for cracks with no vertical displacement:
1. Widths from 1 mm up to about 3 mm should be filled with a medium viscosity

epoxy resin injected through self-sealing surface ports placed (glued) at about 100
mm centres along the crack. The open crack between the ports should be sealed
with a temporary surface sealant.
2. This injection process sometimes requires more than one application as the resin
can flow from the bottom of the crack in areas where the crack width is slightly
wider and spread on to the DPM. Usually a second, partial application will complete
the process and fill the crack.
3. Widths between 3 mm and say 10 mm should be filled using a low viscosity (no-sag
paste type) epoxy resin injected through a tube inserted near the base of the crack.
This allows the resin to fill and fan out before moving the tube along the crack but
keeping the nozzle embedded in the grout.
4. For crack widths between 3 mm and 5 mm, if a flattened injection nozzle is not
suitable, drilling 5 mm diameter holes 75 mm deep through the crack at 100 mm
centres before final cleaning of the crack will allow the grout to fill correctly.
5. Crack widths in excess of 10 mm and up to 50 mm are usually filled with proprietary
cement grout or flowable mortar. The cracks are cleaned in the usual manner
involving water/air blasting and vacuum cleaning and drying. The grout/mortar is
mixed in accordance with the manufacturer’s direction and the thoroughly mixed
grout pumped through a tube at nominal pressure filling the crack from the base.
Commence injecting at one end of the crack and proceed to the other without
removing the injection hose from the body of the grout. Clean off excess grout and
allow to cure.
Slab breaking out and local recasting

For cracks that are greater in width than 20 mm and/or involve vertical offsets of
greater than 2 mm at the crack, the slab may need to be broken back on either side.
The break-back distance will need to be sufficient to achieve a minimum floor slope of
1 in 200 in the repaired area. Saw cutting should be used to define the extent of breaking
out, and to achieve a clean finishing line. Care must be taken to ensure the DPM is not
disturbed. Should the DPM be disturbed during the breaking-back process, lay new DPM
material over the disturbed area and tape the edges to the existing DPM to restore the
vapour barrier.
Cracks of this width are likely to be associated with fracture of mesh reinforcement. If
broken reinforcing steel is encountered in the breaking-back process, new steel must be
lapped on to the steel on the two sides of the joint. Sufficient break back is required on
both sides of the crack to ensure compliant lapping of the reinforcement can be achieved
(ie, grids should overlap).
If no reinforcing steel is encountered, then a minimum width of break out of 200 mm and
replacement with new concrete is recommended, provided the slope on the new concrete
is not greater than 1 in 200.
A C ONTENTS
APPENDIX A4
A4.4.4 Repair processes – perimeter foundation walls U P D A TE:

December 2012
The guidance given in A4.4.3 is generally applicable to perimeter foundation walls,
particularly with regard to crack cleaning. Access will not always be available to the inside
face of the wall. Crack-filling materials should be chosen to suit the width of the crack and
their ability to fill the cavity without excessive slumping. Walls constructed since 1944
are expected to have at least one reinforcing bar present. The crack-filling product should
provide protection to the bar(s), particularly from moisture on the outside face of the wall.
A4.5 Underfloor heating

The two common methods of underfloor heating are electrical resistance elements
(wires) and hydronic systems (fluid flowing in pipes) buried in the concrete. A rupture of
either of these will cause a failure of the system. Because the elements of each type are
continuously bound to the concrete, even a small crack opening (greater than may be
expected from controlled shrinkage) may fracture the element.
Prior to any repair work being undertaken on the crack, a test of the underfloor heating
system should be carried out to ascertain whether it is still working and, in the case of the
hydronic system, not leaking. If the system has failed, careful breaking back of the slab on
either side of the crack will be required to allow effective repairs to be made to the system.
The repaired system should then be trialled before the crack repair is undertaken.
A4.6 Structural slab overlays

Slab overlay options are not recommended as an option for floor levelling for the following
reasons.
A particular concern with the addition of slab overlays is that there is a risk of reflective
cracking from the slab beneath. Advice from the concrete-placing industry is that the
minimum overlay slab thickness should be 100 mm to prevent curling of the concrete
during curing and to minimise the possibility of reflective cracking. If the lowest point in the
damaged slab is 200 mm below the highest point, the maximum thickness of the overlay
will be 300 mm. This will add considerable weight and expense.
Bonded reinforcing ties to the existing perimeter foundation wall and to the existing slab on
a grid of a maximum of 1 m centres are required for connection of the overlay slab to the
existing slab to ensure uniform distribution of the curing shrinkage. A tie coat of cement
slurry is required to bond the new concrete to the old concrete. The cost of preparing the
damaged slab and the volume of new concrete required indicates that it would generally be
simpler and more effective to remove the old slab foundation and cast a new one.
APPENDIX A4
A
A4.7 S
lab reinforcement for new houses in
Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri
territorial authority areas
Experience in these recent Canterbury earthquakes has shown up the brittleness of
traditionally used reinforcing mesh. In many instances, the mesh has fractured as the slab
has been dragged apart under lateral spreading of the ground beneath. The 66X meshes
normally used have low ductility characteristics, with a uniform elongation of only 1.5% as
observed in many mesh failures.
Since 2006, NZS 3604 has called for reinforcing mesh in floor slabs constructed in
accordance with that Standard to be either Grade 500N or Grade 500E. The required
properties for these grades are contained in AS/NZS 4671:2001. Of particular importance
are the uniform elongation requirements (5% for class N and 10% for class E) and the ratio
of the maximum tensile strength to the yield strength (minimum of 1.08 for class N and
1.15 for class E).
In August 2011, the Ministry referenced NZS 3604:2011 as an Acceptable Solution in the
B1 Structure Compliance Document with some changes to the requirements for reinforcing
in slabs of NZS 3604 buildings for the whole of New Zealand. The reinforcing mesh must
now be Grade 500E only.
It is recommended that new slabs be reinforced with either ductile deformed reinforcing
bars (eg, D10 bars at 300 mm centres each way or D12 bars at 450 mm centres each way)
(an alternative solution) or equivalent strength earthquake ductility class (500E) reinforcing
mesh. This reinforcement will provide adequate resistance to future ground spreading
actions beneath the suggested new foundations given in section 4.
At the time of publication, it is understood that Grade 500E reinforcing steel mesh
complying with AS/NZS 4671:2001 is now available. Alternatively, lower grade ductile
mesh may be used provided the uniform elongation characteristics are sufficient and the
weight of mesh specified is 500, divided by the minimum yield stress of the steel in the
mesh multiplied by 2.27 kg/m2 or 1.15 kg/m2 in each direction (the requirement for Grade
500 mesh in NZS 3604)1.
It is important that the mesh is supported at the correct height in the fresh concrete for
good bond and shrinkage control, and chairs should be provided to maintain a 30 mm top
cover. Reinforcing mesh fabric laps need to be a minimum of one grid wire spacing plus 50
mm, but not less than 150 mm.
(1) Refer to www.dbh.govt.nz/earthquake-concrete-slabs-guidance
GUIDANCE B CONTENTS
Part B: Technical information

Contents
8. I nsurance and regulatory requirements
8.1 Insurance requirements..................................................................................................8.1
8.2 Regulatory requirements...............................................................................................8.3
8.3 Seismicity considerations............................................................................................ 8.12
8.4 Flood risk and floor levels............................................................................................ 8.12
9. O
bserved land and building performance
9.1 Observations in areas subject to liquefaction................................................................ 9.1
9.2 O
bservations in areas subject to landslides and rockfalls in the Port Hills....................9.2
9.3 Observed building performance....................................................................................9.3
9.4 Linking land and building performance..........................................................................9.5
10. F
uture liquefaction performance
expectations for land and buildings
10.1 Future land performance............................................................................................ 10.1
10.2 Future building performance......................................................................................10.3
Appendix B1: Summary of the effects of

liquefaction
List of figures
Figure 8.1: A guide to property insured by EQC under the Earthquake
Commission Act 1993.....................................................................................8.2
Figure 9.1: Schematic section of liquefaction-induced land damage................................ 9.1
Figure 9.2: Simple settlement cases (i).............................................................................9.3
Figure 9.3: Differential settlement cases (ii)......................................................................9.4
Figure 9.4: Lateral stretching.............................................................................................9.4
List of tables
Table 8.1: Serviceability limit state performance expectations for rebuilt houses............8.8
Table 8.2: Summary of the risk-based consenting pathways for building work.............. 8.10
Table 9.1: Land damage mechanisms on the hillsides and observed effects...................9.2
Table 10.1: Observed land performance and proposed technical categories...................10.3
PA R T B . T E C H N I C A L I N F O R M AT I O N
Canterbury Technical Guidance - PART B.indd 1 22/01/2013 8:55:04 a.m.

8. I NSURANCE AND
CONTENTS
REGULATORY B GUIDANCE

GUIDANCE B 8. I NSURANCE
8. I NSURANCE/
REGULATORY
AND
REGULATORY
8. I nsurance and regulatory

requirements
8.1 Insurance requirements
This section focuses on insurance principles and requirements of the Earthquake
Commission Act 1993 (EQC Act) for damage to residential buildings arising from the
Canterbury earthquakes or aftershocks. This is a summary only and in the event of
difference, the EQC Act will prevail. Refer to www.eqc.govt.nz for full details of the scope
of EQC cover. Further information on claims to EQC arising from land damage or claims for
damage to personal property can also be found at: www.eqc.govt.nz
8.1.1 Earthquake Commission (EQC)

EQC was established by the Government in 1945 to provide earthquake and war damage
cover for purchasers of fire insurance. Later, cover for other natural disasters was included
and, later still, cover for war damage dropped. EQC is a government-owned Crown entity.
EQC covers New Zealand residential property owners for some damage caused by
earthquake, natural landslip, volcanic eruption, hydrothermal activity, tsunami; in the case of
residential land, a storm or flood; or fire caused by any of these events.
EQC automatically covers people who hold fire insurance that covers their dwelling and
personal property (most ‘home and contents’ policies include fire insurance cover).
The claimants’ insurance policies are a legal contract between the insured and the private
insurer. EQC cover insures the insured’s dwelling and any structures associated with the
dwelling up to a maximum of $100,000 plus GST. The private insurer will be liable for a
damage claim beyond this level in accordance with the individual terms and conditions of
the contract.
Dwellings are insured by EQC on a ‘replacement value’ basis. A ‘dwelling’ means any
self-contained premises that are somebody’s home or holiday home or that are capable of
being, and are intended by the owner to be, somebody’s home or holiday home. EQC also
insures separate buildings used by the occupiers of a dwelling, such as a garage or shed.
EQC does not cover any dwelling that is not insured against fire, and it does not cover
a dwelling if the relevant insurance policy has lapsed or has been cancelled at the time
of the natural disaster, or where EQC has cancelled the EQC cover. Nor does it cover
consequential losses that might occur after a natural disaster, such as theft or vandalism.
In most cases EQC will settle claims which exceed the maximum amount of EQC cover
by paying that amount to the owner(s) of the dwelling or other person with an insurable
interest in the dwelling (eg, a mortgagee bank). For any damage above that amount, an
owner must claim against his or her private insurer.
Cover is also provided by EQC for land damage: refer to Figure 8.1 for an indication of the
extent of land insured by EQC.
I N S U R A N C E / R E G U L ATO R Y / PAG E 8 . 1

8. I NSURANCE/
NSURANCE AND
Figure 8.1: A guide to property insured by EQC under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993
Land under the

buildings and within
Dwellings, contents 8 m of the buildings
and outbuildings is insured
are insured. (but not artificial
surfaces thereon).
Land area not insured.
Land within
60 m in a horizontal
line of the house
which forms the
main accessway is
insured
(but not artificial
surfaces thereon).
Bridges and culverts are

insured if they are within
8 m of buildings or within Retaining walls that are
60 m if they form part of the necessary for the support of
main accessway. protection of the residential
building or the unsured
Water services (including land, including the main
bores), drainage, sewage accessway, are insured if
and gas pipes, telephone and within 60 m of the building.
electricity lines. Maximum
length insured up to 60 m
from the building (if owned
by the owner of the dwelling
of the land).
Under the EQC Act, a homeowner must ‘take reasonable precautions’ for the safety of
their property. The owner must in particular take all reasonable steps to preserve the
insured property from further natural disaster damage.
For dwelling claims where the damage does not exceed the amount of EQC cover
available, EQC may, at its option (instead of paying the amount of the damage), replace
or reinstate the building to a condition substantially the same as, but not better or more
extensive than, the building’s condition when new. EQC’s obligation to reinstate or replace
to ‘replacement value’ includes costs reasonably incurred in the course of reinstating or
replacing the building, including fees for architects, surveyors and engineers, and fees
payable to local authorities. For dwelling claims where the damage does not exceed the
amount of EQC cover available, EQC has chosen to reinstate the damage or repair through
its project manager Fletcher/EQR. For these claims:
• repairs to any damaged portion of a dwelling must be undertaken to a level that

meets applicable laws, including current building regulations (refer to section 8.2)
• the EQC Act definition of ’replacement value’ provides that, where EQC opts to
replace or reinstate, repair work will return a dwelling to a condition ‘substantially
the same’ as its condition when new, but not better or more extensive. EQC is not
required to replace or reinstate exactly or completely, but only as the circumstances
permit and in a ’reasonably sufficient manner‘.

8. I NSURANCE/
REGULATORY
AND
REGULATORY
8.1.2 Private insurers

The following are the obligations of private insurers:
1. The reinstatement obligations of the private insurer will depend on the terms of the
contract between that insurer and the insured person.
2. These obligations can vary between insurers and even between different policy
wordings provided by the same insurer. For example, it is understood that one
insurer provides two different policies which respectively require
it to:
−− repair the building to the state it was in before the damage or pay the cost of
repairing, allowing for depreciation and wear and tear, or
−− repair or rebuild to an ‘as new’ condition.
The latter wording is more like the EQC insurance, but does not have the proviso that the
repair may be limited to a ’reasonably sufficient manner‘. On the other hand, the former
policy is more limited than the EQC cover and only provides for repair on an indemnity
rather than a replacement basis.
8.2 Regulatory requirements
8.2.1 Building Act 2004

This section sets out some of the matters under the Building Act 2004 that will need to be
considered when houses damaged by the sequence of Canterbury earthquakes are being
repaired or reconstructed.
The requirements will vary depending on the particular circumstances of the repairs or rebuild.
The sections below provide a general explanation of the key regulatory factors. However, the
particular circumstances of each repair or reconstruction need to be considered.
Building activities must comply with the requirements of the Building Act 2004 (the Act)
and the relevant regulations. The Building Code is a regulation made under the Building Act
2004 (Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 1992) and for Canterbury/greater Christchurch U P D A TE:
December 2012
the Building Act 2004 has been modified by Canterbury Earthquake (Building Act) Order
2011.
The Building Code is performance-based, outlining the performance that needs to be

achieved under each of the Building Code clauses. Acceptable Solutions and Verification
Methods published by the Ministry, if followed, will result in building work that is deemed
to comply with the Building Code. However, alternative solutions can be proposed and
consented if sufficient evidence to satisfy the ‘reasonable grounds’ test that Building Code
performance requirements will be met is provided to the building consent authority. Much
of the guidance in this document is not included in the current Acceptable Solutions. The
options are therefore alternative solutions. This document aims to provide ‘reasonable
grounds’ for building consent authorities to consent such designs.

8. I NSURANCE/
NSURANCE AND
All building work1 must comply with the Building Code regardless of whether a building
consent is required2 (Building Act section 17), or whether the building work is to construct a
new building or carry out alterations3 or repairs to an existing building.
When deciding whether to grant a building consent, the building consent authority needs
to be ‘satisfied on reasonable grounds that the provisions of the Building Code would
be met if the building work were properly completed in accordance with the plans and
specifications that accompanied the application.’ (Building Act section 49).
Work related to the rebuild in Christchurch will include:
• repair of building elements or systems (eg, relevelling of floor slab and repair of
any cracks in it, repair of bracing elements in superstructure and repair of cracks in
internal or external walls (see section 8.2.2)), or
• replacement of all or parts of building elements (eg, a new foundation or
replacement of part of the perimeter foundation wall), or
• the construction of completely new houses, whether on the same site or a new
building site (see section 8.2.3).
8.2.2 Regulatory requirements for repairing damaged houses

All work undertaken to repair damage is ‘building work’ and needs to comply with Building
Code requirements (section 17).
The obligations for most provisions of the Code apply to one of the following subjects:
• a building or household unit

• building elements
• building systems within a building
• building facilities.
Building work to alter or repair a building only has to comply with the relevant Building
Code obligations that apply to that building work. For example, structural repairs to a wall
only have to comply with the provisions of B1 that are applicable to that wall (a building
element), not with the Code obligations that apply to a whole building or to other building
elements/walls that are not being repaired.
(1) Under section 7 of the Act, building work means work ‘for, or in connection with, the construction, alteration,
demolition, or removal of a building …’ and includes sitework.
(2) The circumstances when a building consent is not required are set out in section 41 of the Act, including work
that is exempt from the requirement to obtain a building consent under Schedule 1 of the Act.
(3) Alter, in relation to a building, includes rebuilding, re-erecting, repairing, enlarging, and extending the building.

8. I NSURANCE/
REGULATORY
AND
REGULATORY
There are however provisions in the Act that require other parts of a building being repaired
to be upgraded as follows:
• Additional work may be required for a building that is being repaired to ensure that
for means of escape from fire and access and facilities for persons with disabilities,
the building complies as nearly as is reasonably practicable with the requirements
of the Building Code (section 112(1)(a)). Provisions for access and facilities for
persons with disabilities do not apply to private houses, while special fire safety
requirements for houses are essentially limited to the installation of domestic smoke
alarms. (If the house is not fully detached there may be other requirements.)
• There is an exception to section 112(1)(a) that allows a partial upgrade (ie, less than
‘as nearly as reasonably practicable’) where even though the alterations will not
comply with section 112(1)(a), the benefits of upgrading outweigh the detriment of
not complying with section 112(1)(a) (section 112(2)).
• If the use of the building is changed or a household unit is added as part of the
repairs, there are further upgrade requirements that a building must comply with
(section 115).
• There are specific upgrade requirements for buildings to which the public has access
to ensure reasonable and adequate provision by way of access, parking provisions
and sanitary facilities for persons with disabilities (section 118).
• There are prohibitions on certain types of repair, including that:
−− a repair cannot result in a building complying with the Building Code to a lesser
extent than before the repair (section 112(1)(b))
−− a repair may not accelerate or worsen a natural hazard on the land or any other
property (section 71). (Note that earthquakes are not included in the definition of
natural hazards (section 71(3)). Therefore, building on land with the potential to
liquefy in an earthquake would not require the building consent authority to notify
the Register-General of Land identifying a natural hazard (section 73)).
Section 112 of the Building Act

Section 112 of the Act contains specific requirements for alterations (referred to above)
relating to the compliance of the altered building (which is the whole building as altered,
not merely the alteration). It does not detract from the section 17 requirement that all
building work must comply with the Building Code, or the provisions of sections 67 to 70
on waivers or modifications to the Building Code.
Therefore, section 112(1)(b) prevents a building consent authority from issuing a building
consent for an alteration if one of the effects of the proposed building work will be to
reduce the extent of the compliance of the existing building with the Building Code. Before
a building consent authority can issue a building consent for alterations, it must be ’satisfied
that, after the alteration, the building will continue to comply with the other provisions of
the Building Code to at least the same extent as before the alteration’.

8. I NSURANCE/
NSURANCE AND
8.2.3 Regulatory requirements for rebuilding the entire house

Rebuilt houses are considered to be new houses, and they must comply fully with the
Building Code, subject to any waiver or modification granted by the territorial authority
(Building Act section 67). Some of the specific Building Code requirements that are
particularly relevant to rebuilding in Canterbury are highlighted below.
Building Code requirements to prevent structural collapse (B1.3.1)

To satisfy the objective B1.1(a) of the Building Code – to safeguard people from injury
caused by structural failure – Clause B1 Structure requires new building work to have a low
probability of rupture, becoming unstable or collapsing (Clause B1.3.1).
This requirement has been well quantified by structural engineers. AS/NZS 1170 is widely
used by engineers as a guide to meet the requirements of Building Code Clause B1 and is
referenced in Verification Method B1/VM1 which, if followed, is treated as complying with
Clause B1.
Buildings that are designed using AS/NZS 1170 are required to satisfy the ultimate limit
state primary design case.
Ultimate limit state (ULS)

The ULS design case is an extreme action, or extreme combination of actions, that the
building needs to withstand. ULS seismic loads for residential properties are based on a
one in 500 year earthquake (a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years, the nominal life of
the building). A building is expected to suffer moderate to significant structural damage, but
not to collapse, when it is subjected to a ULS load.
The following points should also be made with regard to ULS loads:
• It may be uneconomic and/or not feasible to repair a building or structure that has
been subjected to an ULS load.
• A building is likely to collapse if it is subjected to a load which is significantly greater
than the ULS load for which it has been designed, although this likelihood is reduced
if the building is robust.
• All buildings are at risk of being subjected to a level of seismic shaking that is greater
than their design ULS seismic load. It should be noted, however, that this probability
of exceedance is considered to be acceptably low.
Building Code requirements to prevent loss of amenity (B1.3.2)

To satisfy the objective B1.1(b) of the Building Code – to safeguard people from loss of
amenity caused by structural behaviour – Clause B1 Structure requires new building work
to have a low probability of causing loss of amenity through undue deformation, vibratory
response, degradation or other physical characteristics throughout its life (Clause B1.3.2).
Amenity is defined as ‘an attribute of a building which contributes to the health, physical
independence and well-being of the building’s user but which is not associated with
disease or a specific illness’.

8. I NSURANCE/
REGULATORY
AND
REGULATORY
Current Acceptable Solutions, Verification Methods and Standards do not provide an

explanation of what is meant by ‘loss of amenity’. Loss of amenity might include loss of
services such as sewer and water connections, damage to sanitary fixtures (bathroom,
kitchen, laundry), parts of the house being no longer available for use, significant cracking and
deformation of flooring, or the building envelope not being weathertight.
For this document, loss of amenity is taken as the exceedance of the following tolerable
impact:
All parts of the structure shall remain functional so that the building can continue to
perform its intended purpose. Minor damage to structure. Some damage to building
contents, fabric and lining. Readily repairable. Building accessible and safe to occupy.
No loss of life. No injuries. Criteria on repairability are provided in Table 8.1.
Buildings designed using AS/NZS 1170 are required to satisfy the serviceability limit state
primary design case, which reflects the requirement to prevent loss of amenity.
Serviceability limit state (SLS)

The SLS design case is a load, or combination of loads, that a building or structure is
likely to be subjected to more frequently during its design life. If properly designed and
constructed, a building should suffer little or no structural damage when it is subjected to
an SLS load. All parts of the building should remain accessible and safe to occupy.
U P D A TE:
Services should be readily repairable at the perimeter and remain intact within the
December 2012
building. There may be minor damage to building fabric that is readily repairable, possibly
including minor cracking, deflection and settlement that do not affect the structural, fire or
weathertightness performance of the building. SLS seismic loads for residential properties
are based on a one in 25 year earthquake (refer to AS/NZS 1170.0).
Readily repairable
Given the uncertainty of rebuilding on land where liquefaction has occurred in Canterbury, it
is useful to base designs on minimising damage that might occur.
Table 8.1 provides criteria for the nature of future damage that corresponds to ‘repairability’.
This covers both timber-framed/light-clad dwellings and concrete-slab dwellings of any
cladding type. It is intended that these criteria could only practically be applied to situations
where lateral stretch of less than 50 mm across an individual building footprint is expected
under serviceability limit state seismic actions in the future.

8. I NSURANCE/
NSURANCE AND
Table 8.1: Serviceability limit state performance expectations for rebuilt houses
Key terms Element Interpretation Comment
Continue to Building Occupiable as a dwelling Refer to Services below

function (habitable)
Minor damage Foundation Timber: Able to be relevelled Require replacement of

to structure structure and using standard procedures sections of subfloor cladding
floor Stable in the interim for relevelling access
Concrete: No rupture but No opportunity for ground

minor curvature possible moisture ingress
Able to be relevelled simply
Stable in the interim
Walls – exterior Minor cracking at cladding Remains essentially

panel joints and in plaster weathertight
coatings (eg, EIFS)
Walls – interior Minor cracking at lining joints Lateral structural integrity

maintained
Roof Roof claddings sound, intact Capable of remaining

and securely attached weathertight
Some damage Some cracking of lining

to building fabric junctions above doorways
and lining and windows
Readily repairable Repairable without relocation Total cost of repairs at a level

of occupants for more than that is able to be covered
four weeks by EQC (ie, within EQC
insurance cap)
Building Doors – interior Minor jamming (ie, may need Requires ability to occupy in
accessible and to ease) this state for several months
safe to occupy
Doors – exterior Capable of being secured
and windows (ie, may need catch
adjustment and easing)
Other Aspects Services No damage to water, gas, and Special design of utility
electrical service connections connections into house to
Readily repairable damage to allow some movement
sewer and stormwater pipes Any loss of service relates to
network issues
Use of chemical toilets
Residual wet silt Timber: May need to Prevention of ground

beneath floor temporarily install polythene moisture from entering the
membrane over silt living space
Weathertightness Not compromised if extent of

water ingress is small and the
effects are controllable

8. I NSURANCE/
REGULATORY
AND
REGULATORY
Building Code requirements to prevent flood damage (Clause E1.3.2)

Refer to section 8.4 Flood risk and floor levels.
Building Code requirements for external moisture (Clause E2)

To safeguard people from illness or injury that could result from external moisture entering
the building, the walls, floors, and structural elements in contact with or in close proximity
to the ground must not absorb or transmit moisture that could cause undue dampness,
damage to building elements, or both (Clause E2.3.3).
A means of satisfying this provision is provided in Acceptable Solution E2/AS1. Section

10 of E2/AS1 provides details for the protection and separation of elements. Details for
minimum floor levels above ground are provided in Table 18 and Figure 65 of E2/AS1.
Rebuilding in ground-damaged areas of Canterbury

Liquefaction and lateral spread issues have not been specifically addressed in Standards,
Verification Methods or Acceptable Solutions supporting the Building Code.
Houses that comply with Acceptable Solution B1/AS1 are treated as complying with Building
Code Clause B1. B1/AS1 references NZS 3604 which has a definition of ‘good ground’ (refer
to NZS 3604, section 3.1.3) aimed at ensuring there is adequate static bearing capacity for
the standard foundation designs proposed. The definition of ‘good ground’ does not consider
land with liquefaction ground damage potential. B1/AS1 was amended on 1 August 2011
to modify the referencing of NZS 3604 to exclude from the definition of ‘good ground’ any
land in Canterbury that has the potential to liquefy. The Ministry has also issued guidance for
the rest of New Zealand, recommending geotechnical investigations be undertaken when
ground with the potential for liquefaction is identified (refer to www.dbh.govt.nz/liquefaction-
construction-on-ground-guidance).
Superstructure
All new building elements must be built to current Building Code requirements (treated
timber framing, drainage cavities for cladding where appropriate, insulation and double
glazing, etc).
Where a house is being entirely rebuilt, the superstructure, if built in accordance with NZS U P D A TE:
December 2012
3604, will comply with Clause B1 as modified by B1/AS1.
8.2.4 Building consent processes

The Building Act 2004 establishes a building consenting framework to ensure the right
checks and balances are applied to building work, and that buildings are designed and
constructed to meet the performance requirements of the Building Code and are, therefore,
safe and meet expected quality requirements.
In many cases building work will require a building consent from a building consent
authority before it can commence, to allow an independent third party to check that the
proposed building work will comply with the Building Code. Once the building consent has
been issued, councils then undertake inspections of the building work at key points. When
the building work is finished, councils can issue a code of compliance certificate if the
building work satisfies the building consent.

8. I NSURANCE/
NSURANCE AND
Not all building work needs a building consent. Section 41 of the Building Act 2004 contains
some specific exclusions – in particular, the types of building work described in Schedule 1
of the Building Act.
Following the earthquake, the Ministry encouraged the Canterbury councils to adopt a
risk-based consenting approach.
A summary of the approach being adopted by Christchurch City Council is set out in Table
8.2.
Table 8.2: Summary of the risk-based consenting pathways for building work
• Building work automatically exempted from the usual consenting requirements

because it meets one of exemptions (a)–(j) and (l) and (n) in Schedule 1 of the
Building Act. This essentially covers repair and replacement with comparable
material, components or systems, including some structural repairs.
• Building work that a council has previously decided does not require consent
Non-consented applications. Council uses its discretion under item (k) in Schedule 1. Could be
building work applied to any building work and would require council to publish scope and
parameters.
• Building work where a council decides on a case-by-case basis to exempt from

requirements to obtain a consent. Council uses its discretion under item (k)
in Schedule 1. Could be applied to any building work, but targeted at licensed
building practitioner (LBP) designers and builders, with no inspections.
• Streamlined process for major earthquake repairs. A case-by-case decision is

made by the council to reduce the usual plan checks and inspections (due to
criteria such as the competence of the practitioners, location of building, type,
nature and complexity of repair work, etc).
• Streamlined process for new houses. For new houses within the scope of
Streamlined
the Simple House Acceptable Solution (or similar criteria), there will be fewer
consented
plan checks and inspections (level yet to be determined). These will be agreed
approach
between the applicant and council.
• Repairs and construction of commercial buildings with third-party quality

assurance. This pathway is targeted at specialist design firms and construction
companies. The applicant and council agree about a risk profile and quality
assurance plan, which is then implemented.
Standard • The standard building consenting, inspection and approval pathway is used for
consented higher risk building work or where the other approaches are not appropriate.
building work

8. I NSURANCE/
REGULATORY
AND
REGULATORY
Importantly, regardless of whether a building consent is required, all building work must
comply with the Building Code (refer to section 17 of the Building Act 2004).
Owners may prefer to have a record on the council property file of the work undertaken, even
if the work is of lower risk and there is no need for council consent and inspection to ensure the
work meets Building Code requirements. It is recommended that homeowners keep a record
(and photos) of all repair work done, regardless of whether a building consent is required.
Since this guidance was first published, the Building Amendment Act (2012) has been U P D A TE:
December 2012
passed and puts in place provision for a national stepped risk-based consent process,
changing the current standard building consent process. These provisions are not yet in
force and regulations are being developed to enable the new risk-based consenting to
come into effect. Under risk-based consenting there will be four types of building consent
– low-risk building consent, simple residential building consent, standard building consent,
and commercial building consent. When risk-based consenting is brought into effect this
section of the guidance will be updated.
8.2.5 Canterbury Geotechnical Database U P D A TE:

December 2012
The Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission has provided a number of
recommendations regarding the storage and access to land and building information
http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/Final-Report---Summary-and-
Recommendations.
The Canterbury Geotechnical Database http://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.

com is designed to satisfy these recommendations. It has been developed by CERA to
be the repository for data on both the land and foundations collected during the rebuild
of greater Christchurch. It provides a facility for storage and easy access to geotechnical
investigation data, land mapping information, LiDAR and groundwater records, as well as
the geotechnical assessments and fundamental data on the land and building foundations
derived as part of the building consent process.
Use of the information drawn from the database for a project or site is on the basis that
any data procured or developed for the project (including geotechnical investigations,
geotechnical assessment and foundation data) is uploaded to the database. (Use of the
database without uploading project data is in breach of the terms of use of the database).
The Ministry strongly endorses the use of this facility.
8.2.6 Format of supporting information for building consents U P D A TE:

December 2012
As part of the building consent application process, some territorial authorities require the
submission of summary ground information data (both factual and interpretive) and also
summary building information, in standardised ‘template’ formats. The purpose of this
requirement is to help make the processing of consent applications more efficient. Given
the very large number of building consents that will need to be processed during the
recovery period, the Ministry strongly endorses this approach.
A template summarising key geotechnical and structural information has been developed
and is available on the CERA website www.cera.govt.nz.

8. I NSURANCE/
NSURANCE AND
8.3 Seismicity considerations

The 2010/11 Canterbury earthquakes have increased the seismic risk for Christchurch over
the next few decades. Based on new knowledge about this risk, and after consultation
with seismologists and structural engineers, the Ministry increased the seismic hazard
factor, Z, in Christchurch from 0.22 to 0.3 from 19 May 2011.4
The minimum hazard factor Z (defined in Table 3.3 of NZS 1170.5) within the Christchurch
City, Waimakariri District and Selwyn District Council boundaries shall be 0.3. Where
factors within this region are greater than 0.3 as provided by NZS 1170 Part 5, then the
higher value shall apply. The hazard factor for Christchurch City, Selwyn District and
Waimakariri District shall apply to all structure periods less than 1.5 seconds (which
encompasses detached residential construction). All structures with periods in excess of
1.5 seconds should be subject to specific investigation, pending further research.
The revised Z factor is intended only for use in the design and assessment of buildings
and structures, pending further research. Seismic hazard factors for liquefaction analysis
have been published (refer Part C, Appendix C2 – design PGAs for a Class D site and IL2
structures are 0.13 (SLS) and 0.35g (ULS)). Seismic hazard factors for other geotechnical
analyses are being researched with the intention of publishing them in due course.
In addition, to reflect the short-term increase in seismic activities in the region, the risk
factor for serviceability limit state, Rs, was raised from 0.25 to 0.33 (refer to NZS 1170.5
clause 3.1.5 and B1/VM1).
Recognition that liquefaction is now likely in a serviceability limit state event in some
locations has led to the technical categorisation of land (TC1, TC2 and TC3). There are also
changes to the foundation requirements for TC1. Ductile reinforcing must be used, and
unreinforced slabs are no longer included in the Acceptable Solution.5
The additional bracing demand required for residential houses has been addressed
by referencing NZS 3604:2011 in Acceptable Solution B1/AS1. The bracing demand is
determined by the Zones described in NZS 3604. All the area within the Christchurch
City Council boundary will be within Zone 2; and the lowest zone within the Selwyn or
Waimakariri District Council boundaries will also be in Zone 2. This is consistent with the
increased Z value of 0.3 in NZS 1170.5.
8.4 Flood risk and floor levels

UP D A TE: This section outlines the Building Act requirements for land subject to inundation. It also
December 2012
summarises the issues and requirements for each of the territorial authorities, when setting
new finished floor levels for houses to be reconstructed or repaired in low-lying areas.
The current situation must be checked on a case-by-case basis with the relevant
council6.
(4) Refer to www.dbh.govt.nz/bc-update-article-114

(5) Refer to www.dbh.govt.nz/earthquake-concrete-slabs-guidance
(6) Although voluntary, it may be an advantage to apply for and obtain a project information memorandum (PIM)
from the relevant council before finalising building consent applications. This may assist to establish finished
floor levels, finished ground levels and whether or not there will be any requirement for resource consent.
I N S U R A N C E / R E G U L ATO R Y / PAG E 8 . 1 2

8. I NSURANCE/
REGULATORY
AND
REGULATORY
8.4.1 Floor levels U P D A TE:

December 2012
For many properties in Christchurch requiring repair, the building work may be the repair or
replacement of foundations.
Building Code Clause E1 requires buildings and site work to be constructed in a way that
protects people and other property from the adverse effects of surface water. Clause
E1.3.2 requires that floor levels are set above the 50-year flood level.
Whether the repaired building will need to comply with the 50-year flood level requirement
or whether section 112 applies (in that the building continues to comply with Clause E1
to the same extent as before the repair being undertaken) will depend on the specific
circumstances. Note that the District Plan rules (imposed under the Resource Management
Act 1991) may also require the floor level to be raised and are requirements additional to
the Building Act.
It is likely that some existing houses that require repair will have floor levels below the
50-year flood level. This may be because the house was constructed before the
requirements were enacted, or because there has been general land settlement from
the earthquake, or the flood levels have changed from the earthquake, or because the
effects of climate change have been incorporated into the flood model. The reason that
an existing house has a floor level below the 50-year flood level does not affect the
legislative requirements. Some applicants may argue they have existing use rights under
the Resource Management Act 1991 with respect to their floor level. However as noted
already, the Building Act requirements are separate to the Resource Management Act
requirements and applicants will need to demonstrate compliance with the Building Act
regardless of their status under the Resource Management Act.
In general, if the building work relating to foundations is confined to relevelling and repair
work as defined in Part A (refer to section 4 and Tables 2.2. and 2.3) and Part C then the
Clause E1.3.2 requirement will not apply because buildings and site works are not being
constructed. In these cases, the existing foundations are being repaired and there is not an
opportunity to raise the floor level. Section 112 will be met, in that compliance with Clause
E1.3.2 will be no worse than before the repair.
If, however, the foundations need to be rebuilt (refer to Part A Section 5 and criteria from
Tables 2.2 and 2.3) then Building Code Clause E1.3.2 will apply, setting the floor level to be
no less than the 50-year flood level, plus the 400 mm freeboard if you are in Christchurch
City’s area.
Attached garages
For attached garages, there may be circumstances where new house foundations are
required and the only way for the house floor level to comply with Clause E1.3.2 is for a
suspended floor to be built on shallow piles. An attached garage with concrete floor could
generally be built at a level that is below the 50-year flood level, i.e. below the level of the
suspended floor, as Clause E1.3.2 does not apply to outbuildings (refer to Building Code
Clause A1 for definitions of Classified Uses). Appropriate consideration must be given to
how the two structures (house and garage) interact. The garage construction will need to
be of water resistant materials to the minimum 50 year flood level (eg treated H3 framing).

8. I NSURANCE/
NSURANCE AND
UP D A TE: 8.4.2 Christchurch City Council
December 2012
Within Flood Management Areas
To assist Christchurch City Council (CCC) to manage the potential effects of flooding and
inundation in Christchurch, especially as a result of climate change and sea level rise,
Variation 48 to the Proposed Christchurch City Plan became operative on 31 January 2011.
Variation 48 introduced a package of measures. The measures most relevant to finished
floor levels are those for Flood Management Areas (FMAs).
The areas most affected are located around the Lower Styx, Avon and Heathcote Rivers,
in the Lansdowne Valley and also in some low-lying coastal areas including Redcliffs and
Sumner.
The map of Flood Management Areas are published on the Council’s website www.ccc.
govt.nz/floodmanagementareas
Floor levels in residential homes in Christchurch

Updated floor levels have been released for properties in the Avon, Heathcote and Styx
river catchments, as well as Sumner. These levels are based on the latest ground surface
information and have a margin for data uncertainty and environmental effects.
It is important to remember that Christchurch is a flat, low-lying city and there have always
been areas prone to flooding. The Council has always set minimum floor levels in these
areas and updated these as required.
The Canterbury earthquakes have caused significant land damage throughout the city, with
areas close to riverbanks and other waterways having been particularly hard-hit. Ground
levels across large areas of the city have settled by as much as 200 mm to 300 mm, and by
more in some smaller areas.
Floor levels in these areas have been updated to protect homes from the risk of future
flooding. Actual floor levels for each property will be set as part of the building consent
process and homeowners can expect these to be the same or similar to those indicated
online:
How do I find out the land information my property which has been released on
10 October 2012? This information is available online – www.ccc.govt.nz/floorlevels
Some of the areas (most notably the Avon and the Lower Styx) were badly affected by the
earthquakes.
Variation 48 introduced flood risk and floor-level assessments by requiring resource consents
(under the Resource Management Act) for new developments in these defined FMAs.
If a house is to be rebuilt on the same or similar footprint as before, existing use rights
under the RMA to rebuild at the original floor level may apply, and there may be no
requirement for resource consent for rebuilding. However, compliance with the New
Zealand Building Code will still be required (see ‘Outside Flood Management Area’).

8. I NSURANCE/
REGULATORY
AND
REGULATORY
All new buildings not on the same or similar footprint, or additions to buildings within the
specified FMAs (with limited exceptions – eg, in living zones, additions to existing buildings
of a maximum 25 m² in any five-year period) will require resource consent as restricted
discretionary activities. These consents will enable site-specific assessments in respect of
flood-related issues.
Two of the main criteria for assessing buildings will be whether floor levels are above the
200-year flood level plus 400 mm freeboard and, in tidally influenced areas, at no less than
11.8 m above the Christchurch City Datum.
Building flood levels and hazards are assessed on a case-by-case basis. In most, but
not all cases, it will be obvious which of these two is the higher level, and therefore the
dominant criterion. These are not rules but effectively ‘default positions’. There are also
other assessment criteria which will be considered – for example, the effectiveness and
environmental impact of any proposed (flood) mitigation measures, the effect on other
properties of disturbances to surface drainage, etc. It is important to note that these
resource consents will not require public notification or neighbour approvals.
Filling within a FMA will also require resource consent, except where the filling is only to
achieve a building platform at the identified minimum floor level. Applications for resource
consents for filling will require an assessment of whether there are other adversely
affected parties.
The new rules will not apply to any development proposal where a land use consent or a
building consent has already been issued before 31 January 2011.
Outside of Flood Management Areas or where existing use rights apply within
the Flood Management Areas
Outside of FMAs, flood management rules under the City Plan will not apply. Under the
Building Act (bearing in mind that every building consent application will be considered
on its merits), finished floor levels of new dwellings or dwellings that are reinstated on
completely new foundations (eg, completely repiled) or extended dwellings will need to
be no less than the level established by a 2% AEP 7 plus 400 mm freeboard which in some
cases may be higher than the original floor levels. If there is an alteration or addition to, or a
partial repair of the dwelling, then the existing floor level will still apply. See also minimum
standards set out below to avoid hazard notices.
(7) AEP means annual exceedence probability. A 2% AEP event is often referred to as a ‘1 in 50’ year event, a 1%
AEP event is often referred to as a ‘1 in 100’ year event and a 10% AEP event is often referred to as a ‘1 in 10’
year event.

8. I NSURANCE/
NSURANCE AND
Guidelines for avoiding hazard notices under the Building Act 2004
A section 72 (hazard) notice under the Building Act 2004 may be issued by the CCC where
building work is being carried out on land subject to a natural hazard. When considering
whether a natural hazard exists, the Council has developed the following tests:
a. The threshold under section 71 of the Building Act for considering whether land or
a building is likely to flood will be reached if Council records or analysis indicate that
there is at least a 1% AEP.
b. If the inundation risk does not exceed 1% AEP, the land is not likely to be subject to
the hazard for the purposes of section 71. However (iii), (iv) and (v) below also apply.
c. The minimum finished floor level (FFL) in a non-Flood Management Area is set at
the 2% AEP (Clause E1.3.2 of the Building Code) plus an allowance for freeboard,
which is typically 400 mm.
d. The minimum building platform level will be set at 2% AEP extending 1.8 metres
beyond the foundations of the house.
e. A building is not to be located within the waterway set back required in the City Plan.
f. If there is a risk that water may not be contained entirely within the legal road reserve
beyond the 10% AEP event, flood depth must not exceed 0.4 m over the section
surrounding the building platform, and flow velocity must not exceed 1.0 m/s.
g. In a Flood Management Area, the finished floor level will be determined by the
resource consent process (see ‘Within Flood Management Areas’), unless existing
use rights apply.
Elements required for establishing existing use rights under the RMA
Existing use rights apply only in relation to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).
They do not allow rebuilding without a building consent and do not change the building
consent process.
There are four elements that need to be met for a rebuild to claim existing use rights. The
onus is on the property owner or applicant for consent to prove that these elements are met.
a. The residential use must have originally been lawfully established.

b. Effects of the use must be the same or similar in character, intensity and scale.
c. There must be no increase in the degree of non-compliance with the City Plan rules
(other than the permitted extra 25 m2 footprint.)
d. There must be no discontinuance of use for a period exceeding 12 months, unless a
discontinuance of use is as a result of earthquake damage and is beyond the control
of the building owner. The residential use does not cease because the occupation
of the building ceases temporarily as a result of earthquake damage. However,
if delays in recommencing residential use are caused by the landowner, then the
activity will be deemed to have discontinued.

8. I NSURANCE/
REGULATORY
AND
REGULATORY
8.4.3 Waimakariri District Council U P D A TE:

December 2012
Unless specifically identified within a Localised Flooding Area, or required by a rule in their
District Plan, Waimakariri District Council rely on compliance with the Building Code to
establish finished floor levels. In particular, the minimum FFL will be set at 2% AEP (Clause
E1.3.2), plus an allowance for freeboard. New floor levels to be no lower than pre-quake
floor levels.
8.4.4 Selwyn District Council

The limited number of houses to be reconstructed in Selwyn District are generally rural
residential and, where affected by possible flooding, are capable of individual site-based
solutions that will not affect neighbouring property.

8. I NSURANCE/
NSURANCE AND

B 9. I NSURANCE
8. O B S ERV ED AND
PER FOR M A NC E
REGULATORY
9. O
bserved land and
building performance
This section outlines the current understanding of the performance of land and dwellings
in the Canterbury earthquake sequence, particularly in relation to the effects of ground
liquefaction. A summary of the effects of liquefaction is presented in Appendix B1.
9.1 Observations in areas subject to

liquefaction
D ELETI O N :
Immediately following both the 4 September 2010 earthquake and 22 February 2011 December 2012
aftershock, a regional reconnaissance damage mapping exercise was undertaken by
geotechnical engineers on behalf of EQC. From this mapping study, areas of minor to very
severe land damage were identified.
Local land damage maps of the most affected suburbs of greater Christchurch have been
completed for residential properties. The typical spatial distribution of the categories of land
damage is illustrated in a generic cross-section shown in Figure 9.1.
Figure 9.1: Schematic section of liquefaction-induced land damage
Land damage from the earthquakes generally comprised lateral spreading close to
watercourses/streams/rivers (major to very severe) and liquefaction-induced differential
settlements (minor to very severe). The major to severe lateral spreading was greatest
closest to streams and drainage channels, but in some cases extended up to 400 m laterally
from watercourses with up to 4 m lateral ground movement. Minor spreading extended well
beyond this in some parts of Christchurch. Settlements of up to 200 mm from liquefaction
occurred over large areas, with significant differential settlements occurring over short
distances. In the worst-affected areas, more than 500 mm settlement occurred.
O B S E R V E D P E R F O R M A N C E / PAG E 9 . 1

9
8.. IO B S E RV E D AND
NSURANCE
P E R F O R MA N CE
REGULATORY B
9.2 O bservations in areas subject to

landslides and rockfalls in the Port Hills
A wide range of damage has been sustained by hillside properties. For the majority of
properties, however, this has been limited to structural damage from earthquake shaking
(although this damage has been severe in many cases, partially due to topographical
enhancement effects – ie, increased ground accelerations on ridgelines, slope and cliff crests).
For some properties, further damage has been sustained due to movement issues with the
land on which the dwelling is situated or from conditions some distance from the property.
A listing of typical issues is given in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1: Land damage mechanisms on the hillsides and observed effects
Mechanism Result
Rockfall A small number of houses have been destroyed or inundated at the base of
(cliff collapse above cliffs, and other houses have sustained major to minor damage from rock
building) impact. Some houses are identified as being at risk from future damage.
Rockfall A small number of houses have been totally destroyed, and other houses
(boulder roll) have sustained major to minor damage from boulder impact. Many houses
are identified as being at risk from future damage.
Landslide Several potential global landslip features have been identified and are
(soil slope, wide area currently being monitored and investigated to determine whether they pose
failure) an ongoing threat to a number of houses deemed to be either on or below
the failure area.
Landslide Large numbers of soil cracks have been observed throughout the Port Hills
(ground cracking) – many of these are several hundred metres in length. The significance and
implications of these features are yet to be determined.
Landslide Some localised soil slope failures have taken place that affect single
(soil slope, localised dwellings by undermining foundations or depositing debris against building
failure) exteriors.
Landslide A small number of houses have been undermined (or are threatened by
(cliff collapse below undermining) from loss of ground due to cliff collapse. (This involves both
building) soil and rock materials.)
Retaining wall failure A number of retaining wall failures have been observed – from rotation,
translation and structural failures. This has sometimes resulted in land
instability that has also induced localised landslip failures.
Settlement Foundation settlement has been observed in a number of houses, likely

(foundation failure) due to high vertical accelerations greatly increasing bearing stresses and
therefore settlements. In some cases, localised bearing capacity failures
may have occurred due to the presence of weak fill, or saturation of soils
from a number of potential sources.
Settlement Tunnel gullies or ‘under-runners’ are common on the Port Hills – these are
(subsurface void subsurface erosion features ranging in aperture from a few millimetres
collapse) to 2 m or more. A number of these have collapsed during earthquake
shaking, leading to ‘sinkholes’ and sometimes the undermining of overlying
foundations.

B 9. I NSURANCE
8. O B S ERV ED AND
PER FOR M A NC E
REGULATORY
Mechanism Result
Spring formation Increases in pore water pressures in the underlying rock strata have resulted
in the formation of surface springs in some places, in particular on the lower
soil slopes. This has resulted in land and basement floodings, foundation
settlement (due to saturation of the foundation soils) and slope failures or
creep movements (due to saturation).
Some of the land issues listed above also have public safety implications that are beyond
the scope of the Building Act.
9.3 Observed building performance

Building damage can be divided into two broad categories: damage that was caused solely
by earthquake shaking; and damage that resulted from ground deformation including
liquefaction, lateral spreading or landslip.
While shaking damage to dwellings has been observed on the flat, the February and June
2011 aftershocks in particular caused significant shaking damage to hillside houses. The
observed high vertical accelerations were responsible for severe damage sustained by tile
roofs and brick veneers, and unreinforced foundations were often severely cracked.
Liquefaction effects on buildings

Liquefaction-induced ground movement has caused stretching, hogging, dishing, racking/
twisting, tilt, differential settlement, differential displacement or any combination of the
above to buildings. The severity of the damage is dependent on the damage type, the type of
building, the building geometry and the amount of foundation movement that has occurred.
To assist with the understanding of the descriptions provided in this Guide, the following
pictorial definitions for floor displacement are provided:
(i) Simple settlement cases

Figure 9.2: Simple settlement cases (i)
Uniform settlement Tilt settlement
For uniform settlement, the complete foundation With tilt settlement, the whole foundation tilts as
has settled by the same amount over the area of a rigid body.
the foundation.

9
NSURANCE
P E R F O R MA N CE
REGULATORY B
(ii) Differential settlement cases

Parts of the foundation settle by different amounts resulting in uneven slopes in the floor.
Differential settlement is the most difficult behaviour for which to set acceptable limits.
Figure 9.3: Differential settlement cases (ii)
Hogging Sagging or Dishing
Racking/Twisting Differential settlement – abrupt change
Back Front
Twisting of the foundation can occur where all

corners of the foundation have settled by
different amounts.
(iii) Lateral stretching 

Lateral stretching of a foundation may occur when the ground beneath it spreads laterally
during the ground shaking. This action is often accompanied by liquefaction and associated
ground settlement. If the floor plate of the dwelling is not strong enough, then the lateral
spreading will cause an extension of the floor plate (ie, the concrete floor slab will crack or
the timber floor will fracture generally at joints between framing members).
Combinations of any of the above settlement cases and also combinations of settlement
and stretching are possible.
Figure 9.4: Lateral stretching
Lateral Stretching

B 9. I NSURANCE
8. O B S ERV ED AND
PER FOR M A NC E
REGULATORY
9.4 Linking land and building performance

The Building Code requirements are described in section 8. The Earthquake Loadings
Standard, NZS 1170.5:2004, is cited as a Verification Method (B1/VM1) for the satisfaction
of Building Code performance requirements.
The NZS 1170.5 performance requirements are however specific to the building structure
only, and no reference is made to the land performance on which the building is founded.
At SLS levels of shaking, no significant building damage is expected. The geotechnical
issue is what is expected of the ground under such levels of shaking.
D ELETI O N :
December 2012
Liquefaction areas
In the areas where liquefaction occurred, the residential houses have been considered
to have broadly met the ULS performance requirements (ie, there were no observed
collapsed houses or loss of life in areas of liquefaction). A number of house foundations did
rupture during the Canterbury earthquake sequence.
In the very severe land damage zone, the houses were in varying states. In many parts of
this zone, the habitability of dwellings was compromised by excessive land movement.
Where buildings require demolition because they cannot be repaired within the building
value, but have remained safely habitable, these buildings can be considered as having met
the ULS performance requirements of the Building Code.
Hillside areas
The hillside areas are currently subject to ongoing work by Christchurch City Council,
CERA, EQC and GNS Science to investigate causes and implications of various forms of
damage. In particular, areas of rockfall, cliff collapse and boulder roll are being evaluated to
determine appropriate remediation or retreat options. Some larger-scale apparent landslide
mechanisms and wide-area ground cracking are also being investigated for similar reasons.
Outside these areas it is envisioned that repairs and reconstruction will be able to proceed
subject to site-specific investigation and design, as outlined in section 6.

9
NSURANCE
P E R F O R MA N CE
REGULATORY B

B 10. L IQUEFAC TION
8. I NSURANCE AND
EX PEC TATIONS
REGULATORY
10. F
uture liquefaction
performance expectations
for land and buildings
10.1 Future land performance
Based on observations of the distribution of land damage in the Canterbury earthquake
sequence, it is apparent that the performance of the ground across Canterbury in potential
future seismic events will vary considerably from location to location. The potential for
liquefaction (based on the soil type, soil strength and depth to groundwater) is variable
across the region, ranging from negligible liquefaction potential in some areas to high
liquefaction potential in other areas.
For any given site, the actual degree of liquefaction in future events will also be variable,
depending on the location of the earthquake in relation to the site, the depth of rupture, the
magnitude of the event and the duration of shaking. Furthermore, the surface manifestation
of damage (degree of land settlement, sand boils, surface rupture, lateral spread, etc)
will vary depending on subsurface stratigraphy and geometrical landform differences (eg,
relative levels, proximity to free edges such as rivers, ground slope etc).
It is considered that land that liquefied in any of the 4 September 2010, 22 February 2011,
13 June 2011, or 23 December 2011 events has a relatively high likelihood of liquefaction in
future strong shaking events. However, the degree and consequences of liquefaction will
be highly variable. Furthermore, future events could be of longer duration, higher energy,
and in different locations. Therefore other areas that were not affected by the recent
earthquakes may be affected in future strong shaking events.
It is possible to improve the performance of land by various means to reduce the severity
and impact of liquefaction. It is also feasible to increase the resilience of foundation
systems to reduce the impacts of liquefaction on building structures where the land
liquefaction performance is within certain limits.
Land that has been shown to be most susceptible to severe damage in the recent events
has been zoned ‘Red’ by the Government and CERA. Within the Red Zone it is difficult
to improve the future performance without large-scale civil engineering works requiring
the demolition of whole suburbs to efficiently complete. In the ‘Red Zone’, it is seen as
impractical, uneconomic and too disruptive to undertake such extensive works. However,
most land in the remaining areas on the flat (the ‘Green Zone’) is expected to be repaired
on an individual basis should land remediation be required; otherwise foundation systems
can be constructed to cope in an appropriate manner with the expected future liquefaction
performance of the land.
L I Q U E FAC T I O N E X P E C TAT I O N S / PAG E 10 . 1

10
8. I. NSURANCE
L I Q U E FAC TAND
I ON
E X P E C TAT I O NS
REGULATORY B
Foundation Technical Category Maps for areas on the flat

Foundation Technical Category Maps for each of Christchurch City, Waimakariri District and
Selwyn District have been prepared in conjunction with this document. These maps are
shown in Figures 3.1a, b and c.
The foundation technical category areas have been identified as being at low, medium and
high probability of future liquefaction, primarily based on the performance of land from the
4 September 2010 earthquake and 22 February 2011 aftershock, together with observed
land performance from a number of the large aftershocks experienced up to and including
23 December 2011. In addition to this, borehole data, together with limited historic
groundwater data, were considered in the preparation of the maps.
Because the 22 February 2011 aftershock was located immediately to the southeast of
central Christchurch, it was considered a good test case for the central, southern and
eastern areas of Christchurch.
The Selwyn District and portions of northern Christchurch up to Waimakariri District

experienced ground accelerations significantly less than the surrounding areas, and
therefore the land performance from the earthquakes in these areas gives less of a guide
to future seismic land performance. For this reason, the foundation technical categories for
these areas are only partly based on observed performance from the earthquakes, and take
DEL ETI O N :
more account of known soil types and groundwater depths.
December 2012
The correlation between the three foundation technical categories and observed land
performance is summarised in Table 10.1.
These foundation technical categories allow resources to be channelled to those areas

where uncertainty exists or significant liquefaction could occur in the future, while
providing an efficient method of foundation design for those areas at low risk of future
liquefaction-induced land damage. The expected future performance of the land in each
of the technical categories is outlined in Table 3.1 in Part A.
Technical categories for hillside areas

Currently no foundation technical categories (or their equivalent) are proposed for the
hillside areas. Specific investigation and design will likely be required for any hillside repair
or reconstruction project. Broad guidance for hillside areas is provided in section 6.

8. I NSURANCE AND
EX PEC TATIONS
REGULATORY
Table 10.1: Observed land performance and proposed technical categories U P D A TE:
December 2012
Foundation
technical Observed land performance
category
TC1 TC1 covers those areas of greater Christchurch where on an area-wide basis, no
significant land deformation occurred as a result of liquefaction from either the
4 September 2010 earthquake or the 22 February 2011 aftershock and there is
generally greater than 3 m depth to groundwater.
TC2 TC2 covers those areas of greater Christchurch where on an area-wide basis
no or negligible land deformation occurred as a result of liquefaction from the 4
September 2010 earthquake and only relatively small amounts of land deformations
occurred as a result of the 22 February 2011 aftershock. It also includes some
areas in Selwyn District and northern Christchurch that did not suffer land damage
but are considered at some risk of potential ground damage from liquefaction until
proved otherwise.
TC3 TC3 covers those areas of greater Christchurch where on an area-wide basis,
land deformation occurred as a result of liquefaction from the 4 September 2010
earthquake and moderate to severe land deformations occurred as a result of or
the 22 February 2011 aftershock, together with the areas identified at high future
probability of ground damage until proved otherwise.
Un-categorised Uncategorised areas include: parks, commercial areas and properties greater that
4,000 m2, together with those areas that were not mapped for damage from the 4
September 2010 or the 22 February 2011 earthquakes.
10.2 Future building performance

The future performance expectations of property owners, insurance companies and territorial
authorities is likely to include building some resilience into reconstructed dwellings, so that
the overall performance of dwellings will be better than the performance observed from the
Canterbury earthquake sequence. The seismic risk for the region has increased in the short
to medium term, and the construction of more resilient structures will help to significantly
limit losses and disruption from future earthquakes. At the same time, it is impractical to
expect no damage in a future event. The philosophy of the Building Code is to limit damage
in small to medium-sized earthquakes, particularly to critical elements, while preventing
collapse of structures in large earthquakes.
D ELETI O N :
December 2012

10
8. I. NSURANCE
L I Q U E FAC TAND
I ON
REGULATORY B
There are a range of performance expectations that repaired and reconstructed dwellings
should meet, including the following:
1. Existing structural elements should not comply to any lesser extent than before the
UP D A TE:
December 2012 alteration, repair or reconstruction, notwithstanding any Gazetted change in seismic
hazard for the site.
2. New structural elements must to meet the performance requirements of the
Building Code.
3. New dwelling foundations must be constructed to accommodate the land
performance expectations in Table 3.1.
4. Foundation solutions for new dwellings should include provision for some resilience
to be incorporated into the structure.
In areas where future land damage is considered unlikely (TC1), the practical approach
for new construction is to ensure the foundation is tied together (eg, reinforced slab). In
many cases where land damage is expected to be moderate (TC2), it is more practical
to manage building performance by improving building and foundation resilience to
ground movements, rather than trying to prevent the land from being damaged in a future
moderate to large earthquake. This is easier to achieve by reconstructing dwellings than by
adding resilience to repaired dwellings.
For new and remediated buildings, foundation systems and the buildings themselves need
to be designed to accommodate total settlements, differential settlements and lateral
strains of the ground that may occur in a future event. The foundations and buildings need
to be sufficiently stiff and strong to ensure expected ground movements do not result in
severe building distortion.
Repaired foundations
Those dwellings with foundations that can be repaired (see section 4) will need to be
assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine the degree of additional resilience that
can be practically included in the repair at reasonable cost. Accordingly, a different
approach is recommended for rebuilt foundations (see section 5). This may require ground
strengthening to improve liquefaction performance or reduce liquefaction susceptibility.
UP D A TE:
December 2012
Housing stock with foundation damage that is repaired without any foundation improvement
is likely to have a similar level of foundation performance to that observed in the recent
Canterbury earthquake sequence, when subjected to future similar levels of shaking.
New foundations and new dwellings

For new foundations beneath existing superstructures and new dwellings, the foundations
should be designed to be able to resist possible lateral spreading of the ground beneath the
foundation and to limit future distortion of the foundation to the criteria provided in Table 3.1.
Where houses are rebuilt, the option exists to build light-weight dwellings and construct
a more robust foundation to provide a greater level of performance in a future liquefaction
event, particularly with respect to amenity. A stiff foundation system where all the
elements are tied together will better tolerate differential ground settlement than the
DEL ETI O N :
unreinforced slabs and unconnected strip footings present in many of the damaged
December 2012

8. I NSURANCE AND
EX PEC TATIONS
REGULATORY
dwellings. This will limit the amount of differential movement experienced by the
superstructure, and significantly reduce damage following any future liquefaction event.
In TC1, the future ground deformation expectations are such that the NZS 3604 shallow
piled foundations and slab-on-grade foundations (with B1/AS1 modifications), will provide
appropriate future foundation performance. NZS 3604 implies in its definition of ‘good
ground’ that settlements of up to 25 mm are acceptable.
In TC2, future land deformations expected beneath the dwelling may result in total and
differential settlements as indicated in Table 5.3. Stiffened slab options, as described in
section 5, are proposed for TC2 to provide an appropriate future foundation performance.
In TC3 (subject to confirmation by specific investigation), the potential future land

deformations are likely to be greater than could be expected to be accommodated by
any of the solutions proposed for TC1 and TC2.
Possible solutions for TC3 are provided in Part C .
Expectations for services in liquefaction areas

The potential for lateral spreading and liquefaction on a property will place excessive stress
on services between the street and the dwelling unless they are designed to accommodate
the expected movements. Guidance on measures to alleviate the stress on services is
provided in section 5.6.
It is also recommended that extra grade be provided for piped services that rely on
gravity for operation (eg, sewer and stormwater), together with more flexibility at service
connections.
Subdivisions
A set of guidelines for the investigation and assessment of subdivisions can be found
in Section D of this guidance or at: www.dbh.govt.nz/subdivisions-assessment-
guide. It is required that all subdivisions are investigated following these guidelines,
and the expected land performance is aligned to one of the three foundation technical
categories. At subdivision consent stage, appropriate general foundation solutions
should be proposed for buildings on the land. In some cases it will be advantageous
for the land to be improved on a subdivision-wide basis, so a different foundation
technical category (and therefore set of foundation solutions) is appropriate.
Any proposed future residential subdivisions will need to be specifically investigated

regardless of any Technical Category classification (with the exception of very small
subdivisions on land that is already classified as TC1 or TC2 by the Ministry, see Part
D, sections 6 and 7). D ELETI O N :
December 2012

10
8. I. NSURANCE
L I Q U E FAC TAND
I ON
REGULATORY B

B 8. I NSURANCE AND
A PPEND IX B 1
REGULATORY
Appendix B1: Summary of the effects

of liquefaction
The following explanation is provided for liquefaction, lateral spreading and
bearing-capacity failure associated with the Canterbury earthquake sequence.
Loose granular soil deposits tend to compact (‘contract’) when subject to shearing from
strong earthquake shaking. If the soils are unsaturated, the ground surface will generally
just settle as the soil densifies. Where these soils are saturated, however, the readjustment
of the soil particles within the soils as it tries to contract leads to a build-up of pressure
within the inter-granular (‘pore’) water, which has to be ‘squeezed out’ of the inter-granular
spaces (‘voids’) to allow this contraction of the soil particles to occur.
In liquefiable soils, the soil permeability is not high enough to allow rapid dissipation of this
excess pore water pressure. During strong earthquake shaking, the rapid rate of increase in
the pore water pressure can cause the pore water pressure to exceed the soil overburden
pressure. (The overburden pressure is derived from the weight of the overlying soil mass
and gives rise to the soil’s frictional strength.) Once this occurs, the soil inter-granular
contact pressure (and therefore the soil’s frictional strength) is lost – the soil then behaves
as a dense fluid – ie, it ‘liquefies’.
Liquefaction requires three key elements to occur:
• the presence of loose, non-cohesive material that will tend to densify under
seismic shaking (loose fine sands and many loose silt-sand mixtures are particularly
susceptible to liquefaction)
• ground saturation (ie, the material susceptible to liquefaction lies below the
groundwater table)
• sufficient shaking to trigger liquefaction – it should be noted that the level of seismic
shaking to trigger liquefaction can vary significantly from site to site.
Once liquefaction has occurred, it can lead to a number of secondary effects, including:
• lateral spreading and the associated development of ‘graben’ features (ie, the
ground shifts sideways and tension cracks develop where the ground has torn apart)
• bearing-capacity failure of foundations
• rotational slope failure or ground movement and the development of lines of
differential settlement (ie, a semi-circular rotational failure of the ground occurs and
this creates a step in the ground surface at the head and toe of the failure surface)
• sand boils (ie, liquefied material is ejected from within the ground to the surface
through defects in the ground such as holes, structural penetrations, graben
features and tension cracks)
• settlement of the ground surface additional to that caused by the initial shaking
densification (usually from sand boils ejecting liquefied material)
• the floatation of buried services and ’buoyant’ structures such as pipelines,
manholes, swimming pools and tanks.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E B 1. 1

8. I NSURANCE AND
APPENDIX B1
REGULATORY B
Observations indicate that lateral spreading, rotational failures and settlement have
caused a large portion of the most severe building damage attributable to the Canterbury
earthquake sequence.
UP D A TE:
December 2012
Lateral spreading may occur if all or part of a sloping soil mass liquefies and results in the
horizontal movement of the ground surface. Liquefaction of deeper material may cause a
‘crust’ to slide towards a topographically lower area such as a river-bed or pond. Lateral
spreading can occur with or without permanent stretch (ie, strain) at the ground surface.
Where there is permanent ground surface strain, surface cracks and fissures (ie, graben
feature or tension crack/tear zone) will occur. The foundations of buildings located in these
areas can potentially suffer from damage due to the lateral extension forces generated, and
any design will have to consider these. Horizontal movement can also occur without ground
surface strain where the main slide occurs as a single mass. In these areas buildings with
shallow foundations can move without suffering significant damage. However, where deep
piles are embedded into a deeper bearing layer this may give rise to issues of pile verticality
and any design would need to address this. Significant lateral spreading is principally only
likely in TC3.
The excess pore water pressures are expected to gradually dissipate after the seismic
shaking has ceased. With time, the liquefied ground stabilises and usually rests in a slightly
denser state than before. Anecdotal evidence from liquefied areas within Christchurch
indicates the ejection of groundwater, silt and sand material to the ground surface generally
continued for between one and 30 minutes after the primary ground shaking ceased.
In general, the excess groundwater pressures due to seismic shaking are expected to
take between two and eight weeks to fully dissipate and essentially return to a level
which existed before the earthquake. It should be noted, however, that in some cases the
groundwater pressures may take somewhat longer to dissipate if the ground conditions are
particularly unfavourable. It should also be noted that ground settlements may result
in groundwater levels coming closer to the surface (ie, reduced crust thickness).
During the post-liquefaction period, the ground surface may settle and/or creep as the soils
reconsolidate to a denser state. Once the excess pore pressures have fully dissipated the
geotechnical conditions, including soil density, strength, stiffness and bearing capacity, are
mostly expected to return to a condition close to and perhaps marginally better than that
which existed before the beginning of the Canterbury earthquake sequence.
In general, all soils that experienced liquefaction during any of the events in the Canterbury
earthquake sequence are expected to be at risk of liquefaction during a future severe
seismic event.
There are a number of publications that provide further detailed discussion on liquefaction
and its effects. For further information and detail, see the recent NZ Geotechnical Society
DEL ETI O N :
guidelines (NZGS, 2010).
December 2012
The guidelines for
the investigation and
assessment of subdivisions
can be found at www.
dbh.govt.nz/subdivisions-
assessment-guide. .
A P P E N D I X / PAG E B 1. 2

C 2. F OUNDATION
C ONTENTS
AS S ES S M ENT
Part C: Assessing, repairing and

rebuilding foundations in TC3
Contents
11. Introduction to TC3
11.1 Overview................................................................................................................... 11.1
11.2 General principles...................................................................................................... 11.2
11.3 Scope........................................................................................................................ 11.4
11.4 Future guidance for TC3............................................................................................ 11.7
12. F
uture land performance in TC3
12.1 Background............................................................................................................... 12.1
12.2 Lateral spreading and other lateral ground movements in TC3................................ 12.1
12.3 Vertical settlement in TC3.........................................................................................12.6
13 G
eotechnical investigations in TC3
– general
13.1 General...................................................................................................................... 13.1
13.2 Single or isolated house site investigation................................................................13.5
13.3 Area-wide investigations...........................................................................................13.6
13.4 Geotechnical investigation requirements for repaired and rebuilt foundations.........13.6
13.5 Liquefaction assessment..........................................................................................13.7
13.6 Technical Category TC3 confirmation..................................................................... 13.10
13.7 Longevity of factual and interpretative reports....................................................... 13.10
13.8 Building consent information.................................................................................. 13.11
14 R
epairing house foundations in TC3
14.1 General...................................................................................................................... 14.1
14.2 Assessment of foundation damage.......................................................................... 14.1
15 New foundations in TC3

15.1 Foundation types and selection considerations........................................................ 15.1
15.2 Deep piles.................................................................................................................15.7
15.3 Site ground improvement........................................................................................ 15.19 UPDATE:
15.4 Surface structures with shallow foundations..........................................................15.47 June 2015
D AT E : A P R I L 2 01 5 . V E R S I O N : 3 a
PA R T C . T C 3 T E C H N I C A L G U I DA N C E
2. C
F O
ONU TEN
N DAT
TSION
AS S ES S M E N T C
Appendix C1: Basis for confirming compliance with the

Building Code for new and repaired house foundations in TC3
C1.1 Background and principal issues...............................................................................C1.1
C1.2 Guidance for demonstrating Building Code compliance
– foundation repairs and rebuilds..............................................................................C1.1
C1.3 General..................................................................................................................... C1.4
C1.4 Engineering sign-off................................................................................................. C1.4
Appendix C2: Guidance on PGA values for geotechnical

design in Canterbury
C2.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................... C2.1
C2.2 Background.............................................................................................................. C2.1
C2.3 Interim guidance on PGA values for geotechnical design....................................... C2.1
Appendix C3: Recommended procedure for calculating

capacity for single driven piles in cohesionless soils
C3.1 Procedure for using method based on SPT Data..................................................... C3.1
C3.2 Procedure for using method based on CPT data..................................................... C3.3
U P DAT E:
Appendix C4: Method statements for site ground
June 2015 improvement
C4.1 Construction quality and quality control .................................................................. C4.1
C4.2 Area replacement ratio (ARR).................................................................................. C4.6
C4.3 Shallow foundation treatments................................................................................ C4.7
C4.4 Deep foundation treatments...................................................................................C4.17
C4.5 Crust reinforced with inclusions............................................................................. C4.19
C4.6 Target CPT tip resistances for ground improvement............................................. C4.23
D AT E : A P R I L 2 015 . V E R S I O N : 3 a
C 2. F OUNDATION
C ONTENTS
AS S ES S M ENT
Figures
Figure 12.1: Simplified cross-section showing components of lateral
ground movement (values illustrative only)..............................................12.2
Figure 13.1: Overview of general geotechnical investigation required.........................13.4
Figure 14.1: Overview of process for repairing foundations on TC3 sites
for Foundation Types A and B...................................................................14.3
Figure 14.2: Overview of process for repairing foundations on TC3 sites
for Foundation Type C...............................................................................14.4
Figure 14.3: Perimeter foundation wall detail for TC3...................................................14.8
Figure 15.1: General process flowchart for new and rebuilt foundations in
TC3 (for sites with Minor to Moderate lateral ground movement)...........15.5
Figure 15.2: Deep pile suitability summary (concrete or timber floor) .........................15.8
Figure 15.3: Pile head detail – timber............................................................................15.9
Figure 15.4: Pile head detail – steel............................................................................. 15.10
Figure 15.5: Pile head detail – concrete....................................................................... 15.11
Figure 15.6: Illustrative pile layout for a flat concrete slab.......................................... 15.15
Figure 15.7: Section A-A – Illustrative pile layout for a flat concrete slab................... 15.16
Figure 15.8: Illustrative layout and sample details for a waffle slab on deep pile....... 15.16
Figure 15.9: Sample detail for a waffle slab on deep piles
Figure 15.10: Densified Raft – excavate and recompact (Type G1a) (left) and
Rapid Impact Compaction (Type G1c) (right)..........................................15.34
Figure 15.11a: Reinforced Crushed Gravel Raft (Type G1d)............................................15.35
Figure 15.11b: Reinforced Cement Stabilised Crust (Type G2a).....................................15.36
Figure 15.11c: In situ Cement Stabilisation (Type G2b) .................................................15.36
Figure 15.12a: Deep Soil Mixed Columns (Type G3)......................................................15.38
Figure 15.12b: Stone Columns (Type G4) ......................................................................15.39
Figure 15.13a: Composite Shear Wave Velocity Measurement.....................................15.40
Figure 15.13b: Shallow Stone Columns (Type G5a)........................................................15.41
Figure 15.13c: Driven Timber Piles (Type G5b)...............................................................15.43
Figure 15.14: Horizontal Soil Mixed Beams..................................................................15.45
Figure 15.15: Plan of Type 1 surface structure..............................................................15.51
Figure 15.16: Perimeter foundation details for Type 1 surface structure......................15.51
Figure 15.17: Plan of Type 2 surface structure..............................................................15.52
Figure 15.18: Section through Type 2A surface structure at the timber piles..............15.53
Figure 15.19: Detail of Type 2A surface structure at the timber piles
(including gravel raft)...............................................................................15.53
Figure 15.20: Section through Type 2B surface structure at the timber piles
(including gravel raft)...............................................................................15.53
Figure 15.21: Detail of plywood stiffening to Type 2 surface structure
(Type 2A illustrated)................................................................................15.54
Figure 15.22: Plan of Type 3A surface structure...........................................................15.55
Figure 15.23: Type 3A surface structure - Detail at supporting blocks.........................15.56
C O N T E N T S / PAG E I I I
2. C
F O
ONU TEN
N DAT
TSION
AS S ES S M E N T C
Figure 15.24: Plan of Type 3B surface structure...........................................................15.57

Figure 15.25: Type 3B surface structure – Section through pre-stressed
concrete support beam and beam connection.......................................15.57
Figure C4.1: Cross-hole shear wave velocity testing of Type G5 ground
improvement.......................................................................................... C4.21
Figure C4.2: Equivalent target soil densification criteria for all soils........................... C4.24
Figure C4.3: Target soil densification criteria for clean sand...................................... C4.25
Tables
Table 12.1: Global lateral movement categories for TC3 (at ULS)�� 12.3
Table 12.2: Areas of major global lateral ground movements identified
within TC3 to date�� 12.4
Table 12.3: Distance from free edge beyond which minor to moderate
global lateral movement can be assumed in TC3 (excluding
areas in Table 12.2), in the absence of any evidence to the contrary�� 12.4
Table 12.4: Categories of lateral stretch of the ground across a building
footprint for TC3 (at ULS)�� 12.5
Table 12.5: Categories of vertical land settlement (index values at SLS)�� 12.6
Table 13.1: Summary relationship between likely final investigation
densities and foundation types��13.2
Table 15.1: Overview of proposed TC3 foundation types�� 15.1
Table 15.2: Overview of floor and foundation types for new and rebuilt
foundations (a) Deep piles��15.2
Table 15.2: Overview of floor and foundation types for new and rebuilt
foundations (b) Site ground improvement and surface structures��15.3
Table 15.3: Typical pile sizes and indicative capacities�� 15.14
Table 15.4: Summary of ground improvement types covered by this
guidance document1 (grouped by construction methodology)��15.26
Table 15.5: Surface structure capability summary��15.49
Table 15.6: Shallow foundation solution alignment – Vertical settlement��15.61
Table 15.6: Shallow foundation solution alignment – Lateral stretch��15.62
Table C2.1: Interim recommendations for PGA values for geotechnical
design in Canterbury (for a M7.5 design event)�� C2.2
C O N T E N T S / PAG E I V
C 2. F
11. OUNDATION
INTROD UC TION
AS S ES S M ENT
11. Introduction to TC3

11.1 Overview
The guidance provided in Part C focuses on foundation repairs and reconstruction for
houses in Foundation Technical Category 3 (TC3) areas within the Green Zone of the
earthquake-affected parts of the Canterbury region. It does not apply to the Residential
Red Zone where significantly poorer ground conditions exist and more severe land damage
is expected in future earthquakes.
Land that has been classified as TC3 in the Green Zone has a higher probability of UPDATE:
December 2012
being at some risk of moderate to significant land damage from liquefaction in future
large earthquakes. Specific geotechnical investigations are required to check the likely
land performance. Where the TC3 classification is confirmed by investigation, specific
engineering design will often be required for the repair or rebuilding of foundations in this
technical category.
Part C must be read in conjunction with Parts A and B of the guidance. Material from UPDATE:
December 2012
Parts A and B is only repeated where considered necessary.
Intended audience
This guidance is intended for the engineering design, construction and insurance
sectors, local authorities, and their professional advisors and contractors to clarify the
technical and regulatory requirements for TC3 land. Given that most foundation repairs
and reconstruction in TC3 require specific engineering input, the principal users of this
document will be professional geotechnical and structural engineers.
Decisions regarding the scope of repairs and rebuilding residential dwellings in Technical
Category 3 are complex, and are much more reliant on engineering judgement than
the other technical categories. Specific input from Chartered Professional Engineers
(geotechnical and structural, as appropriate) is therefore required.
As the solutions included in the guidance have not yet been fully prototyped, it is expected
that the guidance will need refinement with experience. It is also likely that other solutions
and analytical tools will be developed during the repair and rebuilding process that can be
incorporated into future versions of this guidance. Future updates will be available online
from the Ministry’s website www.dbh.govt.nz/guidance-on-repairs-after-earthquake.
Repair and rebuilding strategies and decisions will be influenced by insurance contracts and
the decisions made by the parties to those contracts. The engineering considerations and
criteria outlined in this document are intended to provide input into those decisions.
I N T R O D U C T I O N / PAG E 11. 1
2 . 11.
F O U
I NNTRO
DATDIO
UNCTION
AS S ES S M E N T C
11.2 General principles

Part C of the guidance has been prepared based on a series of general principles. These
principles have guided the development of the document, and are set out below to assist
engineers in the interpretation and implementation of the proposed solutions for individual
TC3 sites, and for situations where other solutions are formulated.
Underlying principles
1. Guidance in the document is based on current knowledge, and represents best
practice advice prepared by the Ministry, drawing on the expertise of a range of highly
experienced New Zealand and international geotechnical and structural engineers.
The guidance will be updated as new technical information, experience from built
solutions, and field test results become available.
2. The potential for land damage from liquefaction on the plains in Canterbury represents
a complex continuum - from residential Red Zone areas being vacated where there
are saturated loose, unconsolidated silts and sands close to the surface (often in
combination with proximity to unrestrained free edges), through areas of more
moderate damage potential, to areas that are considered to be of relatively low damage
potential designated as TC1.
3. Houses assigned a TC3 categorisation remain in the Canterbury Green Zone, thereby
allowing individual repair and rebuild solutions to be developed and constructed.
However, houses in this category are on land with a higher potential risk of liquefying
than the remainder of the land in the Green Zone. The future performance of this land in
a seismic event is the most difficult to predict. Part C of the guidance does, to a certain
degree, differentiate those sites within TC3 where future expected land settlement and
lateral movement is likely to be less damaging than the remainder of TC3.
4. Residential sites in TC3 with foundation damage require professional engineering input
(investigation, assessment and design) to determine what is an appropriate repair
or rebuild solution for each particular site (if in fact repair or rebuilding is required).
UPDATE: It is noted that for some sites currently designated TC3, deep investigations will
December 2012 demonstrate that TC2 foundation solutions are appropriate.
5. The guidance provides design solutions and methods that aim to substantially improve
the performance of house foundations in future seismic events, while recognising that
the land performance may still induce deformations and loads that could cause some
damage.
6. It aims to improve the robustness of foundations to comply with life safety

requirements in ultimate limit state (ULS) seismic events (and also provide a level of
habitability and potential repairability in that design event) and to minimise damage and
repair costs in serviceability limit state (SLS) events. Some damage may result in either
design event. The future damage threshold under SLS is ‘readily repairable’; refer to the
criteria in Part B, section 8.2.
7. Solutions included in the TC3 guidance attempt to balance the initial costs of improved
robustness against the risk of future damage in a seismic event.
C 2. F
11. OUNDATION
INTROD UC TION
AS S ES S M ENT
8. Following the methods and solutions provided in the document provides ‘reasonable
grounds’ for designers and Building Consent Authorities that the resulting repairs or
rebuild will meet the requirements of the Building Code. Refer section 1.3.
However, given the potential variability of land performance in TC3, solutions provided
are not ‘Acceptable Solutions’ that, if followed, are automatically deemed to comply
with the Building Code (refer to section 1.3). Each house repair or rebuild requires close
consideration and investigation by Chartered Professional Engineers to ensure that
the different constraints and limits included in the guidance are observed, and that an
appropriate repair or rebuild option is chosen, for the ‘reasonable grounds’ provision to
be met.
9. Not all solutions are applicable in all areas, and designers need to be satisfied that
adequate geotechnical information has been gathered to enable decisions to be made
on appropriate designs.
10. Some new foundation solutions provided in the document can be applied without
undertaking further detailed engineering analysis. However, others are provided as
concepts that require further analysis and development of details, depending on the
particular circumstances. It is expected that further solutions will be developed using
specific design or testing as the Canterbury rebuild progresses.
Design principles
1. Light-weight materials, particularly for roof and wall cladding, are preferred
for all foundation types, particularly in any location where liquefaction is possible, as
these reduce the inertial loading on foundations and can reduce settlement in future
seismic events. Heavier weight construction materials are however not precluded,
and could still be used where supported by appropriate engineering advice and careful
design of ground improvement or deep pile systems.
2. Removal of heavy materials and replacement using light-weight materials will

sometimes allow existing foundations to be repaired rather than rebuilt.
3. Stiffened and tied together foundation solutions are required to improve resistance
to lateral stretch and ground deformation. A slip layer beneath shallow foundations or
foundation slabs will improve the performance against lateral spreading (stretch) at the
surface.
4. Regular structural plan shapes are preferable to more complex plan shapes. A regular UPDATE:
house plan is defined as meeting three basic criteria: December 2012
−− A base plan shape that is essentially rectangular. In the absence of specific design
the guidance is applicable to those footprints with an aspect ratio no greater than 2:1.
−− One major projection (ie, greater than 2 m out from the base shape) is permitted.
(This might result in an ‘L’, ‘T’ or ‘V’ shape base plan). The ratio of the projected
dimension divided by the length of the side in common with the base shape must be
no greater than 1 (in the absence of specific engineering design).
−− Any number of minor projections (ie, 2 m or less) are permitted off the base shape,
or off the major projection. Again, the ratio of the projected dimension divided by the
length of the side in common must be no greater than 1.
2 . 11.
F O U
I NNTRO
DATDIO
UNCTION
AS S ES S M E N T C
5. Minimising penetrations of the crust (the ground between the surface and the layer
that is likely to liquefy) will reduce the likelihood of liquefaction ejection coming to the
surface. This principle is followed particularly with the shallow surface solutions and
for service trenches where possible. Liquefaction ejection results in soil loss and is a
primary mechanism of ground deformation. It is, however, not currently possible to
quantify the degree to which this might occur on a site or the resulting damage that
may arise.
6. Providing a suspended timber ground floor facilitates simple repair of structures in

future events.
7. Mixed foundation systems within the same structure are not recommended in TC3
(eg, Type 1 timber floor house and attached concrete slab garage).
8. The location and accessibility of services needs to be taken into account. It is preferable
that new service connections and interfaces are appropriately flexible. Services
should enter the building at few well-defined and well-recorded locations, through
connections that are as flexible as possible. Should failure occur, this will be in well-
defined locations outside the foundation system and services are then easy and quick
to reconnect. Plumbing services in particular should be located near outside walls for
access for repairability. Services located below floors must be properly restrained to
move with the floor and minimise the risk of damage that is difficult to repair. Where
slip layers are provided, services must not impede the ability of the foundation system
to move laterally (this may require services to be fully enclosed within surface slabs, for
example).
11.3 Scope
Canterbury focus
The options and recommendations in this Part of the document are specific to residential
properties directly affected by the Canterbury earthquake sequence, in particular, those
properties that have been classified as being in the land Green Zone Technical
Category 3 (TC3, sometimes referred to as ‘Green-Blue’). Although the guidance
provides information on reducing the effects of future liquefaction on residential properties
in the TC3 land category, this should not necessarily be taken as a best practice guide for
addressing liquefaction in other parts of Canterbury or New Zealand.
National best practice guidance for the design of residential dwellings to take account of
potential liquefaction will be prepared in due course, and will draw on information in this
document.
Types of dwelling addressed

This document focuses principally on one- and two-storey timber or steel-framed
dwellings, which are the dominant form of construction in the affected area. Accordingly,
the document refers to the timber-framed buildings Standard, NZS 3604.
C 2. F
11. OUNDATION
INTROD UC TION
AS S ES S M ENT
Technical scope
Part C provides guidance on foundation repairs and reconstruction within the TC3 land
category. The document does not cover all situations, for example, sites where severe
lateral movement is anticipated.
Information in Part A on foundation assessment criteria and approaches, retaining walls

and superstructure assessment and repairs can be directly applied to TC3 properties.
Repairs for foundation damage

The extent and method of repairs requires careful consideration, including an understanding
of what is practically achievable. In many cases where minor or moderate damage or
settlement has occurred, it is considered that foundations and floors can be repaired and
relevelled.
Repair approaches for the foundations of dwellings affected by settlement are described
in section 14.
In some cases where the foundations have sustained significant damage and require
replacement, only relatively minor damage has occurred to the house superstructure above
(wall and roof framing, linings and cladding). In these cases, it may be appropriate to lift
up and move the house and construct new foundations and floors. These situations are
treated in the first instance as new foundations, covered in section 15.
New and rebuilt foundations

To mitigate the effects of liquefaction, as a guiding principle it is preferable to build using
light materials rather than heavy materials. Light construction (roof, walls and floors)
significantly reduces the imposed load on the subsoils, thereby reducing the settlement
potential – for example, a light-weight dwelling imposes as little as 30% of the weight
around the perimeter compared to that imposed by a heavy roof, masonry cladding and
concrete slab dwelling. Recent research has also demonstrated that decreasing horizontal UPDATE:
December 2012
inertial loads decreases the propensity for vertical settlements during liquefaction events
from soil-structure interaction “ratcheting”.
It has been observed that houses of light-weight construction have suffered significantly
less damage and are likely to be significantly less expensive to repair than houses
constructed from heavier materials, especially in TC3 areas. This guidance provides some
foundation solutions that enable other forms and weights of cladding material for some
areas of TC3.
This document provides information on the relevant engineering principles and parameters
to be adopted for a foundation and floor system that complies with the Building Code
and is therefore capable of gaining a building consent. This should assist the engineers
undertaking specific structural and geotechnical engineering design, and inform discussions
with insurers as to whether the proposed solution falls within the scope of the
insurance policy.
Approaches for the construction of new foundations for dwellings in TC3 are described
in section 15.
2 . 11.
F O U
I NNTRO
DATDIO
UNCTION
AS S ES S M E N T C
For new foundations, the following three broad types are described:
• deep piles
• site ground improvement
• surface structures
It should be noted that some solutions will not be practical in all areas of TC3. Deep piles,
for example, are not viable solutions in all parts of TC3 due to the potential for excessive
lateral deformations from global lateral movement in some areas.
For each foundation type, possible options are indicated. Guidance as to the suitability and
applicability of the new foundation options is outlined. Design parameters and specification
and construction guidance are provided as appropriate. Some options involve standard
solutions (eg, modified NZS 3604).
Although the level of guidance provided varies between the new foundation types, all
require specific engineering design input. Selection guidance and key design parameters
are provided to enable this design input to be undertaken.
Garage structures and outbuildings

Uninhabited detached garages (ie, that are not constructed as an integral part of a house)
and outbuildings are considered to be Importance Level 1 (IL1) structures. If these
structures are currently habitable or of significant value, Importance Level 2 (IL2) applies.
Refer to DBH Codewords No 35 – March 2009 ‘Guidance on garage classification’
www.dbh.govt.nz/codewords-35-1.
IL1 structures have no seismic load requirements (under AS/NZS 1170.0) at Serviceability
Limit State (SLS), and therefore have no amenity requirements relating to liquefaction
deformations at SLS levels of shaking. This leaves a ‘life safety’ design requirement at
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) for a 1/100 year event, which should be able to be provided in
most cases by a suitably detailed structure on a TC2 type foundation system. For these
types of structures in TC3, the provisions of the guidance for TC2 areas can therefore
be applied for rebuilds, repairs and relevelling. Alternatively, a specific design can be
determined by applying the 1/100 year design event loadings at ULS.
Conversely, attached or integral garages need to be designed to the same level of

performance as the main structure. For surface structure solutions (see section 15.4) this
will put some limits on the type of foundation system selected in order to avoid differential
movement.
C 2. F
11. OUNDATION
INTROD UC TION
AS S ES S M ENT
11.4 Future guidance for TC3

The formulation of the TC3 guidance has been undertaken within a limited timeframe to
allow solutions to be provided for TC3 sites that will allow repairs and rebuilding to get
underway.
The guidance document will be updated and revised as greater understanding is gained of UPDATE:
December 2012
the earthquake sequence and its impact on the land and on structural performance, and
improved or refined solutions are developed.
On-going work is anticipated to result in updating of the guidance including:
• Resolution by EQC of land repair strategies for relevant affected properties. The
Earthquake Commission will soon clarify details of EQC land insurance cover for
TC3 areas. This will include damage thresholds for various land damage types.
These thresholds may be different from the thresholds applicable for the TC3
building options set out in this Guidance Document. EQC insurance cover for land
damage is separate from insurance cover for building damage.
• Liquefaction settlement analysis. Limits provided in the document are considered as
‘indices’ (ie, not exact calculations, which in practice are not achievable). Research
work is underway to compare the actual performance of land to theoretical
calculated settlements. Different assessment methods may be recommended as a
result of this work.
• Further consideration of issues raised by practitioners and interested parties from
the limited consultation period during the development of the guidance.
• Refinement of the foundation solutions as experience of the options is gained.
• Establishment of a suitable standard engineering sign-off statement for a range of
repair and rebuild situations which require further dialogue between the BCAs and
consulting engineers.
• Peak ground acceleration (PGA) values to use for general geotechnical design and
for other soil classes, refer Appendix C2.
2 . 11.
F O U
I NNTRO
DATDIO
UNCTION
AS S ES S M E N T C
C 12.
2. FFUTUR
PE RES
AS S FOR
E
OUNDATION
SMMENT
A NC E
12. F
uture land performance
in TC3
12.1 Background
“To clarify repair and reconstruction options, residential properties in the CERA Green Zone
on the flat have been assigned (on an area-wide basis) one of three foundation technical
categories (TC1, TC2 and TC3) that reflect both the liquefaction experienced to date and
future performance expectations.” (refer to Part A, section 3.1).
The basis for and description of the foundation technical categories is given in Part A,
section 3.
The future land performance expectations for each of the technical categories are outlined
in Table 3.1 in Part A.
12.2 L ateral spreading and other lateral

ground movements in TC3
Significant lateral spreading and other lateral ground movements occurred to some
properties in TC3 areas during the recent earthquake sequence. Most of the affected
sites experienced the greatest lateral movements from the 4 September 2010 and 22
February 2011 earthquakes, with more moderate or no significant movements from the
later aftershocks. Generally more significant and extensive movements occurred close to
the larger rivers and streams, with more localised lateral movements occurring adjacent
to smaller stream channels and sloping ground. The areas where the most severe and
extensive lateral spreading occurred have since been red-zoned by CERA (ie, they are not
within TC3 areas).
The potential for future lateral ground movements in TC3 areas can be reasonably inferred
from land damage experienced in the Canterbury earthquake sequence, provided that
the site has been “tested” by sufficiently high ground shaking during these earthquakes.
These observations can be supplemented by applying well-known engineering principles
of susceptibility to lateral spreading (eg, proximity to a rapid change in ground level, or free
edge) when assessing future lateral spreading potential.
The focus of categorising global lateral movement is based on an ultimate limit state
(ULS) design earthquake event. Structures which are designed in accordance with the
TC3 guidance to tolerate the lateral ground movements possible in a ULS event would be
expected to also tolerate the lateral ground movements possible in a SLS event.
The potential for future lateral ground movements is defined in the document to enable the
design engineer to assess the effect from the earthquake sequence, given the passage
of time since the liquefaction events. Caution must be exercised where figures for ground
movement have been specified in the document.
F U T U R E P E R F O R M A N C E / PAG E 12 . 1
2 . 1F2.
O UFU
PER
TURIEO N
N DAT
AS S ES SFOR
MEMN TA N C E C
Two components of potential lateral movement need to be considered when designing

repaired or rebuilt foundations in those areas with the potential for lateral ground
movements. They are:
• Global lateral movement of a site

• Lateral stretch of the ground surface across a building footprint
These two components of lateral ground movement are shown in the simplified
cross-section in Figure 12.1. Lateral spreading in the majority of cases tends to result in
blocks of land moving laterally towards a free edge. More lateral movement tends to occur
in the blocks closest to the edge with progressively less movement of blocks further
back. For dwellings which are located entirely within an intact block, the entire structure
and the block of land beneath it move together as one (global lateral movement). In this
UPDATE: case there has been global lateral movement, but no differential lateral movement (ie,
December 2012 stretching) between different parts of the superstructure. If the structure straddles adjacent
blocks, then in addition to the global component of lateral movement, there can also be
stretching and tearing of the ground beneath the structure. This stretching of the ground
(lateral stretch) can introduce significant lateral forces into the foundation elements and
superstructure.
Figure 12.1: Simplified cross-section showing components of lateral ground movement

(values illustrative only)
12.2.1 Global lateral movement of a site

The global component of lateral ground movement does not greatly affect the design and
performance of shallow foundations, such as footings, rafts or shallow piles which are
founded within the surface blocks of land. The entire superstructure and foundation is able
to move as one along with the global movement of the block.
For deep piles this global component of lateral ground movement has significance for
design. While the superstructure and upper portion of the piles are moved sideways by
the surface blocks, the lower portion of the piles will be designed to be embedded into
non-liquefied ground at depth below the blocks where there is minimal lateral ground
movement. The piles are therefore required to withstand the effects of displacement of
the top of the pile relative to the toe. Accordingly, many common deep pile systems and
foundation details may not be appropriate in areas with the potential for major global lateral
movements in future earthquakes.
F U T U R E P E R F O R M A N C E / PAG E 1 2 . 2
C 12.
2. FFUTUR
PE RES
AS S FOR
E
OUNDATION
SMMENT
A NC E
The following generalised global lateral movement categories have been developed to aid
foundation design in Technical Category 3:
Table 12.1: Global lateral movement categories for TC3 (at ULS)
Minor to Moderate Major Severe
0 to 300 mm 300 to 500 mm >500 mm

global lateral movement global lateral movement global lateral movement
generally not expected
in TC3 areas
All the new foundation options outlined in section 15 for TC3 are applicable for sites in
the minor to moderate global lateral movement category. For sites in the major global
lateral movement category, deep pile foundations are unlikely to be suitable unless careful
pile type selection and specific engineering design is undertaken (refer to sections 15.2.5
and 15.2.6). However, some of the ground improvement and surface structure options
in section 15 are likely to be appropriate for sites in the major global lateral movement
category.
For sites in the Severe global lateral movement category (expected to be rare in TC3), more
substantial engineering works (for example more robust ground improvement schemes,
beyond the scope of this document) are likely to be needed.
Procedure for assessing global lateral movement of a site

For the purposes of repair and rebuilding of foundations in TC3, the following procedure is
recommended for assessing the global lateral movement category for the site (ie, the
building footprint):
1. Undertake a desk study of available information, such as post-earthquake observations,
results from regional-scale data analysis, geotechnical investigations, and ground-level
profiles. Identify potential triggers for lateral ground movement.
2. Physically examine the site, immediate neighbourhood and any structures which
remain on the site for evidence of lateral ground movements (eg, cracks in the ground
or foundations, damage to kerbs and paths, deformation of fences, offset services etc).
A lower-bound estimate of the global ground movement that has occurred can be made
by summing observed crack and offset widths across the site and immediate surrounds
and to the free edge.
3. Check whether the site is in an area of higher or gently-sloping ground which may be
susceptible to suburb-scale lateral ground movements caused by elevation differences
if the underlying soil liquefies. This type of large-scale movement has the potential to
cause significant global lateral ground movements. However, as it causes only minor
ground stretching, and thus little damage to surface structures, it may not be apparent
from site observations that large global displacement has occurred. As a minimum, it is
recommended that sites within the areas listed in Table 12.2 are assumed to be in the
Major global lateral movement category. Deep piles are unlikely to be an appropriate
foundation option in these areas without careful specific design. This is unlikely to be
an issue for residential structures because the higher ground (and thus thicker crust) in
these areas means that the shallower foundation solutions for TC3 properties outlined
in section 15 are likely to be appropriate.
2 . 1F2.
O UFU
PER
TURIEO N
N DAT
AS S ES SFOR
MEMN TA N C E C
Table 12.2: Areas of major global lateral ground movements identified within TC3 to date
North New Brighton – All TC3 properties east of Anzac Drive, South of Queenspark Drive, and
North of New Brighton Rd.
Wainoni – All TC3 properties within the area bounded by Wainoni Rd, Shortland St, Pages Rd,
Kearneys Rd, Cypress St, Ruru Rd, McGregors Rd, Pages Rd and Cuffs Rd.
4. In some cases, if observation-based assessment is inconclusive, it may be beneficial

to undertake geotechnical analysis to provide a theoretical prediction of lateral ground
movements.
5. If the assessment undertaken in the previous steps provides insufficient evidence
for a global lateral movement category to be assigned, then, as a fall-back option, the
category may be selected based on a simplified criteria of distance from a free edge.
If there is no evidence to the contrary, then sites may be assumed to be in the minor
to moderate global lateral movement category if the distance to a free edge is greater
than specified in Table 12.3. For sites closer to the free edge, the major global lateral
movement category may be more appropriate.
Table 12.3: Distance from free edge beyond which minor to moderate global lateral
movement can be assumed in TC3 (excluding areas in Table 12.2), in the absence of any
evidence to the contrary
Location Distance
Avon River, downstream of Banks Ave (including estuary) 200 m
Avon River, between Barbadoes St and Banks Ave 150 m
Avon River, between Mona Vale and Barbadoes St 100 m
Heathcote River, downstream of Colombo St 100 m
Dudley Creek and tributaries, east of Hills Rd 100 m
All other significant waterways and steep changes in ground level 50 m
12.2.2 Lateral stretch of the ground across a building footprint

The degree of lateral stretching of the ground which may occur across a building footprint
in future earthquakes is typically significant when considering the design and performance
of both deep and shallow residential foundation options. Stretching of the ground can
introduce significant lateral forces into the foundation elements and superstructure. It is
therefore crucial that the magnitude of possible future ground stretching is assessed when
selecting and detailing a foundation system. If lateral stretch of the ground is possible, the
foundation solution should have the capacity to prevent tearing of the structure, provide a
low probability of structural collapse, and ideally also offer resilience and ease of repair.
Table 12.4 summarises the generalised lateral ground stretching for which categories have
been developed to aid foundation design in TC3. It should be noted that there will be some
sites which fall into different categories for global lateral movement than for lateral stretch
(eg, some sites may have major global lateral movement, but only minor to moderate
lateral stretch across the building footprint).
C 12.
2. FFUTUR
PE RES
AS S FOR
E
OUNDATION
SMMENT
A NC E
Table 12.4: Categories of lateral stretch of the ground across a building footprint for TC3
(at ULS)
Minor to Moderate Major Severe
0 to 200 mm 200 to 500 mm >500 mm lateral stretch across

lateral stretch across building lateral stretch across building building footprint
footprint footprint Generally not expected
in TC3 areas
All the new foundation options outlined for TC3 properties in section 15 are applicable for
sites in the minor to moderate category of lateral stretch across the building footprint.
For sites in the major lateral stretch category, several of these foundation options are
considered suitable, refer to section 15 for further details. For sites in the severe lateral
stretch category, which are expected to be rare in TC3, more substantial engineering works
are likely to be needed. Such works are beyond the scope of this document.
Procedure for assessing lateral stretch across a building footprint

For the purposes of repair and rebuilding of foundations in TC3, the following procedure
is recommended for assessing the lateral stretch of the ground across a building
footprint:
1. Undertake a desk study of available information, such as post-earthquake observations,

results from regional-scale data analysis, geotechnical investigations, and ground-level
profiles. Identify potential triggers for lateral ground movement.
2. Physically examine the site, immediate neighbourhood and any structures which remain
on the site for evidence of lateral ground movements (eg, cracks in the ground or
foundations, damage to kerbs and paths, deformation of fences, offset services etc). An
estimate of the lateral ground stretch which has occurred across a building during the
earthquake sequence can be made by summing observed crack and offset widths across
the footprint. When estimating the stretch across the footprint that may be possible
in future earthquakes any stretching observed on the rest of the site and immediate
surroundings should also be noted. An assessment should also be made of the potential
for this type of stretching to occur under the building footprint in future. Observed
patterns of ground cracking may provide useful information but might not reliably predict
the exact location of future stretching. (A more complete engineering understanding of
the mechanism of ground movement would be required to assess the potential for future
ground stretching to affect the building).
3. Review information made available on CERA’s Canterbury Geotechnical Database.
4. In some cases, if observation-based assessment is inconclusive, it may be beneficial
to undertake geotechnical analysis to provide a theoretical prediction of lateral ground
movement and lateral stretch.
5. If the assessment undertaken in the previous steps provides insufficient evidence for
a lateral stretch category to be assigned, then as a fall-back option the category may
be selected based on a simplified criteria of distance from a free edge. If there is no
evidence to the contrary, then sites may be assumed to be in the minor to moderate
lateral stretch category if the distance to a free edge is greater than specified in Table
12.3. For sites closer to the free edge, the major lateral stretch category may be more
appropriate.
2 . 1F2.
O UFU
PER
TURIEO N
N DAT
AS S ES SFOR
MEMN TA N C E C
12.3 Vertical settlement in TC3

Significant vertical settlements occurred in the majority of properties in TC3 areas during
the recent earthquake sequence. In some locations these settlements were damaging and
obvious (ie, caused differential movement of foundations or were associated with surface
cracking and ejection of liquefied soils) and in other cases the movement was uniform
enough across a site to cause minor or no damage to foundation elements.
UPDATE: The general objective of deep geotechnical investigations in TC3 is to establish the extent
December 2012 and potential for future liquefaction-induced ground settlement and if required for pile
founding or design of ground improvement.
For the foundation repair options and most new foundation types, it is especially important
to understand the potential level of vertical settlement from future liquefaction in SLS
events, where it is desirable to limit damage as much as possible. It is also useful to
understand the potential for deformations at ULS, where ‘life safety’ and ‘repairability’ is
more the focus.
It is recognised that the calculation of liquefaction-induced settlements is an inexact

process. The current calculation methods are the ‘set of tools’ available to engineers for
routine analyses at this time. In order to characterise the potential behaviour of the site and
to effectively subdivide the TC3 land into ‘less’ and ‘more vulnerable’ categories an ‘index
number’ for TC3 properties has been developed. This index reflects the consequential
effects of settlement, taking into account the behaviour of the shallower soils being more
influential than that of deeper soils.
The calculation of vertical consolidation settlement of the upper 10 m of the soil profile
under SLS loadings has been chosen as the basis for this ‘index number’. The index value
for the division has currently been set at 100 mm to help guide the selection of suitable
repair and rebuild options.
Two categories of vertical land settlement from liquefaction at SLS are therefore
established, as follows and detailed in Table 12.5:
(i) Less than 100 mm (calculated over the upper 10 m of the soil profile)
(ii) Greater than 100 mm (calculated over the upper 10 m of the soil profile)
Table 12.5: Categories of vertical land settlement (index values at SLS)
Minor to Moderate Potentially Significant
<100 mm >100 mm
Guidance for calculating liquefaction-induced settlements is provided in section 13.5. To

ensure consistency in approach and outcome for homeowners, for the purpose of this
document all practitioners will need to adopt a common calculation method for assessing
settlements.
C 2. F OUNDATION
13. GEOTEC H NIC A L
AS S ES S M ENT
13 G
eotechnical investigations
in TC3 – general
13.1 General
The scope of a deep geotechnical investigation must be determined by the geotechnical
professional responsible for giving advice on the property in question.
The geotechnical professional must be either:
• a CPEng. geotechnical engineer or

• for the purposes of this document, in relation to ground investigations for singular UPDATE:
residential properties, a PEngGeol. engineering geologist with competence, suitable December 2012
relevant training and experience in foundation investigations and liquefaction

assessment.
Professionals are reminded that they are bound by the IPENZ Code of Ethical Conduct, UPDATE:
December 2012
which states (Rule 46) that the professional must undertake engineering activities
only within his or her competence. Practitioners who do not have the requisite
competence and suitable geotechnical training, qualifications and experience must
seek the oversight of a CPEng. geotechnical engineer.
Residential sites in Technical Category 3 will require a greater scope of geotechnical

investigations than those required in Technical Categories 1 and 2. These investigations
are required to better understand local site conditions so that informed engineering
judgements can be made on the appropriate foundation solution for the site. Suburb-
wide geotechnical investigations have been undertaken in most areas within TC3 in the
Christchurch area. Those investigations are typically spaced hundreds of metres apart. Due
to the significant local variability in ground conditions in the TC3 areas more site specific
information is considered necessary to enable specific design at a site and to make sound
engineering judgements.
It is anticipated that there will be two general styles of investigations:
• Single or isolated house site investigation – House sites which have

geotechnical investigations undertaken as stand-alone projects, generally in isolation
from or in advance of other investigations
• Area-wide investigations – House sites which have geotechnical investigations
undertaken in the same general location as multiple other sites (ie, ‘area-wide’
investigations)
In addition to these two general investigation strategies, investigation requirements vary

for repaired and rebuilt foundations. Further details of these requirements are covered in
section 13.4.
The general requirements for geotechnical investigations in TC3 are presented

diagrammatically in Table 13.1 and Figure 13.1.
G E OT E C H N I C A L / PAG E 13 . 1
1 3. G EOTE C H N I C A L
AS S ES S M E N T C
Table 13.1: Summary relationship between likely final investigation densities and
foundation types
Foundation Shallow
Strategy CPTs Boreholes
Solution Investigations
No foundation Not required Not required Not required

relevel required
(refer Table 2.3 in Part
A and Figures 14.1 &
14.2)
Foundation repair Not required Not required Not generally

and/or minor (local) required
Repaired Foundations
relevel required
(refer Table 2.3 in Part
A and Figures 14.1 &
14.2)
UPDATE: Foundation relevel Type Probably not required Not required 2 per site
December 2012 required A&B (at the discretion
(refer Table 2.3 in Part of the geotechnical
A and Figures 14.1 & professional)
14.2)
Type C As appropriate to Not required 2 per site
relevel strategy or 1
per site on poor sites
unless area-wide
investigation adequate
C 2. F OUNDATION
AS S ES S M ENT
Foundation Shallow
Strategy CPTs Boreholes
Solution Investigations
Deep piles 2 per site where achievable 1 per site Not generally
(refer section 15.2) if CPT required
encounters a
dense layer
and does
not prove
adequate
depth or
consistency
Ground Subject to improvement option Probably 2-4 per site

improvement utilised: (refer Figure 13.1) not required (if deep
(refer section 15.3) 2 per site unless (at the sole (at the sole investigations
discretion of the geotechnical discretion not undertaken
Rebuilt Foundations
professional) area-wide of the on the site) or

investigation results are geotechnical supplementary
considered adequate professional) investigations
to identify
soil types in
treated zone
as specified
by method
statement
(refer Appendix
C4) or
geotechnical
professional
Surface structures 2 per site unless (at the sole Unlikely to 2-4 per site
(refer section 15.4) discretion of the geotechnical be required (if deep
professional) area-wide (at the sole investigations
investigation results are discretion not undertaken
considered adequate of the on the site)
geotechnical
professional)
Note: Site conditions and chosen solutions may dictate that more investigation is required than indicated
above (see the following sections as appropriate 14.2.2, 15.2.4, 15.3.3, 15.4.7)
AS S ES S M E N T C
Figure 13.1: Overview of general geotechnical investigation required
Determine foundation relevel/rebuild

strategy from Table 2.2 and
2.3 in Part A
Refer
Figures 4.1,
4.2
Local repair Foundation Foundation

and/or minor relevel rebuild
relevel only required required
Type
Type C Deep Ground Surface
A and B
foundation piles improvement structures
foundation
Majority
of piles need
Deep Surface
replacing (Type A)
column raft
or
solutions solutions
> approx 25-30% foundation
beam and/or majority of
piles need replacing
(Type B) Site
performed poorly
(see Figures 14.1
and 14.2)?
No Yes
No
Yes
2 deep
1 deep
investigation
investigation
points per site
point (min)
unless area-
Geotechnical per site
Shallow Investigations 2 CPT per wide coverage
investigation (unless
geotechnical as appropriate site (and sufficient;
not area wide
investigation to relevel borehole as shallow
necessarily coverage
only required strategy required) investigation
required sufficient)
unless deep
and 2 shallow
investigation
investigation
undertaken
points
on site
Note: Site conditions may dictate additional investigations to those indicated above.
C 2. F OUNDATION
AS S ES S M ENT
13.2 Single or isolated house site investigation

The geotechnical investigation process in TC3 should broadly follow the subdivision
investigation requirements set out in Part D, under the guidance of a CPEng. geotechnical
engineer or suitably experienced PEngGeol. engineering geologist.
Where practical at least two deep investigation points (CPTs, boreholes with SPTs, etc)
should be undertaken to enable site characterisation to 10–15 m depth. This might be
achieved in conjunction with nearby existing deeper information where it is feasible on or
immediately adjacent to the site.
Given the relative cost of CPT data it is considered best practice to push CPTs to refusal, UPDATE:
December 2012
however where there are very deep deposits (for example in excess of 20 m) of penetrable
materials some judgement is required regarding the usefulness of the deeper information.
It must be recognised also that early termination of CPT investigation depths may result
in loss of potentially useful information regarding possible pile founding depths, ground
improvement options, overall site settlements and general site characterisation. Conversely,
while a minimum target depth of 15 m is recommended (and early termination at this depth
is not encouraged), if CPTs refuse at between 10 m and 15 m depth the cost of a physical
borehole to gain additional information may not be warranted in the first instance, in
all cases.
It is recognised that CPT data is generally superior to SPT data in determining liquefaction UPDATE:
December 2012
susceptibility, and therefore CPTs will normally be carried out in preference to SPTs. CPT
equipment should be calibrated, and procedures carried out, to ASTM D5778-12. Where
ground conditions dictate the need for SPTs it is important that equipment that has been
properly energy rated is used so that an appropriate energy ratio can be used to correct
SPT ‘N’ values.
In many cases only a single location will be initially feasible (due to access considerations UPDATE:
December 2012
and other constraints). In some cases where CPT testing is hampered by gravel layers,
a single borehole with SPT testing may be appropriate, augmented by shallower
investigations. It will then be up to the judgement of the CPEng. Geotechnical Engineer
or PEngGeol. whether these may be supplemented by additional shallow investigations,
geophysical testing and/or if further deep investigation points are necessary (either during
the initial investigation phase, or possibly post-demolition where this occurs).
Groundwater measurements during the investigations should also be undertaken.

Liquefaction assessments should be carried out following the guidelines in section 13.5,
as well as further analyses appropriate to the particular foundation or ground remediation
solutions being considered for the site.
In addition to the above deep investigations, shallow testing (in accordance with TC2
requirements) can be used to supplement the deep investigations as required.
AS S ES S M E N T C
13.3 Area-wide investigations

Where a large number of house sites are to be grouped together for an area-wide or
suburb-by-suburb investigation, and the area-wide investigation shows ground conditions
to be relatively consistent, the number of investigation points may be able to be reduced
and still allow analyses of individual house sites based on the information from an area-
wide investigation. The use or application of area-wide investigations can be applied by
engineers whether they are working on multiple properties for a specific client (such as a
PMO Engineer working for EQC or an insurer) or on an individual site for a property owner,
where deemed appropriate by the engineer.
Such a reduction of investigation density will have to be at the discretion of the CPEng.
geotechnical engineer or suitably trained and experienced PEngGeol. engineering geologist
for each specific site. The density will need to be such that geotechnical professionals are
comfortable with the likely quality of data and proximity of data points to the house sites
they are working on. The density of investigations is expected to be in the order of
six to eight investigations per hectare. Further investigation points may be required,
depending on the consistency and quality of the data obtained, the type of foundation
solution being considered for a particular site, and the underlying soil conditions. These
factors may have considerable influence on the final amount of geotechnical investigation
carried out. Where deep piles are opted for, more intense site-specific investigations, are
likely to be necessary. In addition to the above deep investigations, shallow testing (in
accordance with TC2 requirements) can be used to supplement the deep investigations as
required.
13.4 G
eotechnical investigation requirements
for repaired and rebuilt foundations
Different geotechnical investigation requirements apply to dwellings with foundations that
can be repaired compared to dwellings with foundations that will be replaced. To determine
whether foundation repair or replacement is required, refer to Part A, Table 2.2 and Table 2.3
and Figures 14.1 and 14.2.
UPDATE: In general, foundations that require minor repair or relevelling only will not necessarily require
December 2012
geotechnical investigations. Those foundations with significant damage will require deep
investigations so that a liquefaction analysis can be undertaken to determine likely future
settlements. The foundation repair or replacement strategy for these dwellings will be
determined by the outcomes of the liquefaction analysis.
C 2. F OUNDATION
AS S ES S M ENT
13.5 Liquefaction assessment

In addition to standard geotechnical characterisation, the site data should be analysed
using recognised methods as outlined below to determine liquefaction susceptibility, and
in particular likely ground deformations under design serviceability limit state (SLS) and
ultimate limit state (ULS) ground motions. (It is important to note that the methods outlined
below must be employed when using these guidance documents).
13.5.1 Liquefaction analysis methodologies (minimum requirements)

A standard liquefaction analysis methodology outlined below, and repeated in Part D,
shall be used in conjunction with specified input ground motions and, where appropriate,
observations of land damage from recent seismic events. As discussed in section 12, it is
recognised that the calculation of liquefaction-induced settlements is an inexact process.
For the purposes of calculating consistent ‘index numbers’ to compare with nominal ‘limits’
set out in these guidance documents, a consistent methodology will need to be adopted by
all users. These methodologies should only be applied by those with a strong background D E L E T I O N:
December 2012
in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Other methods or adjustments that are not
included in this document (for example ‘thin layer’ correction techniques) do not form part
of this methodology.
For the purposes of this document, calculations of liquefaction potential (triggering) should
be carried out using the methods of Idriss & Boulanger 2008, as outlined in the publication
UPDATE:
“Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes” – EERI monograph MNO12. Only data obtained
December 2012
directly from CPT, SPT or seismic shear wave velocity measurements shall be used in
carrying out liquefaction assessments. Where primary data has been obtained for the site
using these methods, and site access constrains the further use of these primary methods,
supplementary infill data can be considered from Swedish Weight Sounding or DPT using
recognised correlations. For fines corrections where soil samples have not been retrieved
and tested, the method of Robertson and Wride (1998) should be used. For the calculation
of post-liquefaction induced settlements, the method of Zhang et al (2002) is to be used.
It should be noted that this does not imply that these methodologies are mandated
for applications outside the scope of this document.
For comparison against ‘index values’ in these guidelines, calculations can generally be UPDATE:
limited to the upper 10 m of the soil profile. (This does not however extend to section 15.3 December 2012
- Site ground improvement). Potential issues do also need to be considered below 10 m

depth (refer to section 13.6 for details).
Ground input motions

Ground input motions for SLS and ULS liquefaction analysis are provided in Appendix C2.
In summary, for deep soft soil (Class D) sites they are:
• SLS 0.13g
• ULS 0.35g
These figures are the result of extensive probabilistic modelling by GNS Science and
observations of land and building damage caused during the Canterbury earthquake
sequence, and are recommended by the Ministry as of April 2012 for liquefaction analyses
on the flat land of Christchurch.
AS S ES S M E N T C
In response to new knowledge about the seismic risk in the Canterbury earthquake region,
the former Department of Building and Housing (now the Ministry) made changes to the
Verification Method B1/VM1, from 19 May 2011, to increase the seismic hazard factor Z (as
described in AS/NZS 1170) for the region. The update to B1/VM1 states that the revised Z
factor is intended only for use for the design and assessment of buildings and structures –
it is not applicable for use in geotechnical design. The figures above are now provided
to be used for liquefaction analysis.
UPDATE: Liquefaction hazard, liquefaction-induced settlements and lateral spread

December 2012
For design guidance refer to the following documents or methodologies (It should be noted that
this does not imply that these methodologies are mandated for applications outside the scope
of this document):
• For background information: refer to the latest edition of NZGS guidelines

“Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Practice Module 1 – Guideline for the
identification, assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards” (current edition July
2010).
• For specific analysis methodology for liquefaction triggering: refer to Idriss &
Boulanger 2008 “Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes” – EERI monograph MNO12.
• ‘For estimating apparent fines content (FC) for use in the CPT fines correction, set out
in Idriss & Boulanger (2008) (equation 78), where soil samples are not being retrieved:
refer to Robertson and Wride (1998) “Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using
the Cone Penetration Test” Can. Geotech. J. 35(3), 442-459. ie, – (a) if Ic <1.26,
apparent FC = 0%; (b) if 1.26 < Ic< 3.5, apparent FC (%) =1.75 Ic3.25 - 3.7; and (c) if Ic >
3.5, apparent FC =100%.
• For estimation of post-liquefaction induced settlements in CPT analyses, refer to

Zhang, Robertson & Brachman (2002) “Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Ground
Settlements from CPT for Level Ground”, Can. Geotech. J. (39), 1168-1180. In
particular, Appendix A of that paper provides useful guidance on calculating volumetric
strains. Note: the input parameters of FOS and (qc1n)cs are to be derived from the
method of Idriss & Boulanger (2008), as modified above.
• For surface crust assessment: refer to Ishihara (1985) “Stability of Natural Deposits
During Earthquakes” Proc. of the 11th International Conference in Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, pp 321-376 – Figure 88 p 362. (Reproduced as Figure 107 on
p 157 of Idriss & Boulanger (2008) (optional).
C 2. F OUNDATION
AS S ES S M ENT
• For refinement of SLS assessment: observations of damage or lack thereof in areas

deemed to have been “sufficiently tested at SLS” by recent seismic events can
be used to judge the applicability, or not, of settlements calculated at the design
SLS level (optional). This can be achieved with reference to the PGA conditional
median contours and associated conditional standard deviations contained in the
paper (Bradley and Hughes 2012) and kmz file that can be found at the Canterbury
Geotechnical Database canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com.
−− As an initial screening tool, where a site has experienced at least 170% of design
SLS (using the conditional median pga values from one of the three compiled
events corrected to a M7.5 event; ie PGA7.5 = PGA/MSF), then the site can be
regarded as having been ‘sufficiently tested’ for an SLS event.
−− If this screening test is not met, then the site can be evaluated by calculating the
10 percentile PGA from each of the three compiled events (i.e. the median value
less 1.28 standard deviations, again magnitude scaled to M7.5). If one of these
values equals or exceeds the design SLS event then the site can be regarded as
having been ‘sufficiently tested’ for an SLS event. (At this level it is likely that most
sites will have been tested to SLS or beyond by enough of a margin that in future
SLS events the land damage will likely be no worse than already experienced at
that site).
−− To calculate the 10 percentile PGA, use PGA10 = PGA50*exp(-1.28*σlnPGA), where
PGA50 is the conditional median PGA and σlnPGA is the conditional standard deviation
of PGA at a site. For consistency with the methodology used to analyse liquefaction
triggering, the Magnitude Scaling Factor of Idriss & Boulanger (2008) should be
used – i.e. MSF = [6.9*exp(-M/4)]-0.058 ≤1.8. Thus, PGA10_7.5 = PGA10/MSF.
Note: This does not imply that these methodologies are mandated for applications outside the scope of
this document.
It is hoped that, with time, a modified methodology for liquefaction settlement/damage

calculation that is depth-weighted will be derived from extensive site data and damage
observations in the recent earthquake sequence. This may be incorporated in these
requirements at an appropriate stage.
Modification by reference to soil deposit ageing is not considered appropriate in the

Canterbury region.
Guidance on determining nominal lateral spread zonings is given in section 12.2 of this
document.
AS S ES S M E N T C
13.6 Technical Category TC3 confirmation

If damage to the land or foundations is less than implied by the TC3 categorisation, then
the deep geotechnical investigation and liquefaction analysis undertaken by a CPEng.
geotechnical engineer or suitably qualified PEngGeol. engineering geologist may indicate
that the site has TC2 rather than TC3 performance characteristics for that particular site.
UPDATE: As part of this determination, liquefaction characteristics need to be assessed over the
December 2012 full depth of the soil profile investigated. However, when comparing calculated settlement
values to the index values in Table 3.1 in Part A, calculations can be limited to the upper
10 m of the soil profile. This does not in any way imply that potential issues do not need to
be considered below 10 m depth, this is simply a calculated ‘index’ number for comparison
to the index values in Table 3.1 in Part A. Full depth settlement assessments should also
be carried out, to allow consideration of (for example) differential settlements where
deep liquefiable deposits vary significantly across a site. For this reason, CPTs should
not be termiated short of refusal depth. Specific design based on the deep geotechnical
investigation and TC2 solutions signed off by a suitably qualified CPEng. geotechnical
engineer can then be undertaken.
As part of the building consent process, or in some cases independent from that process,
the geotechnical information and the geotechnical report will be submitted to the
Canterbury Geotechnical Database. The geotechnical report will contain the results of the
liquefaction analyses and a reasoned justification from the CPEng. geotechnical engineer or
suitably qualified and experienced PEngGeol. engineering geologist to support the opinion
of TC2 – like site performance.
DELETION:
December 2012
This will allow the use of TC2 foundation systems on those individual sites where
such suitability has been determined by the CPEng. geotechnical engineer or suitably
qualified and experienced PEngGeol. engineering geologist.
The emphasis is on carrying out investigations to allow the design of a suitable foundation
system for the site, whether that is a TC3 compliant system or a TC2 compliant system.
13.7 L ongevity of factual and

interpretative reports
It is considered in most cases that factual geotechnical investigation information (eg, CPT
data, borehole data etc) would be appropriate for engineering use for at least five years and
in many cases longer (at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer).
The predominant geotechnical issue that most properties in TC3 areas will be facing are
liquefaction-related or bearing capacity issues. Some sites will also have compressible peat
soils to consider. With regard to liquefaction, the underlying soils generally return to their
pre-earthquake densities soon after seismic events.
C 2. F OUNDATION
AS S ES S M ENT
The most likely change that might occur over time is a change in the groundwater profile.
Engineers should consider this in their judgements and, if appropriate, undertake updated
groundwater level investigations if historic information is being used. It is noted that
interpretive methodologies are changing with time, and site usage can also vary. It is
recommended that if an interpretive report is more than two years old, or the proposed
building that the report originally applied to has changed significantly, (eg, layout, height,
weight of building materials, foundation loads etc) and/or design loadings have changed
(eg, design PGA levels), then the report is reviewed by the geotechnical engineer for
current applicability.
Additionally, if the site has been altered by excavations or filling, the report will need
to be reviewed.
13.8 Building consent information

For information on the Canterbury Geotechnical Database and the format for building UPDATE:
December 2012
consents, refer to sections 8.2.5 and 8.2.6.
AS S ES S M E N T C
G E OT E C H N I C A L / PAG E 13 . 1 2
C 14.F OUNDATION
2. REPA IR ING
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
14 Repairing house foundations

in TC3
14.1 General
This section contains suggested approaches for the repair and reinstatement of house
foundations where the level of damage does not require foundation replacement or
complete rebuilding. It is emphasised that these approaches will not suit all houses that are
considered repairable, and that each house will require careful consideration.
Situations involving the complete replacement of the foundations beneath an existing

house, or the construction of a new dwelling, are addressed in section 15.
In general, the provisions in this section apply only to those sites in the ‘Moderate’ lateral
stretch category (see section 12.2).
14.2 Assessment of foundation damage

The first step in assessing repair options for a damaged house in TC3 is to make a reasoned
judgement on the severity of the damage that has occurred to the house structure.
Tables 2.2 and 2.3 in Part A give guidance on whether foundation damage requiring
specific engineering input is present. As indicated in Part A, sections 2.2 and 2.3, sound
engineering judgement must be applied when using these tables.
For example, criteria that need to be considered in a domestic house include:
• the intended use of the space

• construction materials of the floor surfacing
• practicality of the repair (ie, cost versus benefits)
• capacity to resist deformation
• effect of gradients on amenity of the space.
These considerations may trigger the need for relevelling or rebuilding in some situations
where the guideline tables do not indicate such a situation, and conversely it is also
expected that in other situations, despite being indicated by the guideline table, relevelling
or rebuilding is not necessarily warranted. D E L E T I O N:
December 2012
In applying the indicator criteria from Table 2.2 in Part A, due consideration must be given
to the amount of damage that was likely to have been present before the earthquake
events, and some guidance on this is given in Part A, section 2.2.
If more than just cosmetic repairs are necessary, then the indicator criteria in Table 2.3 in
Part A should be used in conjunction with engineering judgement to determine the level
of repairs necessary for the structure. This decision will be based on the criteria in Table
2.2 in Part A and sound engineering judgement. Again, reference must be made to Part A,
section 2.3 when using these indicator criteria.
2 . 1F4.
FO
O URN
EPAI
DATRI O
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT
I NNG
IONS C
If no foundation damage is present that requires repair and specific engineering design,
then superstructure repairs can proceed using guidance from Part A, section 7. In this
UPDATE: case, minor cracks (<5 mm) in concrete floors and foundation beams can be repaired in
December 2012
accordance with Appendix A4 of those guidelines. No geotechnical investigation will be
required in these cases.
Generally a decision will be made on whether a structure corresponds to one of the

following cases:
• Case 1: Local repair and/or minor (local) relevel only required

• Case 2: Foundation relevel required (ie, widespread differential settlements)
• Case 3: Foundation rebuild required
• Case 4: Total demolition and rebuild required (ie, new structure)
For Case 4, if the house is to be demolished and a new structure built, the foundation
solutions in section 15 of this document should be referred to. The extent of investigations
will vary, and are described in sections 13 and 15.
For Cases 1 to 4 above, where varying degrees of foundation repair and/or relevelling is
required, reference should be made to the process flow charts in Figure 14.1 (foundation
Types A and B) and Figure 14.2 (foundation Type C) to determine both investigation
requirements and actions to be taken.
R E PA I R I N G F O U N DAT I O N S / PAG E 1 4 . 2
Type A or B *Note: If there is a
strong preference or
reason to otherwise
retain heavy claddings or
Case 2: Cases 3 and 4: roofing materials, then
Case 1: foundations will need to
Foundation relevel indicated by Table 2.3 Foundation rebuild indicated be upgraded to cope with
Types A and B
Local repair and/or minor relevel only required
in Part A by Table 2.3 in Part A this, by pile underpinning,
ground improvement,
foundation replacement or
the like – this will require
Deep geotechnical an appropriate level of
investigation information geotechnical investigation
Appreciable Majority to also be carried out.
overall building of piles need
settlement relative replacing (Type A) OR Site
to the ground? > approximately 25–30% meets the Follow guidance
foundation beam and/or majority Yes
requirements of in Part A
of piles need replacing TC2?
(Type B)
No Yes
No
No SLS
settlements < 100
mm in upper 10 m of
Site performed Shallow (TC2 type) soil profile
poorly? (eg, large technical investigation
amounts of ejecta/extensive Yes (may require
Site
ground cracking/ground deep geotechnical
performed
undulations etc) investigation)
Yes poorly, or appreciable
overall building settlement
relative to the
No Yes No
ground?
Consider removing No Remove heavy roof and replace with
heavy components and light-weight; remove heavy cladding
replacing with (optional if cladding undamaged) and Remove heavy roof and Remove heavy roof and cladding
light-weight replace with non-rigid light-weight* replace with light-weight* and replace with light-weight*
(Type A) Replace piles as necessary OR (Type B) Replace piles Remove heavy roof and wall elements
Figure 14.1: Overview of process for repairing foundations on TC3 sites for Foundation
Repair foundation AND relevel as as necessary AND Replace up to 30% of foundation beam with and replace with light-weight* AND
necessary (refer to Part A) TC2 stiffened beam (refer to Part A Fig 4.2 OR Replace part or Refer section 15 for foundation
all of foundation beam with concrete masonary wall (Fig 14.3) rebuild options
C
2.
14.F O
ASS
REPA IR ING
UNDATION
ES S M ENT
FOUNDATIONS
2 . 1F4.
FO
O URN
EPAI
DATRI O
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT
I NNG
IONS C
Figure 14.2: Overview of process for repairing foundations on TC3 sites for Foundation
Type C
Type C
Case 1: Case 2: Cases 3 and 4:

Local repair and minor Foundation relevel indicated Foundation rebuild indicated
relevel only required by Table 2.3 in Part A by Table 2.3 in Part A
Deep geotechnical
Investigation Information
Site performed
poorly (eg, large
amounts of ejecta/extensive
ground cracking ground
undulations etc)?
Appreciable
overall building Yes Site
settlement meets the
relative to the No Deep geotechnical requirements
Yes
ground? investigation information of TC2?
Site
Follow
meets the
Obtain Yes guidance
requirements of
No Yes geotechnical in Part A
TC2?
information
appropriate
No
for chosen
relevel
strategy
SLS
Remove heavy settlements < 100 No
roof and replace mm in upper 10 m of
with light-weight; soil profile *Note: If there is a
strong preference or
remove heavy reason to otherwise
cladding (optional retain heavy claddings or No
roofing materials, then
if cladding Yes foundations will need to
undamaged) and be upgraded to cope with
replace with light- this, by pile underpinning,
ground improvement,
weight*
foundation replacement or
Evidence the like – this will require
an appropriate level of
Remove of heavy
geotechnical investigation
heavy roof and Yes roof and/or heavy to also be carried out.
cladding and cladding influencing

replace with settlements? Remove or raise house to
light-weight* install fully TC3 compliant
solution (section 15)
No OR
Remove heavy roof and wall
elements and replace with
Relevel in accordance light-weight
Repair foundation
with Part A AND
AND
AND Retro-fit ground improvement
Relevel as necessary
Repair as necessary (section 15) and relevel
C 14.F O
2. REPA IR ING
UNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
ASS ES S M ENT
14.2.1 Case 1 – local repair (and local relevel)

If a house has sustained only minor foundation damage (ie, substantial relevelling is not UPDATE:
December 2012
required), but local repairs are necessary, then a deep geotechnical investigation is not
necessarily required. An assessment of whether the site and building have performed
well or not should be made. In order to make a fully reasoned assessment on the extent
or repairs or modifications necessary, engineering judgement will be required. Factors to
consider include:
• Were there large amounts of liquefaction ejecta during the earthquake events?
• Was there extensive ground cracking of the site?
• Are there large ground undulations as a result of the earthquake events?
• Has the dwelling settled relative to the surrounding land?
If the site and building have performed well (and in the case of a Type A or B house with
a heavy roof, there are no indications of significant damage to the ceiling or wall linings
of the house), then localised foundation repairs and minor (local) relevelling can proceed.
This might include replacement of short sections of a Type B foundation beam with an
enhanced perimeter beam (refer Figure 4.2 and Figure 4.2a in Part A).
Load reduction strategies

The following load reduction strategies are recommended for heavily clad houses:
For a Type A or B house with a heavy roof, where there are signs of significant damage
to the linings, indicating that the heavy roof has caused enhanced levels of damage, it is
recommended that consideration be given to removal of the heavy roof and replacement
with light-weight roofing materials (ie, corrugated steel, pressed steel tiles etc).
For Type A or B houses with heavy roofs and/or heavy claddings where:
a) the site has not performed well, or
b) there is evidence that the building has settled (albeit evenly) relative to the ground
(this applies to all foundation types)
It is strongly recommended that the heavy roof is removed and replaced with light-weight
materials. Scenario b) above indicates that the weight of the building is giving rise to
undesired or adverse performance.
For Type C homes with heavy roofs and/or heavy claddings where there has been UPDATE:
December 2012
appreciable building settlement relative to the ground, the roof should be removed and
replaced with light-weight. Where heavy claddings are damaged, the cladding should be
removed and replaced with light-weight.
Where a heavy cladding has been damaged to the extent that it requires removal then
it is recommended that the cladding be replaced with light-weight (or medium-weight)
materials. If claddings are to be altered or replaced, an appropriate level of professional
advice should be sought to ensure the new claddings are suitable for the existing building.
2 . 1F4.
FO
O URN
EPAI
DATRI O
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT
I NNG
IONS C
Where foundation damage has occurred and there is a strong preference or reason to
retain heavy claddings or roofing materials, then the foundations will need to be upgraded
UPDATE: if poor house and/or ground performance is observed. Possible methods may include pile
December 2012
underpinning, ground improvement, foundation replacement or the like. This will require an
appropriate level of geotechnical investigation to be carried out.
In all cases it is recommended that abandoned chimney bases or concrete foundations

that are no longer required are removed. These structures have been observed to cause
local differential settlement during liquefaction events. If a chimney is to remain then it is
strongly recommended that any framing elements, subfloor elements and their supports
are decoupled from the chimney base.
14.2.2 Case 2 – foundation relevel (and local repair)

If foundation relevelling is required and considered achievable, then the following factors
need to be taken into account:
• the nature and extent of damage

• the lateral spreading (stretch) potential
• the liquefaction-induced vertical settlement potential
• whether the dwelling has settled relative to the surrounding land.
Repairs and relevelling can be considered if a site is assessed as having moderate (refer
Table 12.1) lateral stretch potential (ie, <200 mm at ULS) (refer to the three lateral stretch
categories outlined in 12.2).
If a site is assessed as having major or severe lateral stretch potential (ie, >200 mm at
ULS), then neither repairs nor relevelling should be undertaken without careful engineering
analysis and consideration.
In areas identified as having major global lateral movement potential, care will need to be
taken with repairs to houses that are supported on deep piles.
Type A and B foundations can be relevelled if damage to the foundations is not too severe.
The threshold of damage below which full foundation replacement is not required is:
• for Type A – majority of piles not needing replacement

• for Type B – less than approximately 25-30% of the foundation beam needing
replacement and/or the majority of piles not needing replacement. (See the
middle pathway of the flowchart in Figure 14.1).
C 14.F O
2. REPA IR ING
UNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
ASS ES S M ENT
If these damage levels are exceeded for Type A and B houses, then it becomes a foundation
rebuild situation (ie, Case 3). If not, then relevelling and local repairs can proceed in
accordance with Part A, section 4.3, following a shallow investigation to determine the
shallow bearing capacity. With reference to Figures 4.1 and 4.3 in Part A , if the static
geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is confirmed as being greater than 300 kPa, then the
construction and engineering sign-off on a building consent application can be in accordance
with NZS 3604 and this section. If the static geotechnical ULS bearing capacity is less than
300 kPa, then the engineering sign-off on a building consent application will be based on
specific engineering design and this section may be used to support the building consent
application. See Part A, section 3.4.1 for further guidance on specific engineering design UPDATE:
December 2012
calculations of bearing pressures.
If relevelling is carried out using permanent deep piles then at least all perimeter foundation
elements and load bearing walls should be supported on such piles (to prevent future gross
differential movements). Internal non-loadbearing timber floors may require future relevelling
or packing if supported on shallow piles in this case. The use of differential support systems
is not recommended where significant peat deposits are present.
In addition, the performance of the site needs to be assessed. If the performance has been
poor (eg, significant surface ejecta, extensive ground cracking, ground undulations etc),
then it is strongly recommended that any heavy roofing materials and any heavy cladding
materials are removed and replaced with light-weight materials before relevelling. If the site
and building have performed relatively well, then the recommendation applies only to heavy
roofing materials.
Where foundation damage has occurred and there is a strong preference or reason to retain
heavy claddings or roofing materials, then the foundations will need to be upgraded. Possible
methods include - pile underpinning, ground improvement, foundation replacement or the
like. This will require an appropriate level of geotechnical investigation to be carried out.
The perimeter wall of a Type B dwelling with less than 25% to 30% damage can be fully
replaced with an alternate concrete masonry wall as shown in Figure 14.3 where the resulting
cladding is light or medium-weight and roof is light-weight.
2 . 1F4.
FO
O URN
EPAI
DATRI O
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT
I NNG
IONS C
Figure 14.3: Perimeter foundation wall detail for TC3
Mid-height subfloor vents should be provided in accordance with NZS 3604. The R10 ties
can be in pairs either side of the vents
UPDATE: In all cases it is recommended that abandoned chimney bases or concrete foundations that
December 2012 are no longer required are removed because these structures have been observed to cause
local differential settlement during liquefaction events. If a chimney is to remain, then it is
strongly recommended that any framing elements, subfloor elements and their supports
are decoupled from the chimney base.
For Type C foundations (ie, concrete floor slabs with edge beams) the process is slightly
more complicated. Type C foundations typically cannot sustain the same levels of
deformation as Types A and B foundations without exhibiting damage. In this case, if the
site appears to have performed poorly (eg significant surface ejecta, extensive ground
cracking, ground undulations, settlement of the house relative to surrounding land, etc) the
results of a deep geotechnical investigation are required in order to gauge the likely future
performance of the site, particularly under SLS loadings. As discussed in section 12.3,
the SLS settlements over the top 10 metres of the soil profile should be assessed. If this
calculated value is more than 100 mm, then it becomes a foundation rebuild situation (ie,
case 3). If not, then relevelling and local repairs can proceed in accordance with Part A,
section 4.3. The building performance also needs to be assessed in terms of the influence
of heavy roofing or cladding materials on settlements. If the performance has been poor
(eg, hogging of the floor slab is evident), then it is strongly recommended that any heavy
roofing materials and any heavy cladding materials are removed and replaced with light-
weight materials before relevelling.
C 14.F O
2. REPA IR ING
UNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
ASS ES S M ENT
If the site has performed relatively well, but hogging is still evident, then this
recommendation applies only to heavy roofing materials. If there is a strong preference or
reason to retain heavy claddings or roofing materials contrary to these recommendations,
then the foundations will need to be upgraded to cope with this. Possible methods include
pile underpinning, ground improvement, foundation replacement or the like. This will
require an appropriate level of geotechnical investigation to be carried out.
If both the site and building have performed well then relevelling can proceed without
necessarily removing heavy materials. It is recommended that the removal of heavy
materials is still considered in all cases.
14.2.3 Case 3 – foundation rebuild

If a foundation rebuild is required, in most cases the results of a deep geotechnical
investigation will be required in accordance with section 13 requirements, and a rebuild will
be determined in accordance with section 15.
For Type A and B houses in this situation, if the deep geotechnical investigation
demonstrates that the assessed SLS settlements over the top 10 metres of the soil profile
is less than 100 mm, then it is permissible to treat the situation as a relevel (ie, it can revert
to case 2) if judged appropriate by the engineer. This could include use of the concrete
masonry perimeter detail as shown in Figure 14.3.
For a foundation rebuild all heavy roof and cladding elements should be replaced with light-
weight materials.
Any of these options may, but not necessarily, require the temporary removal or lifting of
the house structure to allow construction to proceed.
For Type C houses, either the house will need to be removed temporarily or raised to allow
the construction of one of the foundation options in section 15. It may be possible, in some
cases, to install ground improvement with the house in place (eg, LMG piles or jet grouted
columns) - in which case all heavy roofing elements and heavy wall claddings will need to
be replaced with light-weight materials.
2 . 1F4.
FO
O URN
EPAI
DATRI O
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT
I NNG
IONS C
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15 New foundations in TC3

15.1 F
oundation types and selection
considerations
This section covers foundations for new houses as well as situations where foundations are
completely rebuilt for existing houses in TC3.
15.1.1 Foundation types

Three broad types of residential foundations have been established to meet the varying
vertical settlement and lateral spreading requirements applying in TC3. These are:
• deep piles
• site ground improvements
• surface structures with shallow foundations
Each has different capabilities to accommodate various levels of vertical settlement and
lateral spreading, and requires different constraints with respect to the configuration and
weights of superstructure (eg, deep piles will not be suited to areas of TC3 where global
lateral movement or lateral stretch is major or severe).
Table 15.1 summarises the principal objectives of each foundation type, and the main
constraints.
Table 15.1: Overview of proposed TC3 foundation types
Type Objectives Dwelling Constraints Land Constraints
Deep piles Negligible settlement No height and/or Not suitable where either major or
in both small and material constraints severe global lateral movement likely
larger earthquakes likely or dense non-liquefiable bearing
layer not present
Site ground Improving the ground Limits on some Some ground improvements can be
improvement to receive a TC2 two storey/heavy specified to accommodate major
foundation wall types and plan lateral stretch
configurations
Surface Repairable damage Only suitable for light In the absence of ground UPDATE:
structures/ in future moderate and medium wall improvement, Type 1 & 2a December 2012
shallow events cladding combined options only suitable for minor to
foundations with light roofs, moderate vertical settlement and
regular in plan varying lateral stretch, Type 2b can
accommodate up to 200 mm SLS
settlement
Type 3 (specific design) concepts
can be designed for major lateral
stretch and some for potentially
significant vertical settlement
Note: Further elaboration of foundation types is summarised in Table 15.4 for site ground improvement and
Table 15.5 for surface structures.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
The subsequent sections 15.2 to 15.4 describe each of the foundation types and the
options within them in more detail. Specific design parameters, specification and
construction guidance are provided as appropriate.
Suitably experienced professional engineers may wish to use other foundation types or
systems in TC3.
Guidance is given in each subsection on how the options relate to the categorisation for lateral
movement and vertical settlement defined in sections 12.2 and 12.3 respectively.
Table 15.2 summarises the relationship between the commonly used floor and foundation
types, and the lateral movement and vertical settlement categories, and compares them with
the corresponding options and requirements for TC1 and TC2.
In reading this table it must be remembered that the overall process of selecting
and documenting foundation systems and details for houses in TC3 is a specific
engineering design process that requires Chartered Professional Engineering input.
Depending on the assessed ground conditions and options selected by the Chartered
Professional Engineer, some elements can be adopted and specified directly from these
Guidelines without further engineering design. These include Types 1 and 2 Site Ground
Improvement methods (section 15.3) and the Type 1 and 2 Surface Structures (section 15.4).
UPDATE: Table 15.2: Overview of floor and foundation types for new and rebuilt foundations
December 2012 (a) Deep piles
TC1 TC2 TC3
Global Lateral Nil Minor Minor to Moderate Major

Movement (ULS) <100 mm < 300 mm 300 to 500 mm
Lateral stretch Nil Minor Minor to Moderate Major

(ULS) <100 mm < 200 mm 200 to 500 mm
Concrete Slab on Deep pile Deep pile Deep pile options Not suitable
Deep Piles options options from section 15.2
(section 15.2) (section 15.2)
Note: The use of deep piles in any location or Technical Category requires specific engineering design
N E W F O U N DAT I O N S / PAG E 1 5 . 2
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Table 15.2: Overview of floor and foundation types for new and rebuilt foundations UPDATE:
(b) Site ground improvement and surface structures December 2012
TC1 TC2 TC3
Lateral Nil Minor Minor to Moderate Major

stretch <100 mm < 200 mm 200 to 500 mm
(ULS)
Vertical 0 – 15 mm 0 – 50 mm <100 mm >100 mm <100 mm >100 mm

Settlement
(SLS)
Concrete NZS 3604 Options 1 Options 2 to 4 from Options 2 and N/A

Raft Slab to 4 from Part A, section 5.3.1 of the 4 from Part
Part A, guidance with Site Ground A, section
section Improvement 5.3.1 of the
5.3.1 of the (section 15.3) guidance with
guidance Site Ground
Improvement
Types 2a
and 3
Simple house plan shapes; refer to Table 7.2

for wall and roof cladding weight limits
Timber NZS 3604 NZS 3604 Type 1 and NZS 3604 Type 2A Type 2B
Floor 2 Surface foundations Surface (up to 200
Structures with Site Structures mm lateral
(from Ground (from section stretch)
section Improvement 15.4) and Type
15.4) (or Type 3 Surface
3 Surface Structures
Structures) (from
section
15.4)
Simple Simple house Simple house Specific

house plan plan shapes plan shapes Engineering
shapes with layout Design of
with layout constraints foundations
constraints
Light or medium wall cladding combined with light roofs
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
15.1.3 O
ther considerations in selecting foundations types and
finished floor levels for TC3
In addition to the general constraints indicated in Table 15.1 and covered in more detail in
subsequent sections, there are other considerations that need to be taken into account in
selecting new and rebuilt foundations for TC3.
Building platform heights

The potential for future liquefaction-induced settlement in many properties in TC3 leads
to the geotechnical requirement to limit the increase in mass added to the land. The
recommended increase in height for building platforms is 250 mm. Greater increases may
be allowable on a site-by-site basis subject to geotechnical engineering assessment.
DELETION:
December 2012
Flood risk
General comments on the flood risk and relationship with floor levels in Christchurch City,
Waimakariri District and Selwyn District are provided in Part B, section 8.4.
The current situation with regards to flood risk must be checked on a case-by-case basis
with the relevant council.
Insurance contract provisions

Selection of house types and configurations and hence foundation types may be guided by
the provisions of insurance contracts as well as regulatory compliance requirements.
For example, some contracts may require that the existing house configuration and
materials be incorporated in the rebuilt structure. This would impact on the foundation and
superstructure selection process.
The general flowchart in Figure 15.1 provides an illustration of the overall process for the
case of a new or rebuilt foundation in TC3 in areas of minor or moderate lateral movement.
The flowchart indicates in broad terms the stages at which the above issues that extend
beyond geotechnical and structural engineering should be taken into account.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Figure 15.1: General process flowchart for new and rebuilt foundations in TC3 (for sites UPDATE:
with Minor to Moderate lateral ground movement) December 2012
TC3 Foundation rebuild

Minor/Moderate Lateral
Ground Movement
Assess
<100 mm SLS vertical >100 mm
settlement
potential
Other considerations including

insurance contract provisions
(See Table 15.2)
Ground
Deep piles
Surface structures improvement
Dependable
founding
No layer from deep
geotechnical
Confirm site suitability Confirm site suitability information?
• including shallow • including shallow
geotechnical geotechnical
investigation investigation
Yes
Establish finished floor level

Check against relevant flood criteria (2% AEP or Plan Change 48 as applicable)
If timber floor selected Select ground improvement

or required for flood option and concrete slab
reasons, check owner option or timber floor over
acceptance
Adjust foundation
solution if required
Specify surface Specify ground

Design and
structure Type 1 or 2 improvement
specification of piles
or specific design of measures and slab or
and slab over
Type 3 timber floor over
Engineering sign-off Engineering sign-off Engineering sign-off

and BCA review and BCA review and BCA review
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15.2 Deep piles
15.2.1 Objective and scope

The objective of using deep piles is to obtain dependable vertical load capacity at both SLS
and ULS levels of earthquake. Where deep piles are appropriately selected, designed and
constructed, they provide the greatest flexibility for the superstructure configuration and
weight.
Deep piles are not considered suitable for major or severe global lateral spreading
situations, and require careful detailing for ductility to accommodate lesser levels of lateral
spreading.
This section provides guidance for deciding whether or not a particular site in TC3 is
suitable for a deep pile foundation, and for selecting a suitable pile type for the site. The
most suitable types for residential construction in liquefaction-prone areas are identified
and described. Guidance is also given for suitable design methodologies and parameters.
Additional design information is included in Appendix C3.
15.2.2 General requirements

The following general requirements are necessary for a site to be considered suitable for
deep pile foundations in TC3:
1. There must be a clearly identifiable bearing stratum that will provide adequate support
for the pile type being considered. (For example, dense sand or gravel with corrected
SPT N 60 > 25 or CPT qc >15 MPa).
2. There must be confidence that the bearing stratum is sufficiently thick to provide
adequate support for the piles and to bridge over any underlying liquefiable layers.
A minimum proven thickness of 3 m, or 4 m for two-storey heavy construction (roof or
cladding), will provide this confidence.
3. The bearing stratum must be extensive enough across the site to provide uniform
support to the entire footprint of the dwelling.
4. The piles must be capable of transferring the weight of the building to the bearing
stratum, reliably, and meeting settlement requirements, even with liquefaction of
overlying soils.
5. Pile foundations should be capable of withstanding lateral movement at the ground
surface relative to the bearing stratum without suffering a brittle shear failure. A
minimum lateral movement of 300 mm shall be considered even for sites with no
surface evidence of lateral movement.
6. Pile foundations are not considered suitable (without special engineering) for
sites where major or severe global lateral movement (>300 mm) has occurred
(refer section 12.2).
A summary of the suitability of deep piles with respect to the different levels of global
lateral movement and vertical settlement is shown in Figure 15.2.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
Figure 15.2: Deep pile suitability summary (concrete or timber floor)

Vertical Settlement
(SLS)
Potentially
Suitable Not Suitable
Significant
Minor to
Suitable Not Suitable
Moderate
Minor to Major Global Lateral

Moderate Movement (ULS)
15.2.3 Pile types and options

The following pile types are considered the most suitable types for residential construction
in TC3. Typical sizes and indicative capacities for these pile types are given in Table 15.3.
Screw piles
Screw piles consist typically of one or more steel plate helixes welded to a steel tube.
The pile is screwed into the ground and then the tube is filled with concrete. Torque
measurements are used to identify penetration into the target-bearing stratum. These
piles have the advantage that almost all of the load is transferred to end bearing on the
steel helixes embedded into the target-bearing stratum, with minimal side resistance
along the shaft. With liquefaction of overlying materials, there will be little down-drag.
UPDATE: For this reason, multi-helix piles must not have helixes within the liquefiable deposits,
December 2012 or in any deposits above the bearing stratum that are underlaid with liquefiable deposits.
The concrete-filled steel tube stems are very ductile providing good ability to cope with
global lateral movement.
Design of these piles for axial capacity is usually by proprietary methods, and these should
be supported by documentary evidence such as field load tests of relevant-sized piles in
local conditions.
Alternatively, calculations may be made using standard bearing capacity equations, but
taking account of the following issues:
• depth of embedment into the bearing stratum, and

• load-displacement response.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Driven timber piles

Suitably treated timber poles can be driven to bear into the target-bearing stratum. Timber
piles are easily handled on site and are resilient to driving stresses and to lateral ground
movements. Where driven at reasonably close spacing, they have the added benefit of
densifying loose sandy soils.
It is important that the piles are driven to a target depth within the bearing stratum, as
determined by the site investigation. It is not acceptable to simply drive to refusal or to a set.
Design of these piles will need to be by calculation using standard procedures to evaluate
bearing capacity within the bearing stratum, neglecting all contributions from side resistance
above the bearing stratum.
At some sites it may not be possible to drive timber piles to the target depth because of
excessive resistance through intermediate strata causing premature refusal to driving. In such
cases, jetting or pre-drilling may be necessary or other foundation types will need to be used.
If driving vibrations are excessive, options to reduce vibrations include pre-drilled holes and/or
vibrating piles to an appropriate depth and completing driving with a hammer.
In all cases, jetting or pre-drilling should not be continued into the bearing stratum and the
piles should be driven to the target depth within the bearing stratum using a suitable hammer.
Figure 15.3: Pile head detail – timber UPDATE:

December 2012
Note: 12 mm ply plate to be CCA treated.
Driven steel H-piles

Steel H-Piles are readily available in a range of stock lengths (9 m – 18 m). They have the
advantage of being relatively easy to drive through intermediate stiff soil layers compared
to other pile types. Also, they have less side resistance to other pile types meaning that
they will pick up less down-drag from the overlying soil crust.
These piles are also highly ductile and able to withstand more lateral spreading than other
pile types. However, they have less end-bearing resistance than other pile types and will be
more suited to sites with a very dense or thick gravel bearing layer.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
determined by the site investigation. It is not acceptable to simply drive to refusal or to
a set.
bearing capacity within the bearing stratum, neglecting all contributions from side
resistance above the bearing stratum.
UPDATE: Figure 15.4: Pile head detail – steel
December 2012
UPDATE:
Driven steel tubes
December 2012
Steel tubes are available in a wide range of sizes and stock lengths. Suitable sections
should have sufficient wall thickness to be able to withstand driving stresses and structural
loads. Tubes may be driven either closed-ended with welded base plates or open-ended.
Open-ended piles may be easier to drive through intermediate hard layers but are more
susceptible to damage if obstacles are encountered.
Steel tube piles should be concrete filled after installation making them highly ductile and
able to withstand more lateral spreading than other pile types.
a set.
resistance above the bearing stratum, and including the effect of down-drag from non-
liquefied soils.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Driven precast concrete piles

Concrete piles can be manufactured to desired length and driven to bear in the target-
bearing stratum. Where driven at reasonably close spacing, they have the added benefit of
densifying loose sandy soils. The main limitation of precast concrete piles is limited ductility
to withstand lateral ground movements, and piles will need to be specially detailed for
ductility.
a set.
resistance above the bearing stratum.
At some sites it may not be possible to drive precast concrete piles to the target depth
because of excessive resistance through intermediate strata causing premature refusal to
driving. In such cases, jetting or predrilling may be necessary or other foundation types will
need to be used.
In all cases, jetting or pre-drilling should not be continued into the bearing stratum and the
piles should be driven to the target depth within the bearing stratum.
UPDATE:
Figure 15.5: Pile head detail – concrete
December 2012
The following pile types are considered less suitable for residential construction in TC3.
These are not precluded from use, but will require additional engineering input to ensure
satisfactory performance.
Continuous flight augur piles (CFA)

CFA piles are formed by first screwing a hollow-stemmed augur into the ground to the target
depth, then slowly withdrawing the augur while high-slump concrete is pumped down the
hollow stem to form the pile. Special monitoring equipment is required to ensure that the
concrete flow rate matches the withdrawal rate of the augur to prevent formation of voids.
A steel reinforcing cage is inserted immediately after the final withdrawal of the augur.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
These piles are considered less suitable because they typically have a high side-resistance
capacity, and initial load transfer after construction will be mostly by side-resistance, including
through the liquefiable strata. During liquefaction, most side resistance will be lost and
will have to be transferred to end bearing – a relatively soft mechanism that can induce
settlements as the load is transferred to the base of the pile.
The settlement in this case needs to be checked carefully, including the added load from
down-drag. Settlement may be controlled by embedding the piles deeper into the bearing
stratum.
above the bearing stratum, and including the effect of down-drag from non-liquefied soils.
These piles will also need to be specially detailed for ductility to prevent brittle shear failure
from lateral soil movements.
Bored piles
Bored holes for cast-in-place concrete piles will generally be unstable in TC3 areas and will
require temporary support using steel casings or drilling slurries and will need to be poured
using a tremie. These techniques are unlikely to be economical for residential construction.
These piles are considered less-suitable because they typically have a high side-resistance
capacity, and initial load transfer after construction will be mostly by side-resistance, including
through the liquefiable strata. During liquefaction, most side resistance will be lost and
will have to be transferred to end bearing – a relatively soft mechanism which can induce
settlements as the load is transferred to the base of the pile.
The settlement in this case needs to be checked carefully, including the added load from
down-drag. Settlement may be controlled by embedding the piles deeper into the bearing
stratum.
above the bearing stratum, and including the effect of down-drag from non-liquefied soils.
Micropiles
Micropiles are small diameter piles and include both driven and bored varieties. The main
drawback of micropiles in this situation is that they typically achieve most of their load
capacity from side resistance with relatively small end-bearing capacity. Therefore, they will
need to penetrate well into the target-bearing stratum to achieve sufficient capacity after
neglecting the side resistance through the liquefiable strata and taking into accouint the
effects of down-drag.
15.2.4 Particular geotechnical investigation requirements

Where deep pile foundations are being considered at a site, it will be necessary to carry
out a deep site investigation. The objective is to identify a suitable bearing stratum with
the minimum characteristics identified above. In addition, it is necessary to identify the
thickness of the surface crust and other non-liquefying layers to be able to assess the most
suitable pile type and any issues with driving and down-drag.
N E W F O U N DAT I O N S / PAG E 1 5 . 1 2
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
The following investigation strategy is recommended:

1. Carry out CPT at site (refer section 13).
2. If the profile appears to meet the general requirements for deep pile foundations,
continue with a second CPT to provide confidence that bearing stratum extends across
the footprint.
3. If the CPT is unable to prove the minimum thickness required for a bearing layer, then a
machine borehole with SPTs at 1 m or 1.2 m centres is required to prove the minimum
thickness of the bearing layer.
15.2.5 Design approaches and parameters

Deep pile foundations will need specific engineering design in all cases, given the
complexities of identifying a suitable bearing layer, calculation of bearing capacity, and
lateral loading. The design of the floor slab supported by the pile system also requires
careful consideration.
Piles
The objective of using pile foundations is to limit settlement of the building independent
from settlement and deformation of the ground above the bearing stratum. Calculation
of pile load-deformation response in each individual situation is complex and generally
excessive for a residential building. Building weights are likely to be low and pile sizes small,
so a simplified procedure is recommended based on standard limiting equilibrium strength
calculations and a conservative strength reduction factor. This procedure is:
1. Sum the ULS-factored gravity building loads.

2. Calculate ideal vertical capacity of pile embedded in target bearing stratum (from only
that part of pile embedded within the target bearing stratum) using standard limiting
equilibrium procedures.
3. Apply Фg = 0.4 (intended to both provide reliable capacity and also limit settlements)
The design equation becomes:
Ф g R u {in bearing stratum} ≥1.2G +1.5Q

For this simplified design procedure (for driven piles for residential buildings only) the
down-drag forces acting on the pile above the bearing stratum may be ignored. If bored
piles or CFA piles are being considered, then the down-drag forces should be added to the
factored gravity loads and the effects of loss of side resistance with liquefaction should be
carefully considered.
It is assumed that if the above design procedure is followed for the ULS case, then it will
not be necessary to separately consider the SLS case. If liquefaction is triggered for the
SLS case, then the above design procedure should limit settlement to 25 mm or less.
Kinematic effects (lateral soil-pile interactions) do not need to be explicitly considered

in each case for the pile types indicated as being most suitable. Analysis of these pile
types has shown that they should be able to withstand lateral surface movement of up
to 300 mm for typical situations (see Table 15.3 for details). If the less suitable pile types
are to be used, designers will need to demonstrate their ability to withstand a lateral
surface movement of 300 mm while maintaining an ability to continue to support the
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
building and be reusable for a repaired structure. The results shown in Table 15.3 are
based on an assumed thickness for the liquefied layer of 6 m. If the liquefied layer at a
site is significantly thinner than 6 m then the ability of piles to accommodate global lateral
movement will be reduced and designers should make their own assessment of kinematic
effects.
Pile buckling within liquefied soil layers does not need to be considered explicitly for the
most suitable pile types for the typical conditions considered in Table 15.3. Pile buckling
may be an issue for heavily loaded, slender piles within very thick liquefied layers.
Additional guidance is given in Bhattacharya et.al. (2004).
Simplified design procedures for driven piles based on SPT and CPT results are given in
Appendix C3.
Table 15.3 summarises typical available pile sizes and corresponding indicative capacities.
Figures 15.6 and 15.7 show layouts and sample detailing for a flat concrete slab on deep
piles and Figures 15.8 and 15.9 show layouts and sample detailing for a waffle slab on deep
piles.
Table 15.3: Typical pile sizes and indicative capacities
Driven Steel
Tube
Screw Driven Driven Driven Driven
Pile Type (Concrete
Pile Timber H-Pile Concrete Concrete
filled, closed
end)
Typical size 300 Helix

250 SED 200 UC 200 CHS 150 x 150 200 x 200
x 150 NB
UPDATE: Load capacity1 95 KN 90 KN 75 KN 70 KN 95 KN
December 2012
Lateral
300 mm 300 mm 300 mm 300 mm 300 mm3 300 mm3
displacement 2
Advantages Minimal Cheap, Good Very high Cast to Cast to

down light, ductility, ductility required required
drag, readily penetrate length length
very high available hard layers,
ductility reduced
down-drag
Disadvantages Limited Difficulty Relatively Relatively Limited Limited

contractor penetrating expensive expensive ductility; ductility;
capacity dense need length need length
layers certain certain
prior to prior to
fabrication; fabrication;
difficult to difficult to
splice splice
Note:
1. Dependable capacity embedded 1 m into N60 = 25 sand or gravel. Higher capacities will be obtainable in
denser soil or deeper embedment.
2. Ability to withstand global lateral movement assuming 2 m thick stiff crust and 6 m thick liquefied layer.
3. Special detailing for ductility required. Assessment based on proprietary design of Hi-Stress Concrete
Ltd. Other pile designs will require specific analysis.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Slab on piles
Slabs should be designed to span over the piles, ie, not requiring support from the soils
beneath the slabs.
Two sample slab options have been designed to be supported on the deep piles. The first
is a solid 200 mm thick slab and the second is a waffle slab (refer Figures 15.6 and 15.8).
These options are adapted from TC2 foundation options 2 and 4 respectively in Part A,
section 5.3.1.
The beams of the waffle slab are 500 mm wide to provide space for pile head details.
For situations where significant lateral stretch of up to 200 mm has occurred across the UPDATE:
December 2012
footprint or is considered likely to occur, the special sliding pile head details shown in
Figures 15.3, 15.4 and 15.5 should be used.
Figure 15.6: Illustrative pile layout for a flat concrete slab
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
UPDATE: Figure 15.7: Section A-A – Illustrative pile layout for a flat concrete slab
December 2012
Figure 15.8: Illustrative layout and sample details for a waffle slab on deep pile
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Figure 15.9: Sample detail for a waffle slab on deep piles UPDATE:
December 2012
15.2.6 Specification and construction issues

Deep piles require a good level of resilience (timber) or ductility (steel and concrete) to be able
to cope with the required minimum level of global lateral movement. Timber piles and screw
piles (concrete-filled steel tubes) and steel H-piles and tubes are considered to have sufficient
resilience or ductility for sites with moderate potential for global lateral movement. Concrete
piles, either driven precast or cast insitu (eg, CFA), will require special detailing for ductility.
At sites with major potential for lateral movement, all pile types will require specific design and
detailing to ensure that they can withstand the expected lateral movements without suffering
a brittle shear failure.
Piles must be specified to be installed to the target depth established from the site
investigation by the engineer. For driven piles, the required driving energy to achieve the
necessary penetration should be estimated and suitable pile-driving equipment should be
specified accordingly.
Difficulties may arise during installation from intermediate hard layers that are difficult to
penetrate. These hard layers should be identified during the investigation and taken into
account when assessing the suitability of any particular pile type and driving equipment.
Predrilling through such layers should generally be acceptable and may be beneficial in
reducing the amount of down-drag on the piles. However, pre-drilling should not extend into
the bearing layer, and the pile should be driven to target depth in the bearing layer using a
suitable hammer.
Leaving piles bearing on to intermediate hard layers because of an inability to penetrate to the
target layer is not acceptable.
It is likely that after an earthquake event, the ground surface will settle relative to the piled
building. Service connections will require special detailing to ensure that they are able to cope
with the expected relative movement.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15.3 Site ground improvement

The guidance in section 15.3 provides information about the use of ground improvement
to mitigate liquefaction-induced foundation damage. The design philosophy and objectives,
types of improvement methods currently recommended, and general design and
construction considerations are presented in this section. In addition, Appendix C4 UPDATE:
provides specific construction and quality control requirements and example method Replaced all of 15.3
statements for each ground improvement type. Appendix C4 must be read in June 2015
conjunction with this section.
Section 15.3 contains a number of recommended ground improvement methods for

mitigating the effects of liquefaction induced by seismic shaking. The types of ground
improvement and different options are summarised in section 15.3.5. In some cases these
methods offer benefits in managing other geotechnical issues which also need to be
considered for each site.
A CPEng geotechnical engineer with appropriate earthquake engineering knowledge is

needed to determine the applicability of each ground improvement method for the site in
question, and to carry out any necessary design work. Some of the methods may have a
relatively prescribed specification but they are only applicable where soil conditions are
appropriate. Other methods will require a degree of design effort.
When following this guidance, it is expected that the CPEng geotechnical engineer
responsible for the specification of the ground improvement works takes into
consideration all aspects of the site when selecting a suitable method, and provides all
normal documentation such as design drawings, specifications, Producer Statements or
statements of professional opinion, and Design Features Reports. It is also important that
construction and post installation quality control records are kept, and as as-built locations
are recorded.
15.3.1 Objectives and scope

The intention is that an integrated foundation solution is constructed, consisting of:
• ground improvement carried out in accordance with the recommendations set out
in this section of guidelines, combined with:
• stiff foundation elements or relevellable timber subfloors from section 5 or 15.4.
An integrated foundation solution is expected to provide a building platform that mitigates

liquefaction-induced differential settlement to the degree that acceptable structure/
foundation performance is maintained. In some cases, for example flood zones, total
settlement might also be a factor in deciding both the final depth of treatment and the
form of the foundation system. (It is recognised in the latter case that in many cases this
may not be economic, and also goes beyond the basic performance requirements of
the Building Code – however these issues should still be considered. In some instances
homeowners may wish to contribute more to the costs of the project in order to gain
additional protection).
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
As described in section 8.2, the desired outcome at SLS levels of shaking is a low level of
damage that is readily repairable. At ULS, a low probability of rupture of the structure is
a requirement of the Building Code. During the Canterbury earthquake sequence, house
superstructures designed to NZS 3604 generally met these performance requirements.
However it was often liquefaction induced land deformations that resulted in high levels of
foundation damage, particularly for houses with concrete floors. An integrated foundation
solution selected from the guidance will result in a foundation system that is unlikely to be
the weak link in the building system. Therefore, given the cost of constructing foundations
and the difficulties that can be involved in repairing them, a higher degree of resilience for
the housing stock at ULS levels of shaking will be provided.
These objectives can be achieved by the careful selection of one of the options outlined in
this section.
The ground improvement methods in this section are applicable to conventional one- to
two-storey residential construction (see 1.4.3) on confirmed TC3 sites (ie sites verified by
site investigation as requiring TC3 foundation solutions). For buildings that fall outside this
scope, the provisions of this document do not necessarily apply, and specific engineering
design will be needed.
15.3.2 Field testing programmes

In 2011 the Department of Building and Housing (now the Ministry of Business, Innovation
and Employment) commissioned a field trial of a number of ground improvement options
to see if infrastructure-scale methodologies could be adapted to residential-scale
developments. During the field trial the selected options were subjected to blasting
induced liquefaction, and the performance of each of the mitigation methods was assessed
by reference to measured settlements, ground vibration and pore pressure response.
In addition to the 2011 trials, in 2013 the Earthquake Commission (EQC), in conjunction
with MBIE and other parties, investigated several shallow ground improvement methods
designed to strengthen or build a non-liquefiable ‘crust’. The 2013 trials are referred to as
the EQC Ground Improvement Trials and the resulting Science Report is currently in the
process of being published.
The testing programmes were internationally overviewed. The programmes have produced
data that has been analysed and reviewed relative to current international practice, to
provide a measure of the expected performance of these mitigation options in typical
Christchurch liquefaction-prone soils.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15.3.3 Design approach

15.3.3.1 Typical soil types
In Christchurch, liquefiable soil generally falls into three broad categories – namely:
• relatively clean sand sites (this generally means having a Soil Behaviour Type Index
(IC) of less than 1.8 or fines content (FC) < 15%)
• silty sand (1.8 < IC < 2.3 approx. or FC > 15%), or sandy silt sites (2.3 < IC < 2.6
approx. or FC > 35%)
• sites where clean sands are interbedded with silty materials.
Predominantly silty soils may also be susceptible to liquefaction if the silt is non-plastic or
of low plasticity. Soils with a high fines content and exhibiting some plasticity (IC > 2.6),
are generally regarded as non-liquefiable (but may still be subject to cyclic softening).
Critical liquefiable layers which might affect foundation performance can be found at
varying depths in the soil profile. Shallower or thicker liquefiable deposits will have a
greater effect on foundation performance than deeper or thinner deposits. Other aspects,
both technical and practical, will also vary from site to site. For these reasons, the ground
improvement methods in this section are not intended to be universal solutions – each
site must be considered on its own merits when selecting the most suitable method for
that site.
Note:
1. Where ‘clean sands’ are referred to in this section, this generally means soils with
an IC < 1.8 (approx.) or a fines content < 15%. Where silty sands are referred to,
this generally means soils with 1.8 < IC < 2.3 (approx.) or a fines content between
15 and 35%.
2. The FC and IC delineations (for varying degrees of ‘siltiness’) discussed in this
document should be read only in the context of soil behaviour with respect to
liquefaction triggering.
15.3.3.2 Liquefaction mitigation strategy

It is important to note that the overall liquefaction mitigation strategy comprises an
integrated foundation solution, not ground improvement alone. The role of the ground
improvement component of the works is to reduce, not eliminate, future ground
deformations to the extent that the surface foundation component (either a stiff foundation
element or in some cases a relevellable timber subfloor) can meet the performance
objectives outlined in section 15.3.1.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
The liquefaction mitigation strategy associated with the improvement methods

comprises either:
• shallow ground improvement - Accept that liquefaction will occur and reduce
the potential for damaging differential settlement and flexure of the house
superstructure by constructing a non-liquefiable surface ‘crust’ in combination with
a robust, stiffened foundation system; or
• deep ground improvement - Eliminate or greatly reduce the liquefaction potential
(at design levels of shaking) throughout the depth of the soil profile expected
to contribute to ground surface settlement (eg 8-10m for lightweight residential
structures). This is the traditional approach to ground improvement. Again, this
would be in combination with a suitable surface stiff foundation system.
Each of the methods contained in this document will behave differently in response to
an earthquake and their inclusion does not imply equivalency of performance between
them. The methods in this document have been selected to provide suitable performance,
but will not in all cases completely remove the risk of liquefaction or liquefaction-induced
damage. However, it is expected that the overall integrated foundation system will control
differential movements such that each method will meet the performance objectives
defined in section 15.3.1, and therefore will comply with the requirements of the Building
Code.
Shallow ground improvement in combination with a robust, stiffened foundation system to

control liquefaction-induced differential settlement is expected to be suitable for many TC3
sites in Christchurch. Shallow ground improvement will mitigate the effects of liquefaction
of soils within the depth of improvement and also mitigate the surficial effects of deeper
liquefiable layers. However, where the liquefiable soils extend well below the depth of
improvement, there will not be a reduction in liquefaction potential or related settlement in
those materials, and therefore total settlements may still be large.
On some sites, it may be desirable to control total as well as differential settlement; for
example where such settlement would result in the building floor level falling significantly
below design flood levels and raising the house back above the flood level would be
difficult or costly. There are also some limitations on the applicability of the ground
improvement methods outlined in this document, based on calculated index settlements
for a site (see section 15.3.8).
The principal purpose of the index settlement calculations is to provide a convenient

method for broadly classifying sites. When selecting ground improvement methods it is
also important to consider the location in the soil profile of the critical liquefiable layers.
As an example, if ground improvement is being adopted, and the bulk of the liquefaction-
induced settlement occurs in a sandy layer between 4.5m depth and 7m depth that is
overlaid with siltier materials, it may not be advisable to select a 4m deep composite crust
solution. Selecting either a deep ground improvement solution, or a shallow raft solution,
could be a better option in this case.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Site performance, and hence overall resilience, will generally improve with increasing depth
of ground improvement, with maximum improvement occurring when treatment extends
through the full depth of potentially liquefiable soils. Deep ground improvement methods
are included here primarily for control of total settlements; however, they also can be useful
for mitigation of the effects of lateral spread, depending on the location of the critical
liquefiable layers. Although nominally excluded from ‘major’ lateral stretch areas in terms
of the scope of this document, these methods can be successfully utilised in lateral spread
zones with specific engineering design input.
15.3.3.3 Mechanisms of improvement

The mechanisms of ground improvement for the methods presented can be grouped
as follows (noting that some methods can perform more than one of these functions,
depending on soil conditions):
• densification of the in situ soil to eliminate or reduce triggering of liquefaction at

design levels of ground shaking. Most effective in clean or low fines content sands.
Methods include:
−− rapid impact compaction (RIC)
−− dynamic compaction (DC)
−− columns of highly compacted aggregate, (eg RAP – Rammed Aggregate PiersTM)
−− stone columns (ie conventional stone columns) also known as vibro-replacement
stone columns.
• replacement of near surface weak soils with a stronger non-liquefiable soil to form
a stiff crust. Effective in both sandy and silty soils. Methods include:
−− ex situ: excavate, backfill and recompact – use compacted native soil, cement-
stabilised soil or imported gravel to construct an engineered fill raft.
−− in situ stabilisation – mixing cement into the soil to construct a cement-stabilised
raft.
• stiffening of the liquefiable soils to improve the integrated foundation system
performance through a reduction of cyclic strains; sometimes in combination with
increasing liquefaction resistance through densification. This can be effective in both
sandy and silty soils. However in sandy soils densification is typically more effective
than stiffening. In silty soils the stiffening effects may be primarily due to increases
in lateral stresses (which can be lost if large lateral strains occur, for example during
a lateral spread event). Methods include:
−− columns of highly compacted aggregate (eg RAP)
−− deep soil mixing (DSM)
−− driven timber piles.
An example of soil stiffening is the use of RAP columns. During the 2013 EQC ground
improvement trials, RAP columns were found to perform better than most other methods
tested in eliminating or reducing the onset of liquefaction in sandier materials at design
levels of ground shaking. As the fines content of the soil increased, the effectiveness of
this method to densify the soil decreased. However, it was noted that the installation of the
columns still acted to stiffen the overall soil mass which resulted in a reduction in triggering
of liquefaction up to moderate levels of ground shaking.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
On a site containing silty soils discretely layered with clean sands, columns of highly
compacted aggregate or conventional stone columns may be effective in both densifying
the sandy layers and stiffening the siltier soils, and thereby adequately reducing the
liquefaction hazard. However during construction, in some cases the lower permeability
layers may impede pore pressure dissipation and therefore reduce the effectiveness of
the improvement of the sands. For a predominantly silty sand site, a replacement method
such as a cement stabilised raft or reinforced crushed gravel raft would be a preferred
option if total settlement is not a concern.
15.3.4 Geotechnical investigation requirements

The selection of any ground improvement options in TC3 should be made on the basis of
adequate site-specific geotechnical investigations.
The site assessment and ground investigation should include good quality information
on the soil types, geotechnical properties and the depth to groundwater. Supplementary
testing may be required for detailed design.
There will be limitations on the use of some methods where conditions are highly variable,
where peat or silty or clayey soil layers are present, and where steep interfaces occur
between subsurface layers (ie highly variable depths of liquefiable deposits across a
building footprint resulting in the potential for accentuated differential settlements).
The following general requirements are necessary for investigation of sites which are being
considered for ground improvement:
1. Collection and assessment of geotechnical information should be undertaken as

outlined in section 13 of this guidance to support the remediation design.
2. Investigations should determine that soil types will respond to the selected
improvement method, and that treated zones are sufficiently uniform (or the ground
improvement design is suitably robust) that the design will not be compromised by
spatial variability within the soil layers.
3. Investigation depths should be adequate to enable the assessment of total settlements
for the site.
4. Laboratory testing to determine fines contents and plasticity of soils can be carried out
as part of a liquefaction investigation, but for routine house investigations this is often
not done (instead relying on simple correlations with in situ testing). This generally
errs on the side of conservatism (if any) for Christchurch soils. For design of ground
improvement works however, it is recommended that more consideration be given
to sample retrieval and lab testing. This will in many cases enable refinement of the
ground improvement design. In particular, on silty sand sites the results of lab testing
may result in less conservative (ie less expensive) design outcomes. Reference should
be made to report UCD/GCM-14/01 ‘CPT and SPT Based Liquefaction Triggering
Procedures’ by R Boulanger and I Idriss (2014), particularly in relation to CFC correlations.
5. Calculation of liquefaction triggering and ground settlements should be carried out in
accordance with section 13.5 and with particular reference to technical guidance Q&A’s
50 & 51.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15.3.5 Improvement types and options

The following is a list of the more common methods or types of ground improvement
systems used internationally. There are many variants, but they can be generally grouped
by their principal mechanism of mitigating liquefaction effects as follows:
• densification of either the crust layer and/or the deeper liquefiable soils. This
includes methods such as compaction, excavation and replacement/recompaction,
vibroflotation, preloading, dynamic compaction (DC), and rapid impact compaction
• crust strengthening/stabilisation by permeation grouting, stabilisation mixing or
replacement
• reinforcement using deep soil-cement mix piles, jet grouting, stone columns, close
spaced timber or precast piles
• containment by ground reinforcement or curtain walls
• drainage using stone columns or earthquake drains.
Most of these methods require clear access to the treated zone ie greenfield site,
demolition or temporary removal of the existing dwelling.
Based on the outcomes of the 2011 and 2013 MBIE/EQC field trials, the following methods
or types are currently included in these guidelines (grouped by construction methodology
rather than mitigation mechanism):
• Type G1 – Shallow densified crust (ie excavated and recompacted soil or

replacement fill (sometimes reinforced); also dynamic compaction or rapid impact
compaction).
• Type G2 – Shallow cement stabilised crust (ie cement-mixed soils, either by
excavate and recompact or in situ mixing).
• Type G3 – Deep soil mixing (ie soil mixed or jet-grouted columns).
• Type G4 – Deep stone columns.
• Type G5 – Crust reinforced with inclusions – (ie intermediate depth highly
compacted aggregate columns, stone columns or driven timber piles).
These methods are further divided into 10 sub-types, which are listed in Table 15.4 below.
This table also summarises advantages and disadvantages of each method, as well as
applicability criteria that are discussed later in this section.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
Table 15.4: Summary of ground improvement types covered by this guidance document1 (grouped by construction methodology)
Group Type Description Nominal depth Refer Advantages
of treatment Section
below base of
foundation
G1 G1a Excavate and 2m 15.3.10.1(a) • Can be used in all soil conditions. 2

Shallow recompact • Simple construction using typical earth works plant.
densified • Can do on a single, small section (eg compared with G1b).
crust • May be suitable for ‘major’ lateral stretch zones with additional geogrid. 3
G1b Dynamic 4m 15.3.10.1(a) • Highly effective in clean sands.4

compaction • Results in thicker improvement zone than some other ‘shallow’ methods.
• No dewatering required.
• No stockpile area required.
G1c Rapid impact 4m 15.3.10.1(a) • Same as for Type G1b; and,

compaction • Faster and more efficient than dynamic compaction for shallow (≤ 4m
deep) applications.
G1d Reinforced 1.2m 15.3.10.1(b) • Same as for Type G1a; and,

crushed gravel • Shallower excavation and less material handling.
raft • Suitable for use in ‘major’ lateral stretch zones with additional geogrid.
G2 G2a Reinforced 1.2m 15.3.10.2(a) • Can be used in all soil conditions.5

Shallow stabilised crust • Simple construction using typical earth works plant.
cement • Can do on a single, small section (eg compared with G1b).
stabilised • Stiffer, stronger raft than Types G1a and G1d.
crust • May be suitable for use in ‘major’ lateral stretch zones with additional
geogrid. 3
G2b Stabilised crust 2m 15.3.10.2(b) • Can be used in all soil conditions.5

(In situ mixing) • No dewatering required.
G3 Deep G3 Deep soil mixed 8m 15.3.10.3(a) • Can be used in all soil conditions.
soil mixed columns • No dewatering required.
columns • Good for reducing total settlement.
• Outside the scope of this guidance in ‘major’ lateral stretch zones. 3
G4 Deep G4 Deep stone 8m 15.3.10.3(b) • Highly effective in clean sands.4

stone columns • No dewatering required.
columns11 • Good for reducing total settlement.
G5 Crust G5a Shallow stone 4m 15.3.10.4(a) • Highly effective in clean sands.4

reinforced columns11 • No dewatering required.
with • Can access relatively small sites.
inclusions • Outside the scope of this guidance in ‘major’ lateral stretch zones. 3
G5b Driven Timber 4m 15.3.10.4(b) • No dewatering required.

Piles • Uses conventional equipment
• Can be used on sites with restricted access.
1 This is only a general summary table. The text of section 15.3 as well as Appendix C4 must be referred to for important details.
2 Silts/clays likely to require blending with imported granular materials. Unsuitable soils such as peat, high plasticity/organic clay/silt must be removed and
replaced with imported granular material.
3 Outside the scope of application of this guidance document but may be applicable with specific engineering design. In ‘major’ lateral stretch areas some
restrictions on foundation types apply (refer to Table 15.2).
4 Clean sands generally means having a CPT lC 1.8 or fines content < 15% approx.
5 Silty/clayey soils will require higher cement contents and careful moisture control; highly organic/peat soils should be removed from backfill material prior
to treatment (Type G2a).
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Disadvantages Applicable surface foundation components7
TC2 Type Foundations 8,9
Concrete slab Type 2 or 4 Type B (ring foundation)
• Likely to require dewatering where groundwater table (GWT) < 2.3m deep. Yes Yes
• Stockpile area required.
Only if pre-treatment SLS Only if pre-treatment SLS

< 100mm (or 50mm post < 100mm (or 50mm post
• Relatively large equipment required, high mobilisation costs. treatment)10 treatment)10
• Vibrations may negatively impact nearby properties
• Not effective in silty soils (FC > 15-25% or IC > 1.8 – 2.3 approx.) (Otherwise refer to section (Otherwise refer to section
• Not suitable in soils with > 5% organics. 15.3.8 for other surface 15.3.8 for other surface
• Not suitable in ‘major’ lateral stretch zones. foundation component options) foundation component
• Not good for small sites/sites with restricted access. options)
• Potentially high mobilisation costs.
• Same as for Type G1b.
• Likely to require dewatering where groundwater table (GWT) < 1.5m deep.
• Requires select import materials.
• Likely to require dewatering where groundwater table (GWT) < 1.5m deep.
• Some specialist contractor knowledge required.
• Requires select import materials.
• Specialist contractor knowledge and equipment required.

• Potentially difficult to verify whether target improvement consistently achieved.
• Not suitable in ‘major’ lateral stretch zones without specific engineering design.
• Potentially high mobilisation costs.
• Specialist contractor knowledge and equipment required. Yes No

• High mobilisation costs.
• Not good for small sites/sites with restricted access.
(Unless surface components
align accurately with discrete
• Not as effective in siltier soils (FC > 15-25% or IC > 1.8 – 2.3 approx.) 6 subsurface elements as a
• Specialist contractor knowledge and equipment required. specific engineering design
• High mobilisation costs. solution)
• Vibrations may negatively impact nearby properties
• Not good for small sites/sites with restricted access.
• Not as effective in siltier soils (FC > 15-25% or IC > 1.8 – 2.3 approx.) 6 Yes
• Specialist contractor knowledge and equipment required.
• High mobilisation costs.
Only if SLS < 100mm (or
50mm post treatment)
• Not as effective as shallow stone columns.
• Annulus may form around piles during intense ground shaking, allowing ejection
of sediment.
• Stock pile area required.
6 May still provide acceptable level of improvement in combination with a higher than typical area replacement ratio.
7 Further constraints may be imposed by the consideration of ULS settlements (see section 15.3.8).
8 In some cases TC3 surface foundations may also be applicable (see 15.3.8.2).
9 See Part A, sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2.
10 Refer sections 15.3.8.2, 13.5 and Q&A’s 50&51.
11 Includes columns of highly compacted aggregate.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
15.3.6 Selection of improvement type

When selecting a ground improvement option for a particular site technical considerations
include:
• SLS settlements – whether the site is in the better performing part of TC3 or not
(defined as having predicted index SLS settlement of ≤ 100mm in the top 10m of
the soil profile).
• where the liquefiable materials appear in the soil column – eg if it is necessary to
mitigate the effects of liquefaction occurring from materials below 5m depth, a
deep ground improvement method may be more suitable for the site than a shallow
method. Alternatively, it might be desirable to instead select an approach such as a
surface structure from section 15.4, particularly if there is a relatively intact surface
crust that might otherwise be compromised by installing inclusions through it.
• the location of the untreated liquefiable deposits in relation to the proposed finished
depth of treatment - also how the behaviour of untreated liquefiable materials might
affect future foundation performance.
• post-treatment settlements (SLS and ULS) – eg in a large event, whether
settlements will cause undue differential settlements, or possibly flooding issues for
the house.
• risk of lateral spread.
• soil type – whether the site is predominantly sandy (and thus amenable to
densification methods), or silty, and if there are significant organics present.
• water table depth.
Additionally there are construction issues to consider. On greenfield sites there will be
fewer construction issues to consider than for existing sites. These construction issues
include:
• within existing housing areas there will be a need to consider proximity issues
such as noise, vibration, stability of excavation batters and drawdown effects from
dewatering.
• where ground improvement is being installed for an existing house that is
undergoing repair, the house will be likely to require temporary removal, or the use
of horizontally mixed soil beams might be considered (see section 15.3.12).
• access for the relevant plant and machinery should be carefully considered,
especially for houses on rear sections, with narrow accessways or overhead
services.
• a building consent will be required when undertaking ground improvement works, if
the works are to be part of the intended integrated foundation solution. A resource
consent may also be required - requirements should be confirmed for each project.
Even if resource consent is not required for ground improvement works, it is
important to note that it will be necessary to comply with various performance
standards relating to hours of work, erosion and sediment control, construction
noise and vibration. Contaminated sites (HAIL or other), historic places, and sites of
archaeological interest will need to be carefully managed.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15.3.7 Surface foundation component

As outlined in section 15.3.1 the integrated foundation solution will consist of ground
improvement combined with a surface foundation component.
The surface foundation component will depend on:
• the ground improvement method selected (ie whether it comprises a continuous

‘raft’ element, or discrete ‘inclusions’);
• the ground conditions at the site (ie the expected future deformation performance of
the site); and
• other site characteristics (eg flood zones etc).
The basic requirements for constructing the surface portion of the integrated foundation
solutions are set out in the following parts of the guidance:
• TC2 concrete slabs Type 2 or 4: Part A, section 5.3.1

• TC2 Type B suspended floors: Part A, section 5.3.2
• TC3 Type 1 (suspended floor) surface structure: Part C section 15.4.3
• TC3 Type 2 (suspended floor) surface structure: Part C section 15.4.4
• TC3 relevellable slab: Part C section 15.4.8 (requires specific design).
Building weight considerations

For the shallower ground improvement methods Types G1 and G2 (refer section 15.3.5),
TC2 concrete slab Types 2 or 4, or timber floors from section 5.3 of the guidance can
accommodate single-level houses with heavy cladding and two storey houses with light
and medium cladding (refer also to Table 7.2). For the deep ground improvement Types G3
and G4, this limitation does not apply (subject to specific engineering input). For Types G5,
TC2 concrete slab options 2 or 4 (from section 5.3 of the guidance) can also accommodate
single-level houses with heavy cladding and two storey houses with light and medium
cladding.
TC3 surface structures Type 1 and 2 are limited to houses with light or medium weight
wall claddings and light weight roofs.
15.3.8 Applicability limitations

15.3.8.1 General
Each method is limited to some extent in the scope of its applicability, and the surface
foundation components that are suitable for use in conjunction with that method. In some
instances these limitations may be able to be overcome by using specific engineering
design to formulate a scheme that is equally as robust as those described in this guidance.
Some methods are suitable only for better-performing TC3 sites but their applicability can
be extended to other TC3 sites by modifications to the construction specification.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
15.3.8.2 Shallow surface crust treatment options

Shallow surface crust treatments (Types G1 and G2) are applicable to sites where the index
SLS settlements calculated over the upper 10m of the soil profile ≤ 100mm (or 50mm post-
treatment). This is because these methods control liquefaction over more limited depths
than the deeper solutions and therefore are limited to the better-performing parts of TC3.
(ie those areas having predicted index SLS settlement of ≤ 100mm in the top 10m of the
soil profile).
Where these conditions are met, these methods can be used in conjunction with the
following surface foundation components:
• TC2 concrete slab Type 2 or 4

• TC2 Type B (ring foundation) with suspended timber floor
• TC3 Type 1 (suspended floor) surface structure
• TC3 relevellable concrete surface structure.
Alternatively, where calculated settlements exceed these limits, shallow method Types G1
and G2 can still be used under the following circumstances:
• where treatment extends to 2m outside the foundation line, AND

• where in situ methods (cement mixing or compaction) are used then geogrid should
be installed at a depth of 0.5m (noting that the excavate and replace/recompact
options already include geogrids at the base); AND
• where the following surface foundation components are used:
−− TC3 Type 1 (suspended floor) surface structure
−− TC3 Type 2 (suspended floor) surface structure
−− TC3 relevellable concrete surface structure.
Where a TC3 Type 2 surface structure is constructed on an extended Type G1 or G2 ground

improvement, the compacted hardfill layer from section 15.4 can be omitted as long as
geogrid reinforcing is still incorporated in the upper 500mm of the improved crust (unless
already present in the base of the raft).
Some of these methods are applicable to areas of ‘major’ lateral stretch, where additional
geogrid reinforcing can be placed in the base of the densified crust (to enhance tensile
capacity).
Note:
Ground improvement methods requiring excavation are unlikely to be economic if
sheetpiling or extensive dewatering is required.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15.3.8.3 Deep treatment options

Deep treatment options (ie Types G3 and G4, deep soil-mixed columns, jet grouted
columns and deep stone columns to 8m depth) do not have limitations on their use in
terms of calculated vertical settlements, other than a requirement to check post-treatment
total settlements as outlined in section 15.3.9
Given the discrete nature of the inclusions used in these methods (and also the methods
below that involve a crust reinforced with inclusions), slab-type solutions are preferred.
These methods can therefore be used in conjunction with the following surface foundation
components:

• TC3 relevellable concrete surface structure
It may also be possible to use a TC2 Type B (ring foundation) or a TC3 Type 1 surface
structure, but only if the surface components are aligned accurately with the discrete
subsurface elements, as a specifically engineered design solution.
These methods could be applied in areas of ‘major’ lateral stretch with specific engineering
design.
15.3.8.4 Crust reinforced with inclusions

The application of Type G5 crusts reinforced with inclusions (as specified in this guidance),
which focus more on controlling differential settlements while accepting some degree of
total settlement, is restricted to sites where SLS settlements calculated over the top 10m
of the soil column are less than 100mm (or 50mm after ground improvement).
Where these conditions are met, these methods can be used in conjunction with the
following surface foundation components:

• TC3 relevellable concrete surface structure.
It may also be possible to use a TC2 Type B (ring foundation) or a TC3 Type 1 surface
structure, but only if the surface components are aligned exactly with the discrete
subsurface elements, as a specifically engineered design solution.
These methods are generally not applicable to areas of ‘major’ lateral stretch, without
specific engineering design.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
15.3.9 Additional requirements and considerations

Where total settlements might affect the future viability of the house (eg in flood zones)
a deep ground improvement option would be preferable, if this would mitigate the
liquefaction risk to the point where post-improvement liquefaction settlements are no
longer an issue (As discussed in section 15.3.1, it is recognised that in many cases this
may not be economic). In other instances, the timber floor options in conjunction with the
chosen ground improvement method may be more suitable than concrete slab options as
they provide more freeboard protection against flooding and also can be significantly easier
to re-level.
Accordingly, residual total post-liquefaction ground settlements (ie post-ground

improvement) should be assessed in all cases. If post–improvement ULS total settlements
calculated over the upper 10m of the soil profile exceed 150mm, a suspended floor
solution, or relevellable concrete surface structure (see section 15.4.8), should be opted
for. This will allow easier and therefore more economic recovery options. Additionally,
if significant issues arise from potential future total settlements, such as minimum
flood levels or large differential settlements, they should also be considered. This could
be addressed (if chosen to do so) by using deep ground improvement (preferably).
Alternatively, if a shallower treatment is chosen, a timber floor substructure or a relevellable
concrete surface structure could be used (or by otherwise providing additional freeboard).
Using a TC2-type stiffened slab to allow the building to be reasonably easily re-levelled and
raised by exterior jacks, combined with G1, G2 or G5 ground improvement options may
be an alternative to deep ground improvement where total settlement is an issue. Ground
conditions, the building weight and its shape would need to be considered. The stiffened
slab would need to be designed to span across its full width without undue deformation.
If a slab option from Part A section 5.3.1 is used then a span of 8m (sometimes greater)
is possible. Refer to section 20.4 Part E of the guidance for further information regarding
specific reinforcement details. Careful attention to the detailing of services (see section
5.7) is required to prevent damage during future re-levelling/raising efforts. This option is
possibly less desirable as it potentially provides less post-settlement freeboard than
a suspended floor foundation.
In all cases, if the chosen depth of treatment comes to within a metre or less of the
full depth of a liquefiable layer, it is recommended to extend the treatment to the base
of the liquefiable deposit. This is because it has been shown that shear strains can be
concentrated into thin untreated layers at the base of ground-improved blocks. This
will result in shear-induced deformations that are larger than conventionally predicted
volumetric strains (and also results in material migrating laterally from under the improved
block).
Such behaviour can cause more settlement than would otherwise be expected to occur
in the untreated layer. There are documented cases where this increase in strain has been
in excess of 100% of the normally calculated volumetric strain. This is a complex issue
subject to ongoing research.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
In most cases like this (ie where the chosen depth of treatment comes to within a metre or
less of the full depth of a liquefiable layer), it is prudent to fully treat the layer; particularly
if the layer is very loose, or if the layer is one of the more critical soil layers contributing to
the liquefaction hazard. If the thin liquefiable layer is however left in place, the calculated
settlement of that layer should be increased by at least 100% when assessing post-
improvement liquefaction settlements of the treated site. Careful consideration should also
be given to the potential for localised deformation and differential movements developing
in the liquefied layer which are not accounted for in the simplified liquefaction evaluation
procedures.
Although settlements are assessed at the normal design levels of shaking of SLS and ULS
(ie a 25 year return period and a 500 year return period for a house), it is recommended
also that a sensitivity check is carried out at an intermediate level of shaking – nominally
a 100 year return period. This will often be useful when making the correct choice of
ground improvement method and extent of treatment. Depending on the location of
critical liquefiable layers, this sensitivity check may show for example that one method will
give better performance at this intermediate level of shaking than another method, and
therefore provide superior long term resilience. This is despite both methods potentially
having similar outcomes at SLS and ULS levels of shaking.
A further consideration is that the plan shape of the site ground improvements should
be sufficiently regular (refer to Part A section 11.2 and Supplementary Guidance ‘Regular
Structural Plan Shapes in TC3’ dated September 2013 for guidance).
15.3.10 Specification, construction, and verification requirements

General requirements for each of the options are set out in this section. It is important
to refer to Appendix C4 in each case for detailed construction requirements and
method statements.
15.3.10.1 Type G1 – Shallow Densified Crust Treatments

These methods involve the formation of a densified block of soil beneath the foundation
elements. This is achieved either by densifying the soils that already exist at the site,
or by densifying imported materials. Where the imported materials are relatively strong
(ie gravels) the depth of the treated zone is reduced.
15.3.10.1(a) Types G1a, G1b, G1c – Densified Raft of Recompacted Soil or

Replacement Fill
These methods require the formation of a densified block of soil to a depth of 2m or more
to be formed beneath the foundation elements. This will generally be achieved by either
excavation and recompaction of the subsoils; or by Dynamic Compaction (DC), or Rapid
Impact Compaction (RIC).
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
Figure 15.10: Densified Raft – excavate and recompact (Type G1a) (left) and Rapid Impact
Compaction (Type G1c) (right)
DC is normally a commercial-scale methodology where cranes drop weights onto the

ground in order to compact the soils. RIC is a type of dynamic compaction, downscaled
from the traditional methodology. RIC utilises smaller scale plant that is more appropriate
to the residential setting. Both DC and RIC increase the density and therefore the stiffness
and bearing capacity of soils through the controlled and repeated impact loading. The depth
of influence for DC and RIC is expected to be 3 - 4m. (However it is noted that, like most
ground improvement methods, the technique can be varied to treat soils to greater depths).
Excavation and recompaction is best suited to sites where excavation and temporary
drawdown of the water table is possible and there is sufficient space to stockpile and
manage the materials. In addition, the following requirements generally apply for methods
involving excavation and recompaction (ie Type G1a):
1. The construction of a dense raft of engineered fill is required to a minimum depth of 2m
beneath the foundation elements.
2. The excavation base should extend at least 1m beyond the footprint of the proposed
structure.
3. Two layers of geogrid are required near the base of the raft. In areas of ‘major’ lateral
stretch, three layers of geogrid are required.
The above requirements also generally apply to the other methods of densification, but
they have other specific requirements to achieve an equivalent dense raft (see Appendix
C4). When utilising dynamic compaction methodologies (in particular) the potential impacts
on neighbouring properties and services need to be very carefully considered.
Those methods (DC and RIC) where geogrid layers cannot be placed in the base of the
improved zone are not considered applicable to areas of ‘major’ lateral stretch.
With methods that involve excavation and recompaction, where the excavated materials
are unsuitable for recompaction, another possibility is replacement of the excavated
materials with imported materials. This is however unlikely to be economic, and a Type G1d
(reinforced crushed gravel raft) would be preferable in that situation (being only 1.2m thick
instead of 2m).
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15.3.10.1(b) Type G1d – Reinforced Crushed Gravel Raft

This method provides a geogrid reinforced gravel raft to a depth of 1.2m beneath the
foundation elements.
Figure 15.11a: Reinforced Crushed Gravel Raft (Type G1d)
The following requirements generally apply:

1. The construction of a dense raft of engineered crushed gravel fill is required to a
minimum depth of 1.2m beneath the foundation elements.
structure.
3. Two layers of geogrid are required in the base of the raft. In areas of ‘major’ lateral
stretch, three layers of geogrid are required.
15.3.10.2 Type G2 – Shallow Cement Stabilised Crust treatments

15.3.10.2(a) Type G2a – Reinforced Cement Stabilised Crust
This method will provide a cement-stabilised block of soil to a depth of 1.2m beneath the
foundation elements and includes a geogrid reinforcement layer. This will generally be
achieved by excavation of the subsoils, mixing with cement and in situ recompaction in
layers with a geogrid layer placed above the first layer. On sites which contain high organic
or excessively fine-grained soils, an alternative is to dispose of the excavated subsoils and
replace with sandy soil, stabilised with cement.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
Figure 15.11b: Reinforced Cement Stabilised Crust (Type G2a)

1. The construction of a raft of stabilised fill is required to a minimum depth of 1.2m
beneath the foundation elements, dosed with cement and compacted.
structure.
3. One layer of geogrid is required in the base of the raft. In areas of ‘major’ lateral
stretch, two layers of geogrid are required.
4. Other additives, in additional to cement, can be considered if difficulties are being
experienced with compaction. For example, lime can be useful in soils with a high
clay content.
15.3.10.2(b) Type G2b – Cement Stabilised Crust – In Situ Mixing

This method will provide a cement-stabilised block of soil to a depth of 2m beneath the
foundation elements. This will generally be achieved by mechanical mixing in situ the
cement with the soil using a panel mixer or rotary cutter machine from the surface.
Figure 15.11c: In situ Cement Stabilisation (Type G2b)
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
The construction of a stabilised crust may be undertaken by in situ stabilisation with

cement, and surface compaction with a heavy static roller (where organic content is
less than 5% by volume); groundwater lowering is not necessarily required. This method
is more likely to be successful on cleaner sand sites. Where soils are organic or are
predominantly fine grained, then replacement with stabilised sandy soils will be required
In situ mixing is expected to be undertaken with a panel mixer or rotary cutter equipment.

1. The construction of a raft of stabilised fill is required to a minimum depth of 2m beneath
the foundation elements, dosed with cement and compacted.
2. The stabilised area should extend at least 1.5m beyond the footprint of the proposed
structure.
3. The method of mixing should ensure uniform distribution and mixing of the cement.
Overlaps of treated strips must be adequate to ensure there are no untreated zones.
4. The quantity of water added to facilitate mixing should be minimised to the extent
possible. In silty soils the addition of water may be needed to facilitate mixing, however
very careful control is required to avoid loss of strength.
5. Final cement dosage rates will vary and trial panels and/or laboratory testing is
recommended.
6. Testing is required to ensure the strength of the stabilised layer exceeds the measures
defined in Appendix C4.
7. This method is not considered applicable in areas of ‘major’ lateral stretch without
specific engineering design – for example where the extent and depth of treatment can
be extended to mitigate liquefaction potential in all soils that might contribute to a lateral
spreading problem for the site.
15.3.10.3 Types G3 & G4 – Deep Foundation Treatments

These methods provide a significantly deeper zone of treated materials. They will be
less cost effective than the shallower methods, but are included as an option where, for
example, a heavier than normal house is to be constructed (see section 15.3.7) or total
settlements might otherwise present flooding issues for a house.
15.3.10.3(a) Type G3 – Deep Soil Mixing

This method will provide a relatively deep zone of ground improvement that will reduce soil
shear strains during seismic events and therefore reduce the severity of liquefaction.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
Figure 15.12a: Deep Soil Mixed Columns (Type G3)
This method is generally applicable for all soil types provided there are no peat zones or
organic materials that exceed 5% by volume. They are normally constructed by jet grouting
or are injected with cement grout by a rotary auger rig.

1. The treated area must extend to a minimum of 1.5m outside the building footprint.
2. The jet grouting or deep soil mix columns layout must be targeted to achieve ground
treatment as specified in Appendix C4.
3. The columns must extend to a minimum depth of 8m below ground level or be founded
in dense sands or gravels which are proven to be continuous for at least 2m.
15.3.10.3(b) Type G4 – Deep Stone Columns

Deep stone columns were not included in the 2011 and 2013 MBIE/EQC ground
improvement trials because this fairly common method had been used at a number of sites
in Christchurch prior to the earthquakes, from which the performance can be assessed. A
shallower stone column solution is also available (Type G5a). However deep stone columns
are also included as a method that might be employed on sites where Type G5a cannot be
used due to excessive calculated settlements (refer section 15.3.9).
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Figure 15.12b: Stone Columns (Type G4)

1. Stone columns may be used on sites with less than 5% by volume of peat and
organic soils.
2. The treated area must extend to a minimum of 1.5m outside the building footprint.
3. Columns must be installed with a displacement procedure - installation
procedures that remove the native soils are not permissible.
4. Depth of columns should be determined by the engineer but the depth is expected to
be a minimum of 8m below ground level or as specified in Appendix C4.
5. In sandy soils, the columns are to be installed in such a manner that minimum mid-point
testing provides a density or strength profile as set out in Appendix C4, or in clean
sands a minimum column area replacement ratio (ARR) must be achieved, as set out
in Appendix C4. In soils with a higher fines content the target density as specified
in Appendix C4 must be achieved, or specific engineering analyses performed to
demonstrate that the liquefaction potential is adequately mitigated.
15.3.10.4 Type G5 – Crusts Reinforced with Inclusions

The methods in this section provide a ‘crust’ of adequate composite stiffness to reduce
damaging differential settlements. These methods were tested during the EQC ground
improvement trials in 2013. The trials for these methods provided the following results:
• Type 5a (stone columns) reduce the liquefaction vulnerability either by

densification of the soils (when the soils are relatively sandy), or by providing
‘reinforcement’ (when the soils are siltier). The ‘reinforcement’ effect is primarily
achieving a stiffening of the improved soil zone. In cleaner sandy soils (generally
where the CPT-derived IC < 1.8 approx.) the improvement (densification) achieved
can be verified by performing CPT tests at the midpoints between inclusion
locations.
• Type 5b (timber piles) redistribute foundation loads and therefore reduce
differential surface settlement even if liquefaction occurs between the piles.
(This may also occur with the Type 5a ground improvement if the inclusions are
sufficiently stiff.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
For siltier soils (generally where IC > 1.8 approx.), CPT cone resistance may not indicate an
appreciable improvement. For highly compacted aggregate columns only, the EQC ground
improvement trials showed that, as an alternative to CPT testing measuring the composite
(cross-hole) shear wave velocity (VS) of the improved soil (ie the cross-hole shear wave
velocity taken through both the native soil and the constructed inclusion) will give a good
indication of the relative stiffness of the block. For highly compacted aggregate columns,
where the composite cross-hole shear wave velocity (VS) is shown to be between 190m/s
and 215m/s as outlined in section C4.5 of Appendix C4, the composite soil block is
considered to have sufficient stiffness to act as part of an integrated foundation solution
that meets the performance criteria as outlined in section 15.3.1.
Figure 15.13a: Composite Shear Wave Velocity Measurement
1 2
3 4
While measuring cross-hole VS is relatively simple in concept, it does require experience

and must be carried out by highly trained specialists, using dual-receiver techniques.
Interpretation of cross-hole velocity measurements is complex, especially for composite
sections, and requires specialist technical expertise. At present, there is only limited
capability of the required standard within New Zealand, but with time and demand this is
likely to improve. Surface methods are not considered adequate as they are subject to an
unacceptably high degree of variability in interpretation.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
When using crusts reinforced with inclusions the primary goal is to control differential
settlements so that a surface foundation can be constructed. Total vertical settlements
should also be considered. Where such settlements might lead to other difficulties,
flooding issues for example, then it may be preferable to use subfloor systems that take
this into account. Examples of these subfloor systems are suspended timber substructures
or relevellable concrete surface structures.
For crust reinforced with inclusions in siltier sands, experience has shown that systems
that use highly compacted aggregate (eg ‘Rammed Aggregate PiersTM) are likely to be
more effective than conventional stone columns or driven timber piles. Such systems are
well suited for shallow deposits and are effective methods for densifying sandy soils. They
also have the ability to reduce liquefaction susceptibility of sands interbedded with silty
sediments and thus improve shallow ground performance in proportion to the amount of
sand in the soil. All methods however will meet the basic performance requirements as
set out in section 15.3.1. It should be noted that timber piles may not be as effective as the
other methods on silty sand sites - but can be useful in situations where access for larger
machinery is an issue.
15.3.10.4(a) Type G5a – Shallow Stone Columns / Columns of Highly

Compacted Aggregate
These methods, which are best suited to clean sand sites, will provide a zone of improved
ground (below the foundation elements) at least 4m deep. The improvement is achieved
by the installation of stone columns by methods which also induce a proven level of ground
strengthening.
When a system that uses highly compacted aggregate is employed (eg ‘Rammed
Aggregate PiersTM) the spacing of the inclusions to achieve a given density will typically be
wider (or in general the area replacement ratio (ARR) will be smaller) than for traditionally
installed (ie vibro replacement) stone columns.
Figure 15.13b: Shallow Stone Columns (Type G5a)
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C

1. Shallow stone columns may be used on sites with less than 5% by volume of peat and
organic soils.
2. Columns must be installed with a displacement procedure - installation procedures that
remove or heave the native soils are not permissible.
3. The treated area must extend to a minimum of 2m outside the building footprint.
This could be reduced through specific engineering design, by increasing the ARR
around the perimeter of the treated area in combination with further stiffening up the
supported foundation component.
4. Depth of columns should be determined by the engineer but shall be a minimum of 4m
(ie probe or mandrel depth) below founding depth or as specified in Appendix C4.
5. In sandy soils the columns are to be installed in such a manner that minimum mid-point
testing provides a density or strength profile as set out in Appendix C4, or in clean
sands a minimum column area replacement ratio (ARR) must be achieved, as set out in
Appendix C4.
6. In soils with a higher fines content, the target density as specified in Appendix C4
must be achieved, or specific engineering analyses performed to demonstrate that the
liquefaction potential is adequately mitigated. For highly compacted aggregate columns
cross-hole shear wave velocity (VS) testing can be utilised to assess the composite
stiffness of the improvement zone.
15.3.10.4(b) Type G5b – Driven Timber Displacement Piles

This method will provide a 4m deep zone of improved ground beneath the foundation
elements. The improvement is achieved by the installation of driven timber displacement
piles (note that jetted piles are not considered acceptable for this form of ground
improvement). The piles will tend to densify sandier soils, and in siltier soils will provide
a reinforcing effect. This method was shown in the EQC trials to reduce liquefaction
triggering at lower levels of ground shaking (ie somewhat higher than SLS level). When
liquefaction does occur however, the piles will still tend to act somewhat as a raft-like
system and redistribute foundation loads. This will help reduce differential settlements to
an acceptable level when combined with a stiff surface foundation component (see section
15.3.8.2).
The EQC ground improvement research demonstrated that, while providing an acceptable
minimum performance, other methods provided more resilience against the effects of
liquefaction on siltier sites.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Figure 15.13c: Driven Timber Piles (Type G5b)

1. Driven timber piles as a liquefaction ground improvement method may be used on
sites without significant deposits of peat and organic soils. Where there are significant
deposits of such materials, ground improvement may not be the optimal solution and
instead piles would need to be driven to a foundation load-bearing layer and a suitable
load-transfer mechanism for the surface foundation designed for gravity loads (see
section 15.2).
2. The treated area must extend to a minimum of 2m outside the building footprint.
3. Depth of driving should be determined by the engineer but shall be a minimum of 4m
(average) below surface founding depth (unless a continuous non-liquefiable layer exists
at a shallower depth).
4. In sandy soils the piles are to be installed in such a manner that minimum mid-point
testing provides a density or strength profile as set out in Appendix C4. In the absence
of post-installation testing, piles shall be installed to provide an area replacement ratio
as set out in Appendix C4.
5. A 200mm layer of compacted gravel should be placed over the pile heads before
construction of the surface foundation component. The piles should not be directly
connected to the surface foundations to allow for easy future relevelling.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
15.3.11 Service trenches and pavements

Where services cross the interface between the treated and untreated ground, detailing
should consider the potential for differential movements by including flexible or piped
sections and extension of the cement-treated backfill to form a transition zone.
In general, penetrations of the non-liquefiable crust should be minimised where practicable

because they may form a zone of weakness that provides a release path for surface
expulsion of liquefied soil.
Where services or other excavations are required in the treated (densified or stabilised)
zone, care should be taken to minimise disturbance to the surrounding materials. Granular
backfill is to be placed in 200mm thick layers with the addition of minimum 3% cement
by weight and the materials are to be well compacted to achieve a dense surface as least
as compact as the original improved ground. If excavations extend to within 500mm of
the edge of the treated zone, the excavation should extend to the edge and the ground be
made good as with the trench backfill.
Where pavements are to be constructed beyond the treated zone, a transition may be
provided by treating a 300-500mm deep subgrade, by the addition of 3% cement by
weight, and including construction joints at any interfaces that are formed.
15.3.12 Ground repairs

Quite separate to ground improvements that are carried out under a building footprint in
order to form part of an integrated foundation solution, other forms of ground repair may
be undertaken to return the liquefaction performance of the ground back to (or beyond) the
performance of the ground prior to the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.
If a homeowner elects to carry out such ground repairs, any of the ground improvement
methods as specified in section 15.3.10 and Appendix C4 could be used.
For treatment of the amenity areas outside the building platform, the level of ground
improvement should be designed to limit differential deformations to acceptable levels.
Consideration must also be given to future development (eg house extensions) that may
require upgrading of the ground repair to ground improvement. Examples of this are
shallow densified or stabilised crust methods where, outside the building platform, the
top 400mm of the crust might be replaced by up to 400mm of topsoil. This could later be
replaced by engineered hardfill if the building is later extended.
As the Earthquake Commission (EQC) has determined that a number of houses in

Christchurch have suffered a form of land damage they refer to as ‘Increased Liquefaction
Vulnerability’ (ILV), they have carried out an extensive testing programme for a number of
different methods that might be used to undertake such repairs.
As a result of the EQC testing programme a new type of ground repair methodology has
been found to be effective for ground repairs - Horizontal Soil Mixed beams (‘HSM’).
These consist of a series, usually two rows deep, of in situ soil cement mixed columns
constructed on a horizontal plane, using a modified directional drilling procedure.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Figure 15.14: Horizontal Soil Mixed Beams
1 2
3 4
In this method, directional drilling equipment is used to pilot a horizontal borehole beneath
an existing residential house, daylighting in a receiving trench on the opposite side of
the house. A mixing head is then attached to the end of the drill string, which is then
progressively reversed back along the alignment of the drill string. Grout is pumped through
the drill rods to the mixing head, which mixes the grout into the surrounding soil leaving a
horizontal beam of stabilised soil in the ground. This process is then repeated to make a
double row of HSM beams below the house.
Considerable additional resilience can be added to the system by including steel reinforcing
elements in the horizontal beams, and also by providing horizontal ‘capping’ beams across
the ends of the rows of the beams.
HSM beams require Specific Engineering Design. It is noted that it is very important that
the top layer of these horizontal beams is keyed well into the overlying non-liquefiable
crust. Construction of these beams under existing houses can provide improved ground
performance in future moderate seismic events.
The EQC Ground Improvement Trials Report, currently being finalised for publication,
provides additional information relating to horizontal soil mixed beams.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15.4 S
urface structures with shallow
foundations
15.4.1 Objective and scope

This section provides surface foundation options and design criteria that can be used on
most TC3 sites without ground improvement or deep foundation works. These options
can be relevelled in the event of future differential settlements caused by earthquakes,
and can accommodate varying levels of lateral spreading without causing rupture of the
superstructure.
It is considered that any damage experienced in SLS level earthquakes would be readily
repairable and is not likely to prevent continued occupation of the dwelling.
The surface structure types outlined in this section are only applicable for timber or steel-
framed structures with light roofing materials and light-weight and medium-weight wall
cladding, and with regular plan layouts.
Due to the range and different combinations of future vertical land settlement and lateral
spreading (stretch) on TC3 sites, careful consideration needs to be given to the selection of
surface structure options.
15.4.2 Types and options

Three types of surface structure are proposed in this section.
The Type 1 surface structure is a modified NZS 3604 light-weight platform which is UPDATE:
capable of withstanding moderate differential vertical settlement from liquefaction at SLS December 2012
levels (ie, corresponding to minor land settlement of less than the index value of 100
mm or sites where ground improvement has been carried out in accordance with section
15.3.4), and minor to moderate lateral strain across the building footprint at ULS levels (ie,
up to 200 mm). In both situations, only minor repairs are likely to be required. However, if it
is found that there is evidence of previous lateral spread at the site then the preference is
to use a Type 2 surface structure.
The Type 1 surface structure is likely to differentially settle in response to future

liquefaction-induced land settlement. However because of the light-weight nature and
regular shape of the superstructure, it can rely on the stiffness of the superstructure to
redistribute loads to remaining bearing points beneath the foundation. Sand ejecta may
accumulate in the underfloor space because there is no “seal” of the ground surface
beneath the floor, but access for sand removal is relatively simple.
This surface structure type is presented in section 15.4.3 as a standard solution that UPDATE:
December 2012
can be directly applied without further specific design on sites that are considered to
meet the above geotechnical criteria (with the exception of determining static bearing
capacities – see section 15.4.8).
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
UPDATE: The Type 2 surface structures provide platforms that are capable of resisting major
December 2012 lateral strain (ie, between 200 and 500 mm) at ULS and different levels of differential
vertical settlement at SLS levels, and also suitable on other sites where ground
improvement has been carried out in accordance with section 15.3.4.
Type 2A is a timber floor constructed over a 150 mm thick concrete ‘underslab’ on a gravel
raft, and is capable of resisting vertical liquefaction-induced settlement of the land of up
to 100 mm at SLS. Type 2B features a 300 mm thick concrete ‘underslab’, and is capable
of resisting vertical land settlement of up to 200 mm at SLS. Both Types 2A and 2B
should experience manageable curvature in response to settlement, allowing them to be
relevelled, having sustained minimal superstructure damage.
This surface structure type is presented in section 15.4.4 as a standard solution that
can be directly applied without further specific design on sites that are considered to
meet the above geotechnical criteria. It is suggested that initial applications of this
solution type may be reviewed by the Ministry in conjunction with the consenting
process (review process to be defined).
The Type 3 surface structures comprise a mix of relevellable and stiff platforms that are
also capable of resisting major lateral strain (ie, between 200 and 500 mm) in a ULS event.
It is intended that they be designed to either bridge loss of support or be light-weight
flexible platforms that are capable of being simply relevelled.
Two options within this type are presented in section 15.4.5 as concepts only, and require
specific engineering design and specification. Each remains essentially in a flat plane
or with a manageable curvature after an earthquake, allowing it to be relevelled, having
sustained minimal superstructure damage in the process.
The sample concepts for this surface structure type require specific design for all sites
where they are used. It is suggested that initial applications of this solution type are
discussed with the Ministry (process to be defined).
A summary of the suitability of the different types of surface structures with respect to the
different levels of lateral stretch and vertical settlement is shown in Table 15.5.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Table 15.5: Surface structure capability summary UPDATE:

December 2012
Vertical Land
Lateral Stretch (ULS)
Settlement (SLS)
>100 mm
<100 mm <200 mm <500 mm
(Potentially
(Moderate) (Moderate) (Major)
Significant)
Type 1 – light-weight platform

(standard solution) Yes No1 Yes No
Enhanced NZS 3604 subfloor
Type 2 – underslab platform (standard solution)

No1
Type 2A – 150 mm underslab on gravel
Yes Yes Yes
Up to 200
Type 2B – 300 mm underslab on gravel
mm1
Type 3 – concepts for specific design

Type 3A – Re-levellable platform Subject to
Yes Yes Yes
design
Type 3B – Stiff platform
(1) Unless ground has been improved (refer to section 15.3.4)
15.4.3 T
ype 1 surface structure foundations – light-weight
relevellable platform
This concept utilises normal NZS 3604 piled construction with the exception that the
bearers are bolt laminated to ensure continuity along the bearer (Figure 15.15). All the
piles are 125 mm square NZS 3604 ordinary timber piles, each fixed to the bearers with
four wire dogs and two skew nails. In the event of a lateral spread beneath the floor of
up to 200 mm, the outer piles are expected to remain upright, stabilised by the plywood
perimeter bracing, and the soil is expected to deform around the pile foundations. The
inner piles are expected to rotate about the connection to the bearer and may require
replacement or straightening after a significant lateral spreading event. The plywood
bracing system is capable of resisting the ULS shaking expected in the Canterbury
Earthquake Region.
While the performance under spreading is expected to be better when the spreading is
in the direction of the bearers, there is also sufficient bracing in combination with a floor
diaphragm to resist spreading in the orthogonal direction.
Depending on the degree of tilt on the inner piles after the earthquake, some piles may
need to be replaced. However, the extension of the ground beneath the foundation will
cause the piles to tilt in opposing directions, providing a degree of triangulation, which will
serve to brace the floor against translation.
Fibre-cement products may be used in lieu of plywood and further information on

substitution in this foundation type should be sought from the manufacturers’ websites.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
To provide the best performance in the event of significant liquefaction and/or spreading,
several principles are recommended in the layout of the superstructure, where practicable.
These include:
• A simple rectangular floor plan is preferred. When the floor length-to-width ratio is
greater than two, a central bracing wall should be included.
• If the floor is less than 12 m long and the other (shorter) direction is greater than 6 m
DELETION: then the central plywood bracing wall could be omitted.
December 2012 • ’L’ or ‘T’-shaped floors may be constructed (as in Figure 15.15) but the plywood
bracing must continue beneath the floor at re-entrant corners for at least 2/3 of the
building width along these lines.
• Total floor area limited to approximately 150 m2.
• Sheet claddings and sheet linings (as opposed to strip linings such as
weatherboards, unless underlaid with sheet lining).
• Rooms with an upper size limit (maximum wall spacing of no more than 7 m in the
long direction of the room).
• Long wall elements between windows and walls continuous above and beneath
windows (ie, a deep beam with holes in it rather than a series of discrete elements).
• Internal cross walls continuous from one side to the other with doorway openings
kept to a minimum size.
• A pitched truss roof with the ridge running in the long direction of the house (likely
to be the most normal roof construction on a rectangular floor plan).
• Solid connections between the tops of internal walls and the roof framing (helps to
mobilise the stiffness of the triangulated roof).
• A 2.7 m stud in lieu of a 2.4 m stud (provides deeper wall panels over doorways and
above and below windows).
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Figure 15.15: Plan of Type 1 surface structure
Figure 15.16: Perimeter foundation details for Type 1 surface structure UPDATE:
December 2012
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
15.4.4 T
ype 2 surface structure foundations – flexible relevellable
platform
The structures in this category are built in a conventional NZS 3604 fashion with timber
support piles. However the short piles are supported by a reinforced concrete ground slab
rather than the ground itself (Figures 15.17 to 15.22). Termed an ‘underslab’, these slabs are
sufficiently reinforced to resist lateral spreading in any direction.
The piles do not penetrate the soil surface, but are instead encapsulated in the reinforced
concrete slab, with vertical loads from the superstructure being transferred to the reinforced
slab via dowels passing through the piles.
The Type 2A option is a 150 mm thick concrete ‘underslab’ on a gravel raft, and is capable of
resisting vertical liquefaction-induced settlement of the land of up to 100 mm at SLS. Type
2B has a 300 mm thick concrete ‘underslab’ and is capable of resisting vertical settlement of
up to 200 mm at SLS.
These slabs could be post-tensioned in order to improve the out-of-plane stiffness compared
to the reinforced slab option, noting that stressing a slab is a specialised process.
Both options can accommodate lateral spreading in excess of 250 mm in a future SLS event
and up to 500 mm in a future ULS event in any direction. As the slab is set into in the soil,
lateral displacement of the slab under earthquake shaking will be restrained.
The underside of the joists may be up to 1 m above the slab with no need for diagonal
bracing, providing a clear working space beneath the floor. While vertical differential
settlement beneath the slab will result in a deformed floor profile as the piles settle, it is
expected that relevelling of the floor can be achieved by packing the tops of the settled piles.
Figure 15.17: Plan of Type 2 surface structure
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Figure 15.18: Section through Type 2A surface structure at the timber piles UPDATE:
December 2012
Figure 15.19: Detail of Type 2A surface structure at the timber piles (including gravel raft)
Figure 15.20: Section through Type 2B surface structure at the timber piles (including
gravel raft)
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
Figure 15.21: Detail of plywood stiffening to Type 2 surface structure (Type 2A illustrated)
15.4.5 Type 3 surface structure foundations – concepts for

specific design
Type 3A – Isolated concrete pads beneath stiff continuous bearers
(relevellable platform)
This concept has been developed to accommodate lateral spreading beneath the bearers
in any direction, and consists of a system of 1 m square surface concrete blocks which
support 190 x 140 bearers (laid in the line of expected lateral spread) and 190 x 45 floor
joists (refer Figures 15.22,and 15.23). The design philosophy is to maintain a resilient floor
plate that can slide on the concrete pads in a ground-spreading event but which will remain
in place when subjected to wind loads and earthquake shaking.
This system can accommodate lateral spreading in excess of 250 mm in a future SLS event
and greater than 500 mm in a future ULS event.
The concrete blocks can be cast offsite and installed on a prepared base. However, it
may be less difficult to achieve a consistently level surface across the blocks if they are
cast insitu.
The use of two 190 x 70 members, bolt-spliced together with staggered splices, ensures
that adequate tensile strength of the bearer is maintained. The connections between the
joists and the bearers will need to be designed to ensure that the bearers will slide on the
concrete blocks before the connections fail. Connections (consisting of steel angle brackets
connected to the concrete blocks with M6 “frangible” brass anchors) between the bearers
and the concrete blocks are expected to lock the floor in position under service-level
seismic loads and all wind loads. However, under the more severe ground-spreading loads,
the bolts securing the brackets are expected to shear off, allowing the bearers to slide
freely on the concrete blocks. The bearers are fixed to the concrete block at one end of
their length but allowed to slide over the blocks at other crossings.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
This concept does not offer significant resistance to differential vertical displacements of
the ground beneath the blocks, and some superstructure damage is expected to occur in
ULS events. However, any relevelling of the dwelling is expected to be possible by packing
the space between the concrete blocks and the bearers. Good access is provided beneath
the floor for this operation. New retaining bolts could then be installed. Calculations have
indicated that should the vertical support from one concrete block be lost, the bearer will
span between adjacent blocks, but the floor will feel springy until packing is installed to
regain the support.
If the potential spreading is clearly going to be in one direction only, the alignment of the
dwelling could be oriented so that the bearers run in the direction of the spreading. Then
the concrete block size could be reduced in the direction orthogonal to the spreading.
Figure 15.22: Plan of Type 3A surface structure
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
Figure 15.23: Type 3A surface structure - Detail at supporting blocks
Type 3B – Steel beams over prestressed concrete beams (stiff platform)

This concept consists of prestressed concrete 300 mm square ‘pencil ground beams’
running the full length of the house and laid in the direction of expected lateral spread.
A grid of steel beams (250 UB25 or 150 UC 23) is placed over these and they support the
floor joists. This combination offers a reasonably stiff floor grid against vertical differential
displacements (refer Figures 15.24 and 15.25). The steel beams run orthogonal to the
pencil beams and are lightly clamped to the pencil beams. However, in the event of greater
than anticipated spreading parallel to the steel beams, the clamped connections are
expected allow the steel beams to slide over the concrete beams.
The steel beams could be increased in size to improve the out-of-plane stiffness in the
direction parallel to their axis. Similarly, the prestressed concrete beams could be increased
in size to improve stiffness. However, the 300 mm x 300 mm beams are light enough
(3 tonne) to lift with small cranes.
A conventional timber floor and superstructure can be built on the steel beams.
Large differential vertical displacements beneath the concrete beams will be partially
reflected in the deflection of the floor plate but good access is provided for relevelling
if required.
The concept is directional in that lateral spreading of the ground beneath the concrete
beams can be accommodated, with the aid of a polythene slip layer, in the direction of the
beams. In the direction orthogonal to the beams the passive pressure of the spreading soil
could pull the pencil beams apart, hence the clamped as opposed to rigid joints with the
steel beams.
Lateral spreading in the direction of the prestressed beams of up to 250 mm SLS and
500 mm ULS spreading can be accommodated by this example concept.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Figure 15.24: Plan of Type 3B surface structure
Figure 15.25: Type 3B surface structure – Section through pre-stressed concrete support
beam and beam connection
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
15.4.6 Hybrid TC2/TC3 foundations

Some TC3 sites will ‘straddle’ the liquefaction settlement limits of TC2 and TC3, where
the SLS settlements are assessed as being less than 50 mm, but the ULS settlements are
assessed at greater than 100 mm.
In these cases the amenity requirements at SLS under liquefaction conditions would be
met by installing a TC2 foundation from Part A of the guidance, but damage might be at
unacceptable levels at ULS. A foundation solution that is more robust than normal TC2
foundations is required, but the full requirements of a TC3 foundation solution from section
15.2 (deep piles) or 15.3 (ground improvement) might be unnecessary.
UPDATE: In these cases, a combination of the TC2 Option 1 geogrid reinforced gravel raft with either
December 2012 an overlying Option 2 enhanced foundation slab (300 or 400 mm thick) or Option 4 (waffle
slab) is recommended. This will provide a foundation system that is robust, and will be
repairable (by grout injection) in the event of differential settlements following a ULS event.
This is termed a Hybrid TC2/ TC3 foundation.
For a timber-floored house, one of the Type 1 or 2 surface structure options outlined earlier
in this section is recommended.
In order to have determined that a site fits into this category, a deep geotechnical
investigation must be carried out on the site in question (ie, if an area-wide investigation
is being relied on, at least one deep CPT is still required on the site). However, where no
significant liquefaction damage has occurred on the site (and this is the basis of ruling
out SLS damaging settlements in areas that have been well tested beyond SLS levels of
shaking), the area-wide investigation can be relied on, with only a shallow investigation
being carried out on the site.
15.4.7 Particular geotechnical investigation requirements

UPDATE: All concepts are surface structures that accept the possibility of (readily repairable) future
December 2012 liquefaction-induced deformations, and the key criterion is that they are adequately supported
under dead and live loads. Therefore, once appropriately selected following consideration
of deep geotechnical information (ie, either a site-specific investigation or appropriate area-
wide information), a shallow soil investigation in accordance with the requirements for soil
investigation for NZS 3604 structures is suitable. The proviso that where practical the hand
auger should be taken down to 3 to 4 m (in other words a shallow investigation as described
in Part A, section 3.4.1) applies.
A further engineering assessment of suitability is required, based on observations of

foundation damage to any structure that is or was on the site. If the structure has or
had undergone an obvious severe punching-mode failure of the foundations (or if the
non-liquefiable surface crust appears to be less than a metre thick), then Type 2 surface
structures (short timber piles retained in a reinforced concrete ground slab) are the preferred
surface solution (or otherwise revert to a ground improvement or piling option if appropriate).
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
15.4.8 Design approaches and parameters

Table 15.6 summarises the alignment of the surface structure types with the range of
shallow foundation options across Technical Categories 2 and 3, including the ‘hybrid’ TC2/
TC3 foundation category described in section 15.4.6.
The corresponding performance expectations, design considerations and superstructure

constraints across these technical categories are indicated.
Geotechnical considerations UPDATE:

The Type 1 and 2 surface structure options can be specified as a standard solution December 2012
when the established soil bearing capacity equals or exceeds 200 kPa geotechnical
ultimate bearing capacity (or a specific assessment carried out in accordance with Part
A, section 3.4.1), and the superstructure is constructed within the constraints specified
in section 15.4.2. A 200 kPa geotechnical ultimate bearing capacity can be established
(or specific engineering assessment carried out) in accordance with Part A, section 3.4.1.
An engineering assessment is also required to establish whether or not SLS settlements
(assessed over the upper 10 m of the soil profile) are less than 100 mm and whether or not
the site is subject to only ‘minor to moderate’ lateral stretch (refer section 12.2).
The Type 3 surface structure concepts require that the foundations are sized in accordance
with the assessed design loads and the soil bearing capacity (as assessed from a shallow
investigation). An assessment is required to ensure that the site is not in a ‘severe’ lateral
stretch area (refer section 12.2).
Shear stresses, and therefore tension forces, transferred from the ground to the foundation
system can be calculated for Type 3 structures by assuming that lateral movement occurs
under half of the structure, and applying a suitable soil/structure interface friction angle.
For Type 3A structures particularly, account will also need to be taken of passive pressures
on the ‘upslope’ side of any foundation elements that extend below ground level.
Where expected future lateral spread movements cannot be confidently determined to

be strongly uni-directional, movements orthogonal (or a component of such) to the
foundation system may also need to be considered (ie, shear and moment may also be
induced in the foundation system as well as pure tensional forces). These concepts have
the capacity to accommodate spreading in all directions, although some are likely to
perform better than others.
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
UPDATE: Relevellable concrete surface structures

December 2012
Alternative concrete foundation options are likely to be developed by engineers for
particular situations.
Requirements and performance expectations for TC3 specifically designed concrete

foundations as follows:
Requirements/scope of application:
1. The application of such systems is limited to sites where less than 100 mm SLS
settlement is expected (calculated over the upper 10 m of the soil profile).
2. A geotechnical engineer should assess deep geotechnical information (either site-
specific or area-wide information) as per the current requirements for surface structures
in section 15.4.7 (as amended).
3. The finished floor level is to be a minimum of 300 mm above adjacent ground or on
sloping sites a minimum of 250 mm and an average of 300 mm above adjacent ground.
Note that flood-level requirements may result in greater heights above adjacent ground.
NZS 3604 clearances above adjacent ground and E1/AS1 clearances must also be
complied with.
4. Foundations to support an NZS 3604 superstructure with light-weight roof claddings
and limited to light or medium-weight wall claddings.
5. Relevelling can be carried out with non-specialist equipment, techniques or materials.
Key performance expectations:

1. A stiff foundation plate that can span between any temporary point load support during
the relevelling process. This will typically involve the use of a suitably designed and
detailed underslab to jack against during relevelling.
2. Floor plate curvatures under differential ground settlement in the load condition of G +
0.3Q should be less than 1 in 400 (ie, 5 mm hog or sag at the centre of a 4 m length) for
the case of no support over 4 m, and no more than 1 in 200 for the case of no support
of a 2 m cantilever at the extremes of the floor.
3. Foundation is readily relevellable – can be lifted after any settlement event and again in
subsequent events.
4. The relevelling and repair (including any associated superstructure damage) can
be completed within a 4-week period during which the occupants may have to be
relocated.
5. No damage to services within the floor plate and readily repairable at the outside of the
foundation following the earthquake and during the relevelling process.
6. The relevellable system should provide sufficient resistance to lateral displacement of
the foundation under earthquake ground shaking expected in an ultimate limit state
design event.
C 15.
2. FN EW
OUNDATION
FOUNDATIONS
AS S ES S M ENT
Table 15.6: Shallow foundation solution alignment – Vertical settlement UPDATE:

December 2012
Hybrid TC2/
TC2 Foundations TC3 Foundations
TC3 Foundations
Land SLS <50 mm SLS <50 mm SLS SLS SLS

Settlement ULS<100 mm ULS>100 mm <100 mm <200 mm >200 mm
Demand
Construction Timber: NZS Timber: TC3 Timber Timber Specifically

3604 timber floor Surface Structures floor on floor over designed
and shallow piles Concrete: 300 mm enhanced concrete subfloor grid
Concrete: NZS flat slab (Option NZS 3604 underslab (Type 3
3604 slab and 2) with gravel raft subfloor on gravel surface
800 mm gravel (Option 1) (Type 1 raft structure)
raft (Option 1) surface (Type 2B
or flat slab structure) surface
(Option 2), ribbed Or Timber structure)
slab (Option 3) floor over
or waffle slab concrete
(Option 4) underslab
on gravel
Or ground improvement and
raft (Type
Type 1 or 2 timber-floored
2A surface
surface structure – refer to
structure)
section 15.3.4
Structure Minor/ slight Minor/ slight Readily repairable damage may well occur
Performance differential differential at SLS
Outcome settlement settlement (ie. <25 Limited damage to foundations at ULS
Anticipated (ie <25 mm SLS, mm SLS)
<50 mm ULS) Limited damage to
foundations at ULS
Design Provision has been made in standard Provision has been Provision
Considerations solutions to accommodate effects of made in standard must be made
minor differential settlement at SLS solutions for Type 1 & in specific
and ULS should it occur 2 surface structures to engineering
accommodate effects design solution
of minor to moderate Type 3 surface
differential settlement at structures to
SLS (ready repairability) accommodate
and at ULS (life safety effects of
and some repairability) significant
vertical
settlement
at both SLS
and ULS (as
determined
from deep
geotechnical
information)
Superstructure Timber ground floor: Light or medium Light or medium wall cladding
Constraints wall cladding combined with light roofs combined with light roofs, regular
Concrete ground floor: Refer to superstructures only
table 7.2 for wall and roof cladding
weight limits
2 . 1F5.
FO
O UNNEW
DAT I O N
AS S ESUSNDAT
MENT IONS C
UPDATE: Table 15.6: Shallow foundation solution alignment – Lateral stretch

December 2012
Hybrid TC2/
TC2 Foundations TC3 Foundations
TC3 Foundations
Lateral Stretch To resist minor lateral spreading Up to 200 mm at Up to 500 mm at

Demand ie. <50 mm at SLS ULS (minor to ULS (major)
moderate) Potential for lateral
<100 mm at ULS
No expectation of spread at SLS
significant lateral that needs to
spread at SLS be addressed in
foundation design
Construction Timber: NZS Timber: TC3 Timber floor on Timber floor over
3604 timber floor surface structure enhanced NZS concrete underslab
and shallow piles Concrete: 300 mm 3604 subfloor on gravel raft
Concrete: NZS flat slab (Option (Type 1 surface (Type 2 surface
3604 slab and 2) with gravel raft structure) structure)
800 mm gravel (Option 1) or specifically
raft (Option 1) designed subfloor
Or flat slab grid (Type 3
(Option 2), ribbed surface structure)
slab (Option 3)
or waffle slab
(Option 4)
Structure No damage to foundation structure Repairable damage Minor damage to

Performance associated with lateral spreading is to foundation, but superstructure at
Outcome anticipated at SLS no superstructure SLS
Anticipated Limited damage to foundations at ULS damage from Limited damage to
lateral spread at foundations at ULS
SLS
Limited damage to
foundations at ULS
Design Provision has been made in standard Provision has Provision must be
Considerations solutions to accommodate effects of been made in made in specific
minor lateral spreading at SLS and standard solution engineering
ULS should it occur to accommodate design solution
effects of minor to to accommodate
moderate lateral effects of major
stretch should it lateral stretch at
occur at SLS and SLS and to cover life
to cover life safety safety aspects at
aspects and some ULS. Repairablility
repairability at ULS at ULS should be
considered.
Superstructure Timber ground floor: Light or medium Light or medium Light or medium
Constraints wall cladding combined with light wall cladding wall cladding
roofs combined with combined with light
Concrete ground floor: Refer to table light roofs, regular roofs, simple house
7.2 for wall and roof cladding weight superstructures plan shape
limits only
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 1
AS S ES S M ENT
Appendix C1: Basis for confirming

compliance with the Building Code for new
and repaired house foundations in TC3
This appendix, referred to in section 11.3, Regulatory Context, provides more detailed
regulatory guidance as a basis to demonstrate compliance with the Building Code for
foundation repairs and rebuilds for TC3 properties. Refer also to the guidance in Part B,
section 8.2.
C1.1 Background and principal issues

Under section 17 of the Building Act, all building work must comply with the Building Code.
For foundation design, Building Code clause B1 structure is the most relevant clause.
Building Code clause B1.3.2 contains a requirement to limit the loss of amenity, commonly
known as the Serviceability Limit State (SLS).
Understanding the performance requirements for SLS in TC3 will present a challenge for
engineers. Even with the level of information that can be obtained from deep geotechnical
investigations, there will be considerable variability and uncertainty for engineers in
attempting to quantify future building settlement performance for TC3 properties.
While site conditions and the nature of liquefaction-induced settlement can damage
buildings, they rarely affect life safety (ie, exceed the Ultimate Limit State (ULS)).
C1.2 Guidance for demonstrating Building

Code compliance – foundation repairs
and rebuilds
The following steps set out a consistent basis for engineers and building consent
authorities to approach the consenting process.
Step 1: Consider legislative requirements (Building Act 2004)

a) All building work must comply with the Building Code to the extent required by the Act
(section 17).
−− This requirement stands regardless of whether a building consent is required. It
also doesn’t matter whether the building work involved is the construction of new
foundations or the alteration or repair of foundations to an existing building.
Note: it is only the building work that is being undertaken that must comply with the
Code; this does not mean the building as a whole needs to comply with the latest
Code after the foundations have been repaired.
−− The inclusion of ‘to the extent required by this Act’ covers Building Act provisions
such as the building consent authority being able to grant modifications and waivers to
Building Code requirements (section 67).
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 1. 1
2. A
F PPEN
O U N DAT
DI XI O
CN1
AS S ES S M E N T C
b) Building work must be carried out in accordance with a building consent (section 40),
however there are some exceptions where a building consent is not required
(section 41).
Where a building consent is required, an owner must apply for the consent to the Building
Consent Authority before the building work begins (section 44).
Building Consent Authorities must grant a building consent if they are satisfied on
reasonable grounds that the building work, if properly completed in accordance with the
submitted plans and specifications, complies with the Building Code (section 49).
Where the building work includes an alteration to an existing building, the building must
continue to comply with the other Building Code provisions at least to the extent that it
complied before the alteration (section 112).
Step 2: Consider Building Code requirements – Building Code clause B1

(Structure)
Buildings, building elements and sitework must:
• (Clause B.1.3.1). Have a low probability of rupturing, becoming unstable, losing
equilibrium, or collapsing during construction or alteration and throughout their lives.
(Generally referred to as the Ultimate Limit State, ULS)
• (Clause B1.3.2). Have a low probability of causing loss of amenity through undue
deformation, vibratory response, degradation, or other physical characteristics
throughout their lives, or during construction or alteration when the building is in use
(Generally referred to as the Serviceability Limit State, SLS)
Engineers and Building Consent Authorities will also need to consider other Building Code
clauses that may be relevant to the foundations, for example B2, Durability, or E2,
External Moisture.
Step 3: Consider Building Code Verification Methods – B1/VM1 and B1/VM4

and incorporated Standard AS/NZS 1170 (as amended by B1/VM1)
If B1/VM1 is followed, which incorporates AS/NZS 1170 with some amendments, then
engineers will be regarded as complying with Clause B1 of the Building Code.
ULS and SLS criteria are defined in AS/NZS 1170.
SLS seismic loads for residential properties are based on a one in 25 year earthquake (AS/
NZS 1170.0).
B1/VM4 is the Verification Method for foundations. B1/VM4 excludes the design of
foundations on loose sands or saturated dense sands (1.05 of B1/VM4). This means that
for most TC3 properties, B1/VM4 is not applicable for demonstrating compliance with the
Building Code.
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 1
AS S ES S M ENT
Step 4: Consider the guidance in Part A and Part B

Part B, section 8.2.3 provides greater clarity on the performance requirements for SLS,
as follows:
• The SLS design case is a load, or combination of loads, that a building or structure is
likely to be subjected to more frequently during its design life. If properly designed and
constructed, a building should suffer little or no structural damage when it is subjected
to an SLS load. All parts of the building should remain accessible and safe to occupy.
Services should remain functional at the perimeter of and within the building. There
may be minor damage to building fabric that is readily repairable, possibly including
minor cracking, deflection and settlement that do not affect the structural, fire or
weathertightness performance of the building. SLS seismic loads for residential
properties are based on a one in 25 year earthquake (refer to AS/NZS 1170.0). (refer to
Part B, section 8.2.3 of Guidance, emphasis added)
The emphasis added above indicates the types of criteria relevant for assessing SLS for
residential construction.
• Table 8.1 in Part B provides criteria for the nature of future damage that corresponds to
‘repairability’ for both timber-framed/light-clad dwellings and concrete-slab dwellings of
any cladding type.
• Part A, section 4 discusses repairing house foundations in Canterbury. It includes
guidance for properties where only minor to moderate liquefaction-induced settlement
is likely to occur in future SLS earthquakes (ie, TC2 land). Recommendations provided
are also relevant for foundation repairs and construction, new foundations on TC3 land.
Examples include:
• the preference to build using light materials rather than heavy materials (refer Part
A, section 1.4 Technical Scope, and Part A, section 5.1) to mitigate the potential for
liquefaction-induced settlement
• for new construction of foundations, some constraints on plan regularity and light
cladding apply (refer Part A, section 5).
Step 5: Consider the TC3 guidance for repairing and rebuilding foundations
on TC3 Land
Lightening the load on the foundations will improve the performance of the structure in
future SLS earthquakes and provides a way for engineers to have confidence in the future
SLS performance without the need to undertake complex quantitative assessments (refer
Figures 14.1 and 14.2 and Table 15.2). For example, removing heavy roof tiles to reduce the
weight on the soil layers provides scope for foundation repair rather than rebuild in some
locations. In addition, masonry veneers can be removed and replaced with light-weight
alternatives where damaged.
If the indicator criteria for foundation repair are not exceeded (see Table 2.3 in Part A),
repair options demonstrating compliance with the Building Code will depend on whether
the calculated consequential liquefaction-induced SLS earthquake settlement (using data
from a deep geotechnical investigation (top 10 m only)) is less than 100 mm (refer Figures
14.1 and 14.2). If it exceeds 100 mm, more stringent requirements apply.
2. A
F PPEN
O U N DAT
DI XI O
CN1
AS S ES S M E N T C
If the indicator criteria for foundation repair are exceeded (see Table 2.3 in Part A), rebuild
options demonstrating compliance with the Building Code will depend on whether the
calculated liquefaction-induced SLS earthquake settlement (using data from a deep
geotechnical investigation (top 10 m only)) is less than 100 mm and whether lateral stretch
exceeds 200 mm in a ULS earthquake (refer Table 15.2). If these limits are exceeded, more
stringent requirements apply.
The more stringent requirements referred to above may include:

• removal of heavy building elements, viz roof and cladding, and replacement with lighter
building elements; and
• incorporation of specifically designed features within the supporting structure that are
intended to facilitate repairs after a SLS or ULS event causing damage.
C1.3 General
Following the methods and solutions provided in this document, including the
considerations and criteria listed above, provides ‘reasonable grounds’ for designers and
Building Consent Authorities that the resulting repairs or rebuild will meet the relevant
requirements of the Building Act and Building Code.
Given the uncertainty about the future performance of some of the most liquefaction-
prone land, there may be cases where designers, after proper enquiry, are not able to
satisfy themselves that a Code Compliant solution is reasonably feasible. The Building
Act provides for the Building Consent Authority to issue waivers or modifications to the
Building Code (s 67). With the consent of the homeowner and their insurer, this may be an
option to consider.
C1.4 Engineering sign-off

An important part of the overall compliance process is the engineering sign-off statement
submitted by the engineer.
Residential foundation work is now Restricted Building Work, and must be signed off
appropriately by a Licensed Building Practitioner.
It is intended that the next version of this document will include acceptable standard
wording for the engineering sign-off for both repairs and the different forms of rebuilt
foundations.
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 2
AS S ES S M ENT
Appendix C2: Guidance on PGA values

for geotechnical design in Canterbury
C2.1 Purpose
This guidance is issued to provide preliminary guidance on peak ground acceleration (PGA)
values for use in geotechnical design, pending further research. This guidance applies to
the Canterbury earthquake region only. This is the area covered by the Christchurch City
Council, the Selwyn District Council and the Waimakariri District Council.
C2.2 Background
On 19 May 2011 in response to new knowledge about the seismic risk in the Canterbury
earthquake region, the Department of Building and Housing (now the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment) made changes to the Verification Method B1/VM1, to increase
the hazard factor Z (as described in AS/NZS 1170) for the region. The update to B1/VM1
states that the revised Z factor is intended only for use for the design and assessment
of buildings and structures – it is not applicable for use in geotechnical design. This
is because the seismic modelling assumptions and outputs for structural design are
different to those required for geotechnical design, and this is particularly significant for
the Christchurch region where the seismic hazard is dominated by earthquakes of lower
magnitude.
GNS Science have been updating their probabilistic seismic hazard model for the
Canterbury earthquake region. This model incorporates the anticipated decline in seismic
activity in the region with time over the next 50 years. Preliminary results have been
produced from the updated model.
In preparing this guidance the Ministry has considered the preliminary results of the GNS
Science hazard model, the effects of ongoing model-refinement, and a range of practical
engineering issues. Once the GNS Science reporting is complete, the Ministry will issue
more comprehensive guidance as necessary.
C2.3 Interim guidance on PGA values for

geotechnical design
Table C2.1 summarises interim recommendations for PGA values for geotechnical design
for the Canterbury earthquake region. In accordance with recommended practice for
geotechnical analysis, these PGA values are based on a geometric-mean definition (in
contrast to the larger-component definition used in AS/NZS 1170 for structural analysis).
The recommended values apply only to deep or soft soil (Class D) sites. This site class is
likely to apply over most of the plains in the greater Christchurch area. Non-linearities in
the hazard model for Canterbury mean the constant multipliers between PGA values for
different site classes used in NZS 1170 are not applicable for the Canterbury earthquake
region. Further advice will be provided in future for other site classes.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 2 . 1
2. A
F PPEN
O U N DAT
DI XI O
CN2
AS S ES S M E N T C
Recommended PGA values are shown for two types of applications – for liquefaction-
triggering analysis and for general geotechnical analysis (excluding rockfall). The main
difference between the seismic hazard analyses undertaken for these two types of
applications is in the magnitude-weighting factors applied. For liquefaction-triggering
analysis, which is very sensitive to earthquake magnitude (ie, duration), a magnitude-
weighting factor of (M/7.5)2.5 was used in the seismic hazard analysis. For general
earthquake geotechnical analysis (such as seismic displacement estimation or embankment
or retaining wall design), which is less sensitive to earthquake magnitude, a weighting
factor of (M/7.5)1.285 was used. For some types of analysis (such as rockfall), magnitude-
weighting may not be relevant, so these magnitude-weighted PGA design values are not
applicable. Further advice will be provided in future regarding non-weighted seismic
hazard analysis.
For geotechnical design for Class D sites on the plains in the Canterbury earthquake region,
it is recommended that design PGA values are taken as the greater of either those in Table
1 or those derived from AS/NZS 1170. Note that the latter value only becomes the critical
case closer to the Southern Alps, where the seismic hazard is made up more of larger-
magnitude earthquakes so the difference between the hazard models for structural and
geotechnical purposes is less significant.
The seismic hazard model uses magnitude-weighting to derive an aggregated estimate of

peak ground acceleration. Therefore for geotechnical analyses that require an earthquake
magnitude to be specified (eg, most liquefaction analyses), a magnitude of 7.5 should be
adopted in conjunction with these PGA values.
The current hazard model indicates a slight reduction in predicted PGA levels with greater
distance away from the Greendale and Port Hills faults. However at this preliminary stage
of model development, it is not appropriate to make recommendations regarding reduced
values in more distant locations.
Table CA2.1 provides interim PGA recommendations only for annual exceedance
probabilities of 1/25 and 1/500 (ie, SLS and ULS for typical Importance Level 2 structures
with a 50-year design life). Structures with a greater importance level or design life are
likely to require more detailed and project-specific consideration of seismic hazard than this
generalised guidance can provide.
UPDATE: Table C2.1: Interim recommendations for PGA values for geotechnical design in Canterbury
December 2012 (for a M7.5 design event)
Peak ground acceleration (g) for deep or soft soil (Class D) site
Annual probability of
exceedance (average Liquefaction-triggering General geotechnical analysis 2
over next 50 years) analysis only 1 (excluding rockfall)
1/25 0.13 TBA
1/500 0.35 TBA
(1) Corresponds to a magnitude-weighting factor of (M/7.5) -2.5

(2) Corresponds to a magnitude-weighting factor of (M/7.5) -1.285
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 3
AS S ES S M ENT
Appendix C3: Recommended

procedure for calculating capacity for single
driven piles in cohesionless soils
The following procedure is based on FHWA (2006) and Meyerhof (1976) with modifications
to account for the presence of liquefiable strata above the bearing stratum. The method is
empirical and based on SPT blow counts.
For sites where CPT data is available to the full minimum thickness of the bearing layer,
alternative procedures based on direct correlation with CPT results may be used. The
procedure of Elsami and Fellenius (1997) is recommended and is given below (adapted for
the specific purpose of designing residential piles in TC3 sites).
In using these methods, it should be remembered that they are normally used only for
preliminary capacity and pile length estimates. However, they are considered adequate for
the present purpose of designing pile foundations for residential dwellings in TC3 areas.
C3.1 Procedure for using method based

on SPT Data
STEP 1 Correct SPT field N values for field equipment.
The following corrections assume that a standard SPT split spoon sampler is being used.
The split spoon sampler should be used in all soils except gravely soils where a 2 inch
diameter conical tip may be used.
Correction for hammer efficiency:

UPDATE:
December 2012
ERM
CE =
60
ERM = the measured energy ratio as a percentage of the theoretical
maximum.
SPT equipment can differ markedly and should be verified with PDA testing and
certification.
Correction for rod length:
3–4m CR = 0.75
4–6m 0.85
6 – 10 m 0.95
> 10 m 1.0
Corrected N value is given by N60 = N CECR
2. A
F PPEN
O U N DAT
DI XI O
CN3
AS S ES S M E N T C
STEP 2 Compute the average corrected SPT N value, N*, for each soil layer along the
embedded length of pile.
STEP 3 Compute unit shaft resistance, fs (KPa) for each soil layer for driven, displacement
piles from:
fs (KPa) = 2 N* fs < 200 KPa

for driven, non-displacement piles such as H-piles, use:
fs (KPa) = N* fs < 100 KPa

STEP 4 Compute ultimate shaft resistance, Rsi (KN), for each soil layer i below the lowest
liquefiable soil layer.
Rsi = fsi Asi

In which A si = Pile shaft surface area in layer = (pile perimeter) x (embedded length).
For H-piles in cohesionless soils, the “box” area should generally be used for shaft
resistance calculations.
STEP 5 Compute average corrected SPT N values, N*O and N*B, near pile toe.
In most cases, the pile toe will be located within a dense bearing stratum with an overlying
stratum of loose and possibly liquefiable soil. N*B is the average corrected N value for the
bearing stratum extending 3 diameters below the toe, and N*O is the average corrected N
value within the overlying stratum. For cases where the overlying stratum is expected to
liquefy, set N*O =0.
STEP 6 Compute unit base resistance, qb (KPa).

For the case of a weaker layer overlying the bearing layer compute qb from:
qb =400N*O +40(N*B – N*O) DB ≤ 400N*B

b
in which D B = depth of embedment of toe into bearing layer, and b = pile diameter.
For cases where the overlying layer liquefies, set N*O = 0.
For piles driven into non-plastic silts, the unit toe resistance, qb, should be limited to
300 N*B instead of 400 N*B.
STEP 7 Compute ultimate base resistance, Rb (KN).
Rb = qb Ab
In which A b = Pile base area.
For steel H and unfilled open end pipe piles assume that the pile will plug and use the ‘box’
area of the pile, provided the depth to diameter ratio is greater than 30, otherwise use only
the steel cross-section area. qb should be limited to 5000 KPa for open piles.
STEP 8 Compute ultimate pile capacity, after liquefaction, Ruliq (KN).
Ruliq = ∑Rsi + Rb
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 3
AS S ES S M ENT
in which shaft resistance, Rsi is only counted from soil layers, including the bearing layer,
that are below any liquefiable soils. Down drag from non-liquefying layers above liquefiable
soils may be neglected for driven piles for residential purposes in TC3 sites. Shaft
resistance through liquefiable layers is assumed to be zero.
STEP 9 Apply the design inequality:
ФgRuliq ≥ 1.2 G + 1.5 Q

Фg = 0.4 is recommended to provide reliable capacity and also to limit settlements.
C3.2 Procedure for using method based

on CPT data
STEP 1 Correct qc for pore water pressure acting on the shoulder of the cone according to
the equation:
qt = qc + u2 (1 – a)
in which a = the area ratio for the cone (value to be supplied by the CPT contractor)
STEP 2 Calculate the ‘effective’ cone resistance according to the equation:
qE = qt – u2
STEP 3 The unit shaft resistance for a pile is correlated with the effective cone resistance
based on the soil profile, according to the equation:
fs =Csc qE
in which Csc = the shaft correlation coefficient, given as follows
= 0.05 for clay
= 0.025 for stiff clay and clay-silt mixtures
= 0.01 for mixtures of sand and silt
= 0.004 for sand
STEP 4 Compute ultimate shaft resistance, Rsi, for each soil layer i below the lowest
liquefiable soil layer.
Rsi = fsi Asi
in which A si = pile shaft surface area in layer = (pile perimeter) x (embedded length)
For H-piles in cohesionless soil, the ‘box’ area should generally be used for shaft resistance
calculations.
2. A
F PPEN
O U N DAT
DI XI O
CN3
AS S ES S M E N T C
STEP 5 The unit base resistance is computed using a geometric averaging of the effective
cone tip resistance over the influence zone at the pile base which, for piles driven into a
dense bearing layer, is taken to be a range from 4 pile diameters below the base to 8 pile
diameters above the base. The unit base resistance is then given by:
qb =Ctc qEg
in which Ctc is the toe correction coefficient and may be taken as 1.0 for piles less than 400
mm in diameter and qEg is the geometric average of the effective cone tip resistance over
the influence zone.
STEP 6 The total pile end bearing resistance is then given by:
Rb =qb Ab
in which A b = area of the base of the pile.
STEP 7 Compute ultimate pile capacity, after liquefaction, Ruliq (KN).
Ruliq = ∑Rsi + Rb
in which shaft resistance, Rsi is only counted from soil layers, including the bearing layer,
which are below any liquefiable soils. Down drag from non-liquefying layers above
liquefiable soils may be neglected for driven piles for residential purposes in TC3 sites.
Shaft resistance through liquefiable layers is assumed to be zero.
STEP 8 Apply the design inequality:
ФgRuliq ≥ 1.2 G + 1.5 Q

Фg = 0.4 is recommended to provide reliable capacity and also to limit settlements.
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
Appendix C4: Method statements for

site ground improvement
Appendix C4 provides the basic technical details and procedures for the construction of the
ground improvement methods discussed in section 15.3. The selection and design of the UPDATE:
ground improvement, and overall integrated foundation solution, must also be carried out in Replaced all of
accordance with section 15.3. Appendix C4
June 2015
Guideline construction specifications for carrying out ground improvement works are also
being developed by the New Zealand Geotechnical Society. When published that document
should also be referred to. For the rebuilding of TC3 residential houses in Canterbury
where the MBIE guidelines are being used as a means of demonstrating compliance, the
MBIE guidelines should take precedence in the event there are conflicts between the two
documents.
The following method statements are for residential sites, generally either rebuilds or new
builds, where the work will be executed by an appropriately qualified and experienced
earthworks subcontractor, completing the work as a standalone operation. Ground
remediation beneath existing houses (eg Horizontal Soil Mixed Beams) is not addressed in
this Appendix.
Demolition or removal of all structures including buildings, foundations, paths, drives and
fences will need to be carried out in the area of the proposed ground improvement work,
where such impediments exist. Additionally all topsoil, waste or unsuitable fill materials,
trees and vegetation (including stumps and root balls) in the works area will also need to be
completely removed prior to starting ground improvement construction.
All underground services should be clear of the works area before commencing any ground
improvement work. This requirement is not anticipated to be necessary for construction on
new sections or subdivisions; however, verification of any underground services should be
sought from service providers.
C4.1 Construction quality and quality control

As demonstrated during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes and the 2013 EQC
ground improvement trials, the effectiveness of ground improvement schemes in resisting
damaging differential settlement due to liquefaction is highly dependent on the works being
well constructed, and the constructed works meeting the design intent. This is particularly
true for the shallow foundation treatment and crust reinforced with inclusions methods,
which rely on forming a relatively thin dense or stiff crust capable of resisting differential
settlement from liquefaction beneath the improvement zone.
For any project, it is recommended that the Design Engineer or their representative
performs periodic site inspections during the course of the ground improvement works.
The purpose of such inspections is to allow the Engineer to confirm that the ground
conditions match those upon which the design was based (particularly for excavate and
replace methods), and that the works are being constructed according to the design plans
and specifications.
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
A detailed discussion of construction quality and quality control (QC) is beyond the scope of
these guidelines; however, some of the more important aspects are highlighted below:
Excavate and Replace Methods (Types G1a, G1d, G2a)

For these methods, achieving the specified compaction of the backfill, and correct
placement of the geogrids is particularly important. The backfill materials should be at, or
slightly above the optimum moisture content for achieving the maximum dry density. In
sandy soils, vibratory compaction methods are most efficient. In soil subgrade near to or
below the water table however, vibration can fluidize or heave the soil, thereby preventing
adequate compaction.
The presence of a firm subgrade at the base of the excavation is important to facilitating
adequate compaction of the lower lifts of backfill. A layer of high strength woven geotextile
fabric or geogrid placed across the base of the excavation can be used to help stabilise soft
or ‘pumping’ subgrade. However, simply spreading and compacting rock or concrete rubble
(up to 150mm in size) into the base of the excavation will often stabilise it sufficiently to
allow compaction of the subsequent fill layers. This can be a cost-effective solution if there
is a nearby source of the appropriate material.
In order to maximise the ability of geogrid (where used) to resist future soil movements, it
is important that the grid is tensioned prior to backfill placement to remove wrinkles and
folds.
For method Type G2a (cement stabilised crust - excavate, mix and replace), in addition to
the specified compaction, applying the correct amount of cement, suitable moisture control
and achieving thorough mixing of the soil/cement are critical to forming a strong, stiff
improved zone.
Cement Stabilised Crust – in situ mixing (Type G2b)

Use of the correct cement content for the soil conditions present on site is critical for this
method. Typically, higher cement contents are required for silty and clayey soils than for
clean sands. In all cases, higher soil moisture contents will require higher cement contents
in order to achieve complete hydration and ‘setting’ of the stabilised material.
Thorough mixing of the cement into the soil is very important. Cement needs to be mixed
into the soil in a manner that creates a homogenous mixture, with uniform cement and
moisture contents throughout the improvement zone. In some cases the addition of some
water may help promote better mixing and blending of the cement and soil (especially in
silty and clayey soils), as well as prevent segregation of cement in the soil mass. However
recent experience in Christchurch has shown that for sites with shallow ground water or
wet soils, the addition of water to aid mixing should be carried out very carefully. If water is
added it should be only to the extent necessary, to avoid problems with achieving adequate
hydration of the soil-cement mix. In particular, care must be taken in sandy soils and
non-plastic silts to avoid increasing the water-cement ratio beyond the point where proper
hydration can be achieved.
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
Shallow Stone Columns / Columns of Highly Compacted Aggregate

(Type G5a)
Both conventional stone columns (ie ‘vibro replacement’) and highly compacted aggregate
columns (such as rammed aggregate piers - RAP TM) are viable ground improvement
methods where soil conditions suit. Where the method requires that the stone or
aggregate column comprise a relatively stiff element (in addition to displacing and
densifying the soil surrounding the column) the material forming the column must be
compacted to a greater degree than would be typical for a vibro replacement stone column.
Therefore, the construction methodology will be different for a highly compacted column
than for a conventional stone column installation.
Geogrid for fill reinforcement

Where geogrid is specified in this document, a geogrid with the following geogrid
characteristic performance parameters is preferred.
• Radial Secant Stiffness at 0.5% strain of 390kN/m (within a tolerance of -75kN/m)1
• Radial Stiffness Ratio shall be 0.8 (within a tolerance of -0.15)1
• The junction efficiency shall be 100% (within a tolerance of -10%)2
• The hexagon pitch of the geogrid shall be 80mm (within a tolerance of ±4mm)3
As an alternative, a biaxial polypropylene geogrid with a minimum ultimate tensile strength
of 40kN/m and retaining a minimum of 28kN/m at 5.0% strain may be substituted.
Verification of target soil density / Stiffness / Composite stiffness

Verification of the constructed ground improvement works may include relative
compaction, target soil density, stiffness, or some combination of these. There are several
test methods available for assessing whether the target ground improvement has been
met. It is important that test locations are uniformly distributed throughout the area of the
ground improvement works, to ensure that the required level of improvement is uniformly
achieved.
A statistical approach to soil testing and laboratory sample testing is acceptable, with 95%
of tests exceeding the strength criteria provided that:
• this is calculated from at least 20 measurements
• that no two results which fail to exceed the criteria are adjacent (vertically or in plane)
and
• no single result is less than 80% of the target strength.
Relative compaction of fill

In Canterbury, common methods used to measure relative compaction of fill include the
scala penetrometer (sometimes referred to as ‘DCP’) and the nuclear densometer (NDM).
Each of these methods has advantages and limitations. The limitations of the various tests
and their applicability to a particular material should be understood by those performing
construction quality control.
1 measured in accordance with EOTA technical report TR41 – B1

A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
Scala penetrometer tests, for example, are not appropriate for soils that contain significant
amounts of gravel or oversized material, due to the potential for these larger particles to
influence the blow count. In addition, for anything other than very shallow depths, friction
on the sides of the penetrometer will influence blow counts (without pre-augering).
If NDM testing is used, care must be taken to confirm that the referenced maximum dry
density is applicable to the material being tested. Even relatively small changes in soil
classification (eg sand to silty sand or gravelly sand) may require additional laboratory
testing of representative samples to confirm the maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content for compaction.
For well-graded sandy gravel backfill only

A comparison of the compacted dry density to the solid density of soil particles (specific
gravity) of the fill material can be used. This is an alternative to the use of the dry density
and optimum moisture content of the soil to determine relative compaction. The solid
density of soil particles is unlikely to change significantly if the parent material does not
change, and will therefore only be affected by changes in grading (eg particle size) and
level of compaction. Provided the fill material is from a consistent source and is well
graded, a ‘% solid density’ of 82% is expected to provide adequate compaction. A typical
solid density of soil particles for greywacke-derived soils such as those found in the
Canterbury area is 2.65 t/m3. Hence, upon confirmation of this value, and at the discretion
of the Design Engineer, a target dry density of 2.18 t/m3 may be used as the sole criteria
for relative compaction control, without the need for laboratory testing to determine the
maximum dry density of the fill material. Note: It will be difficult to achieve satisfactory
results using this approach unless the fill materials are optimally graded.
Recommended minimum testing frequencies for compaction testing are provided

in this document. Typically used test methods, particularly NDM, are very quick and
easy to perform. Therefore more frequent testing may be specified at very little, if
any, additional cost. This might be particularly useful early on in a project when the
contractor is determining the optimal compaction equipment, level of compactive effort
and optimum moisture content to achieve the target dry density. The Design Engineer
or their representative is encouraged to perform sufficient testing to comfortably satisfy
themselves that the desired level of compaction has been achieved throughout the fill.
Post-improvement in situ testing

The cone penetration test (CPT), standard penetration test (SPT) and heavy dynamic
penetrometer test (DPT – heavy) are quite commonly used to measure the effectiveness of
post-improvement in situ densification; particularly on larger projects. Where in situ density
testing of improved ground is performed to confirm whether triggering of liquefaction will
be prevented, the CPT or SPT should be used. This is because the empirical databases,
upon which the generally accepted simplified liquefaction triggering analysis methodologies
are based, comprise of data only from these two types of tests.
Of these two, the CPT is the preferred method for measuring the effectiveness of in situ
densification. This is because it is a standardised ground characterisation tool that provides
results that are far less variable than SPT results. Additionally, unlike the SPT, the CPT
provides a nearly continuous profile of penetration resistance.
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
However, the SPT is still acceptable for assessing ground improvement when ground
conditions preclude the use of CPT (eg where surficial or interbedded thick or dense gravel
layers are present).
Shear wave velocity (VS) testing has also been used to assess liquefaction potential.
However, the results of the 2013 EQC ground improvement trials indicate that for
Christchurch sandy and silty soils, simplified triggering methods based on VS testing
(Andrus and Stokoe, 2000 4; Kayen et al, 20132) do not correlate well with liquefaction
triggering, when compared with SPT or CPT based methods. Therefore for typical projects,
the use of VS -based simplified triggering methods alone for confirming liquefaction
resistance of improved sandy or silty soils in Canterbury is not recommended. However,
cross-hole VS testing is useful as a proxy for the overall effects of ground improvement and
as a measure for the increase in composite soil stiffness in relation to the stiffness of the
soil prior to improvement, as discussed in the following section.
It is also recognised that VS is potentially useful for evaluating the liquefaction potential of
gravelly soils where CPT and SPT cannot be performed, or the results of such tests are
questionable. VS -based triggering assessment of gravelly soils is beyond the scope of this
document. The Design Engineer may however wish to consider the use of VS to assess
triggering potential in such soils.
Assessing composite soil stiffness using cross-hole shear wave velocity testing (Type G5a)
As discussed in section 15.3, the Type G5a shallow ground improvement method primarily
relies on increasing the soil density and/or composite stiffness of the improved soil, in
combination with an overlying stiff surface foundation element, to mitigate the effects
of liquefaction to the point where the performance of the integrated foundation solution
meets the objectives outlined in section 15.3.1. Stone columns or columns of highly
compacted aggregate constructed in relatively clean sands (IC < 1.8 approx.) are capable of
densifying the ground sufficiently to prevent triggering of liquefaction (depending on the
level of shaking) or reduce the effects of liquefaction sufficiently so that the performance
objectives of section 15.3.1 are met. Conversely, achieving such densification in silty sands/
sandy silts (1.8 < IC < 2.6 approx.) is unlikely.
Where densification is not being achieved (ie in siltier soils), verification that the design
objective of the Type G5a ground improvement has been met can also be carried out by
assessing the composite stiffness of the improved zone. The composite stiffness, as used
in this document, is defined as the combined stiffness of the ground improvement elements
(ie aggregate columns) and the soil matrix between the elements. If a minimum composite
stiffness is achieved, liquefaction triggering is either prevented or (depending on the level of
shaking) reduced such that damaging differential ground surface settlement is unlikely to occur.
The 2013 EQC trials (refer to section 15.3) identified a composite cross-hole VS of 220m/s
as a value above which triggering of liquefaction between aggregate columns is unlikely
to occur under ground shaking up to and including ULS-level ground shaking. However, as
discussed in section C4.6, it is not considered necessary to achieve a factor of safety, FoS,
4 Liquefaction Resistance of Soils from Shear-Wave Velocity. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 11, November, 2000, pp 1015-1025.
2 Shear-Wave Velocity–Based Probabilistic and Deterministic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Potential.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 03, March, 2013, pp 407-419.
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
against liquefaction of 1 or more at ULS levels of shaking. A composite VS profile has been
developed to provide similar levels of robustness as the qc1Ncs CPT target profiles set out in
C4.6. The required profile is a VS of 190m/s at 1m depth, increasing to 200m/s at 2m depth
and 210m/s at 4m depth.
Conducting and interpreting cross-hole VS testing is a relatively specialised procedure

and should only be undertaken by appropriately qualified personnel using purpose-built
equipment.
Laboratory testing for design and quality control

All laboratory testing should be performed according to the procedures outlined in the
latest applicable New Zealand Standards testing standard(s) with the following exceptions
when assessing the liquefaction potential of a site:
6. For determination of the plasticity index (PI), Atterberg limits testing should be
performed in accordance with ASTM D 4318 test method.
7. For determination of fines content, a 75µ sieve should be used.
The majority of the international liquefaction case history database that forms the basis for
the simplified liquefaction assessment methods is based on lab data using these methods.
Therefore the use of these two tests maintains consistency with that. The ASTM Atterberg
limits test in theory will result in a given sample having a higher plasticity index, PI, than
will be measured by the NZS method because the sample preparation results in a wetter
sample. The use of the ASTM method for determining plasticity also maintains consistency
with the commonly used PI-based methods for assessing liquefaction susceptibility of fine-
grained soil.
If no NZ standard exists for a particular test, the relevant ASTM standard should be
substituted.
C4.2 Area replacement ratio (ARR)

The area replacement ratio (ARR) is a common parameter for specifying the ‘amount’ of
ground improvement needed when using methods that involve the construction of discreet
inclusions (such as stone columns, deep soil mix columns or timber piles). The formula for
computing ARR values in the guidance is listed below, and should be used by the Design
Engineer for consistency when applying these guidelines:
D
ARR = c1( —) 2
S
Where:
ARR = area replacement ratio
D = average diameter of inclusion
S = centre to centre spacing of inclusions
c1 = a constant, depending upon pattern of inclusions
For a square pattern: c1 = π /4
For a triangular pattern: c1 = π /(2√3)
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
C4.3 Shallow foundation treatments

Densified Crust Method Statement (excavate and recompact) (Type G1a)
This method is generally suited to sand and silty sand sites (~IC ≤ 2.6) and where the
water table is at least 1.5m below ground level. However, it may also be applicable to
predominantly silty sites if the silt can be adequately stabilised by blending with sufficient
quantities of angular gravel or crushed concrete.
The densified crust is to be constructed to a minimum of 2.0m deep (below the underside
of foundation elements) over the entire house footprint, and extend a minimum of 1.0m
beyond the perimeter foundation line. Two layers of geogrid are incorporated into the
densified crust to add resilience and improve the ability of the crust to resist differential
settlement, and (in the case of lateral stretch) fracturing/pulling apart. In areas of ‘major’
lateral stretch as defined within these guidelines, a third layer of geogrid is incorporated in
the base of the raft.
It may be necessary to batter the sides of the excavation, and provide a drainage sump to
remove ground water for the duration of the excavation, filling and compaction work. This
method may have limited application where the groundwater level is high, preventing a
‘dry’ and stable excavation.
A resource consent for dewatering may be required if the site is potentially contaminated.
The potential effects on settlement of neighbouring properties needs to be assessed when
designing the dewatering system.
Step Type G1a – Typical Activity Sequence for Densified Crust (excavate and recompact)
1a.1 Set out perimeter of foundation treatment area and locate marker pegs clear of all
workings. Remove all topsoil and other unsuitable materials.
1a.2 During excavation any organic material is to be removed from site and reported to the
Design Engineer.
1a.3 Any physical obstructions encountered during excavation shall be reported to the
Design Engineer for further direction.
1a.4 Excavation in strips or sections may be necessary due to site constraints such as
adjacent properties or the physical shape of the house. In this case additional care
is required at the vertical edge joins by cutting into the previous compacted zone at
1.5h:1v to enable compaction integrity across the joins.
1a.5 Commence excavation to 2.0m (below the underside of foundation elements) and if
water is present, construct dewatering sump adjacent to work area. Install pump in
the sump and pipe to sediment control.
1a.6 Level and compact the base of the excavation. Where the base of the excavation is
stable, the excavation may terminate at 1.8m and the base 200mm compacted in
situ. Static compaction is likely to be required in wet or saturated subgrade to avoid
fluidizing and/or heaving the ground.
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
1a.7 The base of the excavation should be stable (not yielding) prior to backfilling. In the
event that soft areas are present in the base layer and the target compaction is not
achieved, the soft materials should be removed and replaced with suitable material
placed and compacted as described in step 1a.9.
The base can also be stabilised by placing a layer of compacted rock or crushed
concrete (dia. ≤ 150mm) over the soft area to create a ‘working platform’. A
nonwoven geotextile fabric separation layer comprising Bidim A19 or equivalent
should be placed under and over the ‘platform’ to prevent potential migration of soil
into voids within the rock/concrete. The top of any stabilising layer should be kept
at a depth of at least 1.2m below foundation level.
Alternatively, cement can to be added and mixed into the first 200mm of the
subgrade layer to stabilise it. The amount of cement required to stabilise moist
(not saturated) soil will be in the order of 10% by weight. The mixed layer should
be compacted to the extent practicable and allowed to harden prior to placing any
additional fill.
1a.8 Place the first 200mm layer (loose thickness) of fill and compact as described
in step 1a.9, then install two layers of geogrid (refer the preferred performance
characteristics above – refer to section C4.1 for further information) separated by a
200mm thick layer of compacted fill. The grid should extend neatly to the sides of
the excavation, and be lapped at joints as specified by the manufacturer. Prior to
placing fill on top of the geogrid, it is important that the grid is sufficiently
tensioned to remove any wrinkles, bulges, etc.
Note that three layers of geogrid, each separated by 200mm of compacted fill,
are required in areas of ‘major’ lateral stretch as defined in this document. Static
compaction is likely to be required in wet or saturated ground.
1a.9 Backfill the excavation by placing fill in horizontal loose layers not exceeding 200mm
in thickness, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacting to achieve a
minimum of:
• 95% standard or 92% of vibrating hammer compaction (NZS 4402:1988 – Test
4.1.1 or Test 4.1.3);
• 82% of the solid density of the fill material – (well-graded sandy gravel only, refer
to section 4.1); or,
• (for non-gravelly soils only), a Scala penetration resistance of 7 blows per 100mm.
Perform compaction testing at 600mm vertical intervals within the fill at a minimum
frequency of 1 test for each 50m2 of treatment area or a minimum of 3 tests per
interval.
1a.10 Remove dewatering pump and sump once clear of the water table. Backfill and
compact as for the foundation treatment work area.
1a.11 Import fill as required to make up for shrinkage due to compaction. The fill can be
sand or well-graded sandy gravel to be compatible with required final finished layer.
1a.12 Provide the Design Engineer with complete records of: 1) the material used to
construct the raft; 2) results of laboratory MDD/moisture content or solid density tests
of backfill materials; 3) results of field compaction testing of backfill; and 4) an ‘as-
built’ plan. Documentation of other relevant details (ie stabilisation of the excavation
subgrade with cement or rock) should also be provided. Field compaction test results
should include depth below ground level, and horizontal locations relative to a fix point
such as a corner of the excavation, and the depth below the top of the raft.
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
Densified Crust Method Statements – Dynamic Compaction (DC) (Type G1b)

and Rapid Impact Compaction (RIC) (Type G1c)
These methods are most suited to clean sand sites (generally IC < 1.8 / fines content (FC)
≤ 15% approx.) where the depth to the water table is at least 1m below ground level.
However, the suitability of a specific site will need to be confirmed before these methods
are used.
Due to the size of the plant, noise and vibrations, dynamic compaction and rapid impact
compaction will be best suited to open areas away from existing development – such as
new subdivisions or areas where several repair sites are located adjacent to one another.
In particular, the potential effect of vibrations on nearby structures and occupants needs
to be considered.
Vibration monitoring should be conducted on adjacent properties. The recommended

maximum vibration level is a peak particle velocity (PPV) < 5mm/s at the nearest structure.
However, this should be confirmed by monitoring adjacent buildings for signs of damage,
and adjusting site practices as necessary.
These ground improvement methods are intended to form a densified raft of soil at
least 2m thick over the house footprint, by targeting a depth of influence of up to 4m (to
compensate for the lower level of control that this method has compared to others). The
treatment must extend at least 2m outside the perimeter foundation line. The expected
minimum energy requirement to achieve the target ground improvement in clean sands is
50 tonne-metres (t-m) for Dynamic Compaction, and 8 tonne-metres (t-m) for Rapid Impact
Compaction. However a higher level may be required and this is to would be determined
by testing.
The following steps are typical of the dynamic compaction process, in this case, assuming
a 1.2m diameter, 8 tonne weight falling 6m. The optimum number of weight drops is to be
determined by field trial. Other pattern options arising from economy and individual site
constraints are acceptable but the total energy at each node must be achieved.
Step Type G1b – Typical Activity Sequence for Dynamic Compaction
1b.1 Set out perimeter of foundation treatment area and locate marker pegs clear of all
1b.2 Set out position of primary pass nodes based on a 2.5m regular right-angle grid
pattern.
1b.3 Any physical obstructions encountered during compaction shall be reported to the
1b.4 Undertake a trial set of 8 drops and record the depth of penetration (set) after each
drop. Finalise the optimum number of drops based on the total ‘set’ versus blows.
1b.5 Perform primary pass compaction with at least 4 drops per node location (or greater
number based on trial). Record the total set at each node, and the set for each drop
at every 10th node.
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
1b.6 On completion of the primary pass, relevel the site with compacted imported clean
fill. The fill can be sand or well graded sandy gravel to be compatible with required
final finished layer.
1b.7 Set out position of secondary pass nodes at 2.0m centres off-set 50% in both
directions relative to the primary pass nodes.
1b.8 Perform secondary pass compaction with at least 4 drops per node location (or
greater number based on trial). Record the total set at each node.
1b.9 On completion of the secondary pass relevel site with imported fill as for step 1b.6.
1b.10 Set out position of ironing pass nodes at 1.5m centres.
1b.11 Perform ironing pass compaction with 2 drops per node location. Record the set at
each node.
1b.12 On completion of the ironing pass relevel site with imported compacted clean fill.
1b.13 Undertake verification testing to a depth of at least 3m on a 10m grid to confirm that
the required level of soil improvement has been achieved (refer to discussion below).
1b.14 After verifying that the target improvement has been achieved, the entire
improvement area should be sub-excavated to a depth of 400mm and recompacted
as engineered fill (refer to Step 1a.9 of the typical activity for improvement method
G1a above.
1b.15 At the completion of work, provide the Design Engineer with: 1) records of the
all node drop and set data; 2) records of additional fill placed; 3) an ‘as-built’ plan
showing the DC points relative to the structure footprint; 4) results of field verification
testing; and 5) documentation of any relevant construction issues (ie obstacles
encountered, changes in construction sequence).
The following steps are typical of the RIC process, in this case, assuming a 1.5m diameter,
7.5 tonne weight falling 1.3m. The optimum number of weight drops is to be determined by
field trial. The literature suggests a terminal set of 5mm/blow should be used for control.
Other pattern options arising from economy and individual site constraints are acceptable
but the total energy at each node must be achieved.
Step Type G1c – Typical Activity Sequence for Rapid Impact Compaction
1c.1 Set out perimeter of foundation treatment area and locate marker pegs clear of all
1c.2 Set out position of primary pass nodes at 2.5m regular right angle grid.
1c.3 Any physical obstructions encountered during compaction shall be reported to the
1c.4 Undertake a test of 40 drops and record the depth of penetration (set) after each
drop. Finalise the optimum number of drops from the set versus blows.
1c.5 Commence primary pass compaction with at least 12 drops per node location (or
greater number based on trial). Record the total number of drops and total set at each
node.
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
1c.6 On completion of the primary pass relevel site with compacted imported clean fill.
The fill can be sand or well graded sandy gravel to be compatible with required final
finished layer.
1c.7 Set out position of secondary pass nodes at 2.5m centres off-set 50% in both
directions relative to the primary pass nodes.
1c.8 Commence secondary pass compaction with at least 12 drops per node location.
Record the total number of drops and total set at each node.
1c.9 On completion of the secondary pass relevel site with compacted imported clean fill.
1c.10 Undertake verification testing to a depth of at least 3m on a 10m grid to confirm that
the required level of soil improvement has been achieved (refer to discussion below).
1c.11 After verifying that the target improvement has been achieved, the entire
G1a above.
1c.12 At the completion of work, provide the Design Engineer with: 1) records of the
all node drop and set data; 2) records of additional fill placed; 3) an ‘as-built’ plan
showing the RIC points relative to the structure footprint; 4) locations and results of
field verification testing; and 5) documentation of any relevant construction issues (ie
obstacles encountered, changes in construction sequence).
To confirm that the required level of improvement has been achieved for either method,
CPT testing should be used. The testing should be conducted at a frequency of 1 test per
100m2 of ground treatment area, with a minimum of 3 tests per house site. Target post-
improvement CPT tip resistance profiles are presented in section C4.5. Note that for soils
with an appreciable fines content (ie IC > 1.8 / FC > 15% approx.), the fines correction to tip
resistance can be significant, hence, it is more appropriate to use the equivalent clean sand
tip resistance, qc1Ncs. As discussed in section C4.5, soils with an IC > 2.6 or plasticity index,
PI, of greater than 12 do not require improvement.
Densified Crust Method Statement (reinforced crushed gravel raft)

(Type G1d)
This method is generally suitable for most sites where the water table is at least 1.0m
below ground level.
The crushed gravel raft is to be a minimum of 1.2m deep (below the underside of
foundation elements) over the entire house footprint, and extend a minimum of 1.0m
beyond the perimeter foundation line. The raft is to be constructed of crushed gravels
comprising TNZ M/4 40mm or equivalent (eg crushed AP40 with at least 70% stone having
2 or more broken faces. Outside reinforced grid zones, crushed AP65 can be used).
Two layers of geogrid are incorporated into the raft to add resilience and improve the ability
of the crust to resist differential settlement and (in the case of lateral stretch) fracturing/
pulling apart. In areas of ‘major’ lateral stretch as defined within these guidelines, a third
layer of geogrid is incorporated.
It may be necessary to batter the sides of the excavation, and provide a drainage sump to
remove ground water for the duration of the excavation, filling and compaction work. This
method may have limited application where the groundwater level is high and a ‘dry’ and
stable excavation cannot be practically formed.
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
A resource consent for dewatering may be required, particularly if the site is potentially
contaminated. The potential effects on settlement of neighbouring properties needs to be
assessed when designing the dewatering system.
Step Type G1d – Typical Activity Sequence for Densified Crust (reinforced
crushed gravel raft)
1d.1 Set out perimeter of foundation treatment area and locate marker pegs clear of all
1d.2 During excavation any organic material is to be removed from site and reported to the
Design Engineer.
1d.3 Any physical obstructions encountered during excavation shall be reported to the
1d.4 Excavation in strips or sections may be necessary due to site constraints such as
adjacent properties or the physical shape of the house. In this case additional care
is required at the vertical edge joins by cutting into the previous compacted zone at
2h:1v to ensure compaction integrity is attained across the joins.
1d.5 Commence excavation to 1.2m (below the underside of foundation elements) and if
water is present, construct dewatering sump adjacent to work area. Install pump in
the sump and pipe to sediment control.
1d.6 Level and compact the base of the excavation. Static compaction is likely to be
required in wet or saturated subgrade to avoid fluidizing and/or heaving the ground.
1d.7 The base of the excavation should be stable (not yielding) prior to backfilling. In the
event that soft areas are present in the base layer and the target compaction is not
achieved, the soft materials should be removed and replaced with suitable material
placed and compacted as described in step 1a.9.
The base can also be stabilised by placing a layer of compacted rock or crushed
concrete (dia. ≤ 150mm) over the soft area to create a ‘working platform’. A
nonwoven geotextile fabric separation layer comprising Bidim A19 or equivalent
should be placed both under and over the ‘platform’ to prevent potential migration of
soil into voids within the rock/concrete.
Alternatively, cement can to be added and mixed into the first 200mm of the
subgrade layer to stabilise it. The amount of cement required to stabilise moist
(not saturated) soil will be in the order of 8% by weight. The mixed layer should
be compacted to the extent practicable and allowed to harden prior to placing any
additional fill.
1d.8 Place the first 200mm layer (loose thickness) of crushed gravel and compact
as described in step 1a.9, then install two layers of geogrid (refer the preferred
performance characteristics above – refer to section C4.1 for further information)
separated by a 200mm thick layer of compacted fill. The grid should extend neatly to
the sides of the excavation, and be lapped at joints as specified by the manufacturer.
Prior to placing fill on top of the geogrid, it is important that the grid is
sufficiently tensioned to remove any wrinkles, bulges, etc.
Note that three layers of geogrid, each separated by 200mm of compacted crushed
gravel, are required in areas of ‘major’ lateral stretch as defined in this document.
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
1d.9 Backfill the excavation by placing crushed gravel fill in horizontal loose layers not
exceeding 200mm in thickness, moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacting
to achieve a minimum of:
• 95% standard or 92% of vibrating hammer compaction (NZS 4402:1988 – Test
4.1.1 or Test 4.1.3); or
• 82% of the solid density of the fill material – (well-graded sandy gravel only, refer
to section 4.1).
Perform compaction testing at 600mm vertical intervals within the fill at a minimum
frequency of 1 test for each 50m2 of treatment area or a minimum of 3 tests per
layer.
1d.10 Remove dewatering pump and sump once clear of the water table. Backfill and
1d.11 Provide the Design Engineer with complete records of: 1) the material used to
construct the raft; 2) results of laboratory MDD/moisture content or solid density
tests of backfill materials; 3) results of field compaction testing of backfill; and 4)
an ‘as-built’ plan. Documentation of other relevant details (ie stabilisation of the
excavation subgrade with cement or rock) should also be provided. Field compaction
test results should include depth below ground level, and horizontal locations relative
to a fix point such as a corner of the excavation, and the depth below the top of the
raft.
Reinforced Cement Stabilised Crust Method Statement (excavate, mix and

replace) (Type G2a)
This method is generally suited to clean sand to sandy silt sites where the water table is at
least 1.0m below ground level. For sites with a higher water table, temporary dewatering
may be required.
The cement stabilised crust is to be a minimum of 1.2m deep (below foundation elements)
over the house footprint and extend at least 1m beyond the house perimeter foundation
line. It may be necessary to batter the sides of the excavation, and provide a drainage sump
to remove ground water for the duration of the excavation, filling and compaction work.
This method may not be used where water inflows cannot be controlled to prepare a ‘dry’
base of excavation.
The minimum cement content required for stabilisation is 8% (by dry unit weight).
Alternatively, laboratory testing can be used to determine the required minimum cement
content. Following are the minimum laboratory strength/stiffness to be achieved at 7 days
(or 28 days at the discretion of the Design Engineer):
• UCS > 1 MPa and initial tangent Young’s Modulus of 250 MPa; or
• CBR > 25.
Where the water table is close to the base of the excavation and it is difficult to fully
compact the first layer of fill, an increase in cement content to 10% is recommended and
compaction should be undertaken using a static roller.
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
A resource consent for dewatering may be required if the site is potentially contaminated.
The potential effects on settlement of neighbouring properties needs to be assessed when
designing the dewatering system.
Step Type G2a – Typical Activity Sequence for Reinforced Cement Stabilised Crust
(excavate, mix and replace)
2a.1 Set out perimeter of foundation treatment area and locate marker pegs clear of all
2a.2 During excavation any organic material is to be removed from site and reported to the
Design Engineer.
2a.3 Any physical obstructions encountered during excavation shall be reported to the
2a.4 Excavation in strips or sections may be necessary due to site constraints such as
adjacent properties or the physical shape of the house. In this case, additional care is
required at the vertical edge joins to ensure compaction integrity is attained across
the joins, ie excavate on a batter and bench into the previously treated strip.
2a.5 Commence excavation to 1.2m below foundation depth and if water is present
construct dewatering sump adjacent to work area. Install pump in the sump and pipe
to sediment control. The depth of excavation can be reduced to 1.0m if suitable plant
is used to dose, mix and compact the base 200mm layer of stabilised soil in situ.
2a.6 Level the base of the excavation, and compact it sufficiently to allow proper
compaction of subsequent layers of backfill material. Static compaction is likely to be
required in wet or saturated subgrade to avoid fluidizing and/or heaving the ground.
2a.7 Excavated soil and cement should be passed through a rotary mixer fitted with
a currently certified weighing device to ensure the cement is added at the target
dosage rate. Note the time taken to mix the cement uniformly throughout the batch
and apply to all subsequent batches.
As an alternative to ex situ mixing, the soil may be placed in 200mm lifts and cement
spread and uniformly mixed in situ with a rotovator with blades that extend 50mm
into the underlying layer. In situ mixing of the first layer of fill over the geogrid (refer
to step 2a.8) may not be possible due to the risk of damaging the grid.
2a.8 Place the first 200mm layer (loose thickness) of stabilised soil and compact as
described in step 2a.9, then install two layers of geogrid (refer the preferred
performance characteristics above – refer to section C4.1 for further information)
separated by a 200mm thick layer of compacted stabilised fill. The grid should extend
neatly to the sides of the excavation, and be lapped at joints as specified by the
manufacturer. Prior to placing fill on top of the geogrid, it is important that the
grid is sufficiently tensioned to remove any wrinkles, bulges, etc.
Note that three layers of geogrid, each separated by 200mm of compacted stabilised
soil, are required in areas of ‘major’ lateral stretch as defined in this document.
2a.9 Backfill the excavation by placing the soil-cement mix in horizontal loose layers
not exceeding 200mm in thickness and compacting to achieve a minimum of 95%
standard compaction (NZS 4402:1988 – Test 4.1.1).
Perform compaction testing at 600mm vertical intervals within the fill at a frequency
of 1 test for each 25m2 of treatment area.
2a.10 Remove dewatering pump and sump once clear of the water table. Back fill and
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
2a.11 If using less than 8% cement by weight, obtain QC test samples of the stabilised
soil by sampling mixed material at a rate of 1 sample per 100m3 of material placed.
Each sample should include sufficient material to make 4 100mm diameter test
cylinders. The samples should be taken from the placed material prior to compaction,
and compacted into 100mm diameter moulds within 1 hour of cement mixing. The
samples should be carefully stored and transported to a testing laboratory (see
note below table), and cured for 7 days (or 28 days at the discretion of the Design
Engineer).
To confirm that the target strength is achieved, the samples should be tested and
meet the following criteria:
• UCS > 1 MPa; or,
• CBR > 25.
Alternatively, in situ QC testing can be conducted in lieu of laboratory testing as
follows (1 test/50m2, minimum 3 test locations per residential site to just short of
base of raft to avoid perforating base):
• Uncorrected CPT q C > 6 MPa;
• Uncorrected SPT > 20; or,
• Scala > 10 blows/100mm
2a.12 Provide the Design Engineer with complete records of: 1) results of laboratory testing
conducted to confirm cement dosing rate, if done; 2) cement dosing rates applied
during mixing; 3) results of laboratory MDD/moisture content tests; 4) results of field
compaction testing of stabilised backfill; 5) results of laboratory QC tests; and 6) an
‘as-built’ plan. Field compaction test results/laboratory QC test results should include
the depth below ground level, and horizontal test/sample locations relative to a fix
point such as a corner of the excavation, and the depth below the top of the raft.
Note:
If samples are not immediately carefully stored, and then transported, experience has shown that degradation will
almost certainly occur. This will result in samples that are not cured and will not be able to be tested, thus rendering
the QC process abortive (in which case the alternative in situ measurements outlined above could be used, or it will
be up to the works contractor and engineer to find alternative means of demonstrating compliance, as a specific
engineering design process). Refer ASTM D 4220 for guidance.
Unreinforced Cement Stabilised Crust Method Statement (in situ mixing)

(Type G2b)
This method is best suited to sand and silty sand soils. There are a number of proprietary
techniques available for in situ cement – soil mixing. Two known to be locally available are:
• Tracked-panel stabilisation mixer.
• Rotary cutter and stabilisation mixer.
Both are coupled to either a grout or dry-cement batching plant, and are considered
suitable for this method if they are operated to produce a homogeneous block of stabilised
soil to the required strength and dimensions.
The stabilised crust should be at least 2m deep (below foundation elements) over the
house footprint, to at least 1.5m outside the house perimeter foundation line.
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
The soil to be stabilised is to be uniformly treated with a minimum target dose rate of 10%
of cement added to the soil (by dry unit weight). Alternatively, laboratory testing can be used
to determine the minimum cement content. Following are the minimum laboratory strength/
stiffness to be achieved at 7 days (or 28 days at the discretion of the Design Engineer):
• UCS > 1 MPa and initial tangent Young’s Modulus of 250 MPa; or
• CBR > 25.
Step Type G2b – Typical Activity Sequence for Unreinforced Cement Stabilised Crust
(in situ mixing)
2b.1 Set out perimeter of foundation treatment area and locate marker pegs clear of all
2b.2 During treatment any organic material encountered is to be reported to the Design
Engineer.
2b.3 Any physical obstructions encountered during treatment shall be reported to the
2b.4 Set out appropriate pattern and sequence to suit equipment type used, ensuring
entire area receives a uniform distribution of stabilised mixed soil.
2b.5 Commence soil-mixing process and ensure entire treatment area is completed in
one continuous operation. Ensure there is a minimum overlap of 500mm with each
mixing pass to ensure a continuous stabilised area.
2b.6 If using less than 10% cement by weight, obtain QC test samples of the stabilised soil
by sampling mixed material at a rate of 1 sample per 100m3 of material placed. Each
sample should include sufficient material to make 4 100mm diameter test cylinders.
The samples should be taken from the placed material prior to compaction, and
compacted into 100mm diameter moulds within 1 hour of cement mixing. The samples
should be carefully stored and transported to a testing laboratory (see note below
table), and cured for 7 days (or 28 days at the discretion of the Design Engineer).
To confirm that the target strength is achieved, the samples should be tested and
meet the following criteria:
• UCS > 1 MPa; or,
• CBR > 25.
In situ QC testing should also be conducted as follows (1 test/50m2, minimum 3 test
locations per residential site to just short of base of raft to avoid perforating base):
• Uncorrected CPT q C > 6 MPa;
• Uncorrected SPT > 20; or,
• Scala > 10 blows/100mm
2b.7 Provide the Design Engineer with complete records of: 1) results of laboratory
testing conducted to confirm cement dosing rate, if done; 2) cement dosing
rates applied during mixing; 3) description of plant and mixing process used; 4)
locations and results of field verification testing; 5) documentation of additional
relevant construction issues such as addition of water or cement to compensate
for unexpected conditions; and 6) an ‘as-built’ plan.
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
C4.4 Deep foundation treatments

Deep Soil Mix (DSM) Columns Method Statement (Type G3)
This method is generally suited to most soils provided there are no layers of peat or organic
materials that exceed 5% of the treatment zone by volume.
Soil-mixed columns are constructed using either a jet-grouting rig and grout-batching plant,
or a rotary auger drilling rig and dry-cement dispenser or grout-batching plant.
The drill has a rotary head fitted with grout jet nozzles to produce a (typical) nominal
800mm diameter column of grout-strengthened soil. The rotary auger rig introduces dry
cement or grout through the base of the augers.
Ground improvement is required across the entire house footprint, and at least 1.5m
beyond the perimeter foundation line. The minimum depth of the columns should be a
minimum of 8m below ground level, or into a layer of dense non-liquefiable soil proven to a
minimum 2m thickness, whichever is deeper, unless a shallower depth is demonstrated to
be adequate based on specific design.
A minimum area replacement ratio (ARR) of 18% should be achieved.
The cement dosing rate is nominally 10% by dry weight, but must achieve a minimum
7-day strength of 2 MPa and an initial tangent Young’s modulus of 400 MPa.
Step Type G3 – Typical Activity Sequence for Deep Soil Mix (DSM) Columns
3.1 Set out perimeter of foundation treatment area and locate marker pegs clear of all
3.2 During treatment any organic material encountered is to be reported to the Design
Engineer.
3.3 Any physical obstructions encountered during treatment shall be reported to the
3.4 Set out the design grid pattern across the work area.
3.5 Commence drilling of first column to confirm ground conditions at design depth–
advise Design Engineer and confirm target column depth.
3.6 Complete drilling and soil mixing column process to the entire work area.
3.7 Sample the jet grout mix at a rate of 1 sample per 50m3 of column for laboratory
testing. Each sample should comprise a minimum of 4 100mm diameter test
cylinders. The samples should be taken from the placed material prior to compaction,
and compacted into 100mm diameter moulds within 1 hour of cement mixing. The
samples should be carefully stored and transported to a testing laboratory (see
note below table), and cured for 7 days (or 28 days at the discretion of the Design
Engineer).
3.8 Conduct laboratory unconfined compressive strength testing to confirm that the
samples meet the required 7 day UCS of 2 MPa and initial tangent Young’s Modulus
of 400 MPa.
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
3.9 After verifying that the target improvement has been achieved, the entire
G1a above.
3.10 Provide the Design Engineer with records of: 1) cement dosing rates; 2) the samples
collected; 3) results of strength and stiffness tests; 4) an ‘as-built plan’ showing the
columns relative to the structure footprint; and, 5) documentation of any relevant
construction issues (ie obstacles encountered, changes in construction sequence).
Note:
If samples are not immediately carefully stored, and then transported, experience has shown that degradation will
almost certainly occur. This will result in samples that are not cured and will not be able to be tested, thus rendering
the QC process abortive. It would then be up to the works contractor and engineer to find alternative means of
demonstrating compliance, as a specific engineering design process). Refer ASTM D 4220 for guidance.
Deep Stone Columns Method Statement (Type G4)

Stone columns (often referred to as ‘vibro replacement’) are typically constructed using a
suspended vibrating probe and follower tube using either a ‘wet top feed’ or ‘dry bottom
feed’ process. The follower tube is used to tremie graded aggregate to the tip of the probe
during extraction. The probe is also used during extraction for aggregate compaction. This
method applies only to methods which displace and densify the soil, not ones that only
replace the soil.
This method is typically effective densifying relatively clean sands (generally IC < 1.8 / FC
< 15% approx.). However, as the fines content of the sand increases, achieving significant
densification becomes more difficult. In soils with FC greater than about 20-25% (or IC > 1.8
– 2.3 approx.), international experience suggests that little densification may be achieved.
The ground improvement is required to be applied to the house floor plan, and at least 1.5m
beyond the house perimeter foundation line. The minimum depth of the columns should be
a minimum of 8m below ground level, or into a layer of dense non-liquefiable soil proven to
a minimum 2m thickness, whichever is deeper, unless a shallower depth is demonstrated
to be adequate based on specific design.
Stone materials should be uniformly graded free-draining aggregate or crushed concrete

with at least two broken faces.
The following steps are typical of the stone column/vibro replacement process. The initial
column diameter, spacing and layout is to be determined based on design. It is common
practice to verify the effectiveness of the design layout with a field trial.
Step Type G4- Typical Activity Sequence for Stone Columns (vibro replacement)
Engineer.
4.3 Any physical obstructions encountered during treatment shall be reported to the
4.4 Set out the design grid pattern across the work area.
4.5 Commence installing first column to confirm soil conditions at design depth – advise
the Design Engineer and confirm target column depth.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 4 . 1 8
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
4.6 Complete stone column installations to entire work area.

4.7 Undertake verification testing to confirm that the required level of soil improvement
has been achieved (refer to discussion below).
4.8 After verifying that the target improvement has been achieved, the entire
improvement area should be sub-excavated to a depth of 400mm (or base of any
disturbed materials, but no less than 300mm) and recompacted as engineered fill
(refer to Step 1a.9 of the typical activity for improvement method G1a above).
4.9 Trim surface and provide 100mm drainage (aggregate) layer (as part of the reworked
layer in step 4.8) comprising well-graded sandy gravel to prevent migration of fines.
4.10 Provide the Design Engineer with: 1) records of quantity of aggregate added to each
column location; 2) results of field density (verification) tests; 3) an ‘as-built’ plan showing
column locations relative to the structure footprint; and, 4) documentation of any relevant
construction issues (ie obstacles encountered, changes in construction sequence).
To confirm that the required level of improvement has been achieved CPT testing should
be used. The testing should be conducted at a frequency of 1 test per 100m2 of ground
treatment area, with a minimum of 3 tests per house site. Target post-improvement CPT
tip resistance profiles are presented in section C4.6. Note that for soils with an appreciable
fines content (ie IC > 1.8 / FC > 15% approx.), the fines correction to tip resistance can be
significant, hence, it is more appropriate to use the equivalent clean sand tip resistance,
qc1Ncs.
In lieu of CPT testing in soils with IC < 1.8 or FC < 15% approx. a minimum column area
replacement ratio (ARR) of 18% can be used. In soils with a higher IC value/fines content,
the target CPT resistances must be achieved, or specific engineering analyses performed
to demonstrate that the liquefaction potential is adequately mitigated. As discussed in
section C4.6, soils with an IC > 2.6 or PI of greater than 12 do not require improvement.
C4.5 Crust reinforced with inclusions

Shallow Stone Columns / Columns of Highly Compacted Aggregate Method
Statement (Type G5a)
This method includes conventional stone columns, typically constructed as described
for ground improvement method Type G4, or highly compacted aggregate piers. As for
the Method G4 ground improvement, Method G5a columns must be constructed using
methods that displace and densify the soil; not replace the soil. The highly compacted
aggregate piers are constructed by applying a high compaction effort (often a combination
of downward pressure and vibration) to the aggregate to form stiff, high density columns.
One example is the Geopier Rammed Aggregate Pier™ System (RAP). This is a patented/
proprietary ground improvement system, but is similar in principle to various other methods
including Terrapiers, Geo Piers and Impact Piers.
Both types of columns are most suited for densifying relatively clean sands (IC < 1.8 /
FC < 15% approx.). The amount of densification that can be achieved will decrease with
increasing silt content, to the point where meaningful densification cannot be achieved.
However, RAP or equivalent stiff aggregate columns can still have a beneficial mitigation
effect in potentially liquefiable silty soils through stiffening effects. The highly compacted
aggregate piers will generally result in a stiffer column than conventional vibro replacement.
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
The ground improvement works are to extend over the house floor plan, and at least
2m beyond the house perimeter foundation. The depth of the improvement (ie probe or
mandrel depth) should be a minimum of 4m below the underside of foundation elements,
or to a depth that results in a total non-liquefiable crust thickness of at least 4m under
the foundation elements. For example, a 2m deep improvement combined with a non-
liquefiable layer proven to extend from a depth of 2m to 4m below the underside of
foundation elements.
The typical construction activities for shallow conventional stone columns or columns of
highly compacted aggregate are the same or similar to the methodology for deep stone
columns (Type G4) described above and therefore are not repeated here.
One difference between the two column types is that the area replacement ratio (ARR)
required to achieve the required level of ground improvement is expected to be less
for columns of highly compacted aggregate. To achieve densification of relatively clean
sands with conventional stone columns typically requires an area replacement ratio in the
order of 16 to 20%. The results of the 2013 EQC ground improvement trials (EQC Ground
Improvement Trials report (currently being finalised for publishing) indicated that for 4m
deep columns of highly compacted aggregate, an ARR as low as 8 to 12% was sufficient to
adequately mitigate liquefaction effects at the ground surface up to the ULS level of ground
shaking, in terms of the objectives outlined in section 15.3.1.
To confirm that the required level of improvement has been achieved CPT testing should
be used. The testing should be conducted at a frequency of 1 test per 100m2 of ground
treatment area, with a minimum of 3 tests per house site. Target post-improvement CPT
tip resistance profiles are presented in section C4.6. Note that for soils with an appreciable
fines content (ie IC > 1.8 / FC > 15% approx.), the fines correction to tip resistance can be
significant, hence, it is more appropriate to use the equivalent clean sand tip resistance, qc1Ncs.
In lieu of CPT testing in soils with IC < 1.8 or FC < 15%, a minimum column area replacement
ratio (ARR) of 12% for columns of highly compacted aggregate can be used. The minimum
ARR should be increased to 18% for conventional vibro-replacement columns.
In soils with a higher IC value/fines content, the target CPT resistances must be achieved,
or specific engineering analyses performed to demonstrate that the liquefaction potential is
adequately mitigated. Alternatively, cross-hole shear wave velocity (VS) testing can be used
to assess the composite stiffness of the improvement zone (ie the combined stiffness of
the column and surrounding soil). The target improvement is considered to have been met
if a composite cross-hole VS profile within the improvement zone is achieved as follows:
Ground Improvement Types G5a

Target Composite Shear Wave Velocity Criteria
Depth below ground level (m) VS (m/s)

(only required to base of treated layer)
1 190
2 200
4 210
5 215
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 4 . 2 0
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
Alternatively, a lower composite VS value may still be acceptable if specific analysis/design

demonstrates that the ground improvements will still reduce liquefaction and/or distribute
foundation loads such that damage to the foundation system is likely to meet the design
requirements.
The cross-hole pairs should be located in-line with, and halfway between, any two ground
improvement points so that the composite VS is representative of the soil/improvement
point (refer to the figure below). The VS should be measured at 0.5m vertical intervals
throughout the depth of the improved zone, beginning at a depth of 1m below ground level.
Cross-hole VS tests should be conducted at a frequency of 1 test per 100m2 of ground
treatment area, with a minimum of 3 tests per house site.
Figure C4.1: Cross-hole shear wave velocity testing of Type G5 ground improvement
1 2
3 4
Driven Timber Displacement Piles Method Statement (Type G5b)

As discussed in section 15.3, driven timber piles may be used to densify relatively clean
sands (IC < 1.8 / FC < 15% approx.) although vibro replacement stone columns or columns
of highly compacted aggregate may be preferable if there is sufficient site access. In silty
soils, driven timber piles are not expected to provide significant improvement through
soil densification, but they may still reduce differential ground surface settlement through
redistribution of foundation loads.
The piles should be driven without the use of jetting. The pile depth should be a minimum
of 4m below the underside of foundation elements (average depth with an allowable
variation from this average of +/- 0.4m to allow for efficient use of available lengths).
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 4 . 2 1
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
Any variations from the average depth must be evenly distributed across the site.
The piles should have a minimum diameter of 200mm (for tapered piles this can be the
average diameter over the length of the pile). Piles with a minimum diameter of 200mm
that have not been shaved (ie ‘uglies’) are permissible. For the determination of the ARR,
the average as-driven diameter of the piles may be used (with no more than 50mm
variation from this average, a minimum average diameter of 200mm, and a maximum taper
of 10mm per metre). Any variation of pile diameters must be evenly distributed throughout
the pile grid. The pile grid spacing should be determined by the Design Engineer based on
meeting the CPT tip resistances specified below, or in the absence of post-installation CPT
testing, the minimum ARR specified below. The pile grid should extend across the entire
house footprint, and at least 2m beyond the house perimeter foundation line.
The piles should be ground treated to the equivalent of H5, and cut ends of piles should be
re-treated to the same level of protection. Re-treated ends shall not be placed at the lower
end of the pile.
If timber piles are to be used solely as improvement through soil densification, the target
CPT tip resistance of the soil between piles should be the same as specified for method
G5a above. The minimum frequency of CPT testing should be 1 test per 100m2 of
improvement area with a minimum of 3 tests per house site. Alternatively, a minimum ARR
of 5% can be used for tapered piles, or 5.5% for piles of uniform diameter.
The following steps are typical of the driven timber pile process:
Step Type G5b- Typical Activity Sequence for Driven Timber Pile Grid
Engineer.
5.3 Any physical obstructions or noticeably soft ground encountered during driving shall
be reported to the Design Engineer for further direction.
5.4 Set out suitable grid pattern to the work area.
5.5 Commence installing a H5 treated pile to verify the target depth – advise Design
Engineer and confirm depth.
5.6 Complete grid of pile installation across entire work area.
5.7 If using soil densification for verification of improvement, undertake verification

testing at a rate of 1 test/100m2 at points equidistant between the nearest piles to
confirm that the target density of the soil has been achieved as specified for Type G4
above.
5.8 Over drive piles to allow for placement of a 200mm layer of compacted gravel over
the pile heads.
5.9 Provide the Design Engineer with an ‘as-built’ plan of the pile grid, as well as material
supplier certificates and documentation of any construction issues such as driving
difficulty or broken piles.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 4 . 2 2
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
C4.6 Target CPT tip resistances for ground

improvement
The design philosophy for these target soil densification criteria is based around the
primary objective that the integrated foundation solution should provide a building platform
that controls liquefaction-induced differential settlement to the degree that acceptable
foundation performance is maintained. This performance objective is discussed further in
section 15.3.1.
It is recognised that at ULS levels of shaking it is not necessary to achieve a factor of safety
(FOS) against liquefaction of 1 or more throughout the soil profile. Instead, by controlling
the onset and severity of consequential effects following liquefaction triggering (without
seeking to eliminate triggering altogether) it is possible to achieve the design objective (ie
controlling differential settlement).
One of the key advantages of undertaking ground improvement to increase the relative
density of the soil is that as well as increasing the FOS against liquefaction triggering
for a given level of shaking, it also decreases the severity of post-triggering effects (eg
volumetric/shear strain and excess pore pressure) for a given FOS.
Accordingly, the target soil densification criteria have been selected with the aim of limiting
strains at ULS levels of shaking, while preventing triggering at SLS and intermediate levels
of shaking (assumed to be the 100 year return period level of shaking as discussed in
section 15.3.9).
It is recognised that different minimum target densities are appropriate for the shallow and
deep treatment options. For the shallow treatment options, the foundation performance
relies on forming a robust and stiff non-liquefiable surface crust to mitigate the surface
effects from liquefaction of the underlying soils. Therefore a higher target density is
required than for the deep treatment options, where foundation performance is achieved by
reducing the potential for liquefaction over the entire depth (or at least the majority) of the
liquefiable soil deposits.
The depositional environment in Canterbury is such that soil types are often layered
or interbedded, and may either abruptly or gradually transition from one soil type to
another (for example, from sand to silt or from sand to silty sand to silt). For this reason,
the response to ground improvement may vary with depth (ie the target densities
specified below may not be achieved in some layers). This does not necessarily mean
the overall result is unacceptable. However, the situation would need to be addressed by
demonstrating one of the following:
• that the non-responding soil layer does not actually need to be treated (ie it is already
non-liquefiable due to its fines content or it is above groundwater level); or:
• through detailed analysis, the overall result is still acceptable.
If neither of the above are applicable, re-working or intensifying the ground improvement
will be required.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 4 . 2 3
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
In considering the above, for methods G1b, G1c, G4 and G5, silty soils within the
improvement zone may be exempted from these target strength criteria if it can be
demonstrated using other accepted assessment techniques that they are not susceptible to
liquefaction. For the purpose of this document, silty soils may be exempted if they possess
a plasticity index greater than 12, or CPT Soil Behaviour Type Index (IC) value greater than
2.6.
For methods G3 and G4 (deep foundation treatments), if relatively thin layers within the
soil profile do not meet the criteria specified below, site-specific engineering analysis may
be undertaken to assess whether possible liquefaction of these layers can be accepted
without a significant reduction in expected performance of the foundation system.
It should also be noted that post-treatment cone friction (fs) values may be influenced (ie
increased) by horizontal stresses imparted by the treatment works, thus giving misleadingly
low IC values and an unrealistic decrease in apparent fines content. For the purposes of
this document it is therefore acceptable to use pre-improvement IC values. (For further
information refer to Nguyen, T., Shao, L., Gingery, J., and Robertson, P. (2014). ‘Proposed
modification to CPT-based liquefaction method for post-vibratory ground improvement.’
Geo-Congress 2014).
Figure C4.2: Equivalent target soil densification criteria for all soils
Following are the CPT tip resistance profiles to be used to confirm whether the minimum
level of ground improvement has been achieved for methods G1b, G1c, G4 and G5.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 4 . 2 4
C 2. F OUNDATION
A PPEND IX C 4
AS S ES S M ENT
Figure C4.3: Target soil densification criteria for clean sand
Ground Improvement Types G1b, G1c & G5

Target Soil Densification Criteria
Depth (m) Target For Clean Sand (IC < Equivalent CPT qc1Ncs Target
1.8) CPT qc (MPa) For All Soils
1 8.0 136
2 8.7 148
4 10.8 154
5 11.5 154
Ground Improvement Type G4: Deep stone columns

Target Soil Densification Criteria
Depth (m) Target For Clean Sand (IC < Equivalent CPT qc1Ncs Target
1.8) CPT qc (MPa) For All Soils
1 7.0 120
2 7.8 133
4 9.4 138
10 13.3 139
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 4 . 2 5
A PPEN DI X C 4
AS S ES S M E N T C
A P P E N D I X / PAG E C 4 . 2 6
GUIDANCE D CONTENTS
Part D: Guidelines for the

geotechnical investigation and
assessment of subdivisions in
the Canterbury region
Minimum requirements for geotechnical
assessment for land development (‘flatland
areas’ of the Canterbury region)
Contents
16. Geotechnical investigation
and assessment
16.1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 16.1
16.2 Site investigation.......................................................................................................16.2
16.3 Site investigation density for overall ground characterisation...................................16.3
16.4 Liquefaction assessment..........................................................................................16.4
16.5 Broad classification of land.......................................................................................16.5
16.6 Land already classified TC1 by the Ministry.............................................................16.6
16.7 Land already classified TC2 by the Ministry.............................................................16.6
16.8 Site investigation density at building consent stage.................................................16.6
16.9 Engineering Advisory Group recommendations regarding liquefaction
performance for new subdivisions ...........................................................................16.7
Appendix D1: Liquefaction Calculation Methodology
List of tables
Table 16.1: Liquefaction deformation limits and house foundation implications................16.5
PA R T D . S U B D I V I S I O N S
Canterbury Technical Guidance - PART D.indd 1 22/01/2013 8:57:07 a.m.

1. I N T RO D U C T I ON
CONTENTS
D

D 16. G
EOTEC H NIC A L
1. INTROD UC TION
AS S ES S M ENT
16. Geotechnical investigation

and assessment
16.1 Introduction
In support of both plan change applications and subdivision consent applications,
appropriate geotechnical investigations shall be carried out, and stand-alone geotechnical
reports prepared by a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng.) with competence in
geotechnical engineering. The reports shall combine all relevant geotechnical information
in both a factual and interpretive manner, provide justifiable statements about all pertinent
geotechnical aspects and consider relevant RMA section 106 issues.
In Canterbury, the requirements for geotechnical assessments for subdivisions are set out
to a certain degree in the following documents (all available online):
• Christchurch City Council – Infrastructure Design Standards
• Selwyn District Council – Engineering Code of Practice
• Waimakariri District Council – Engineering Code of Practice.
Additional guidance is given in the following Standards (available from Standards New
Zealand):
• NZS 4431 Code of Practice for Earth Fill for Residential Development
• NZS 4404:2010 Land Development and Subdivision Infrastructure.
However, these documents do not give specific guidance on the assessment of

liquefaction risk. For background information, reference should be made to the following
New Zealand Geotechnical Society publication (available online):
• NZGS guidelines (2010) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Practice Module 1 –

Guideline for the identification, assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards.
In conjunction with these documents, the minimum requirements for assessing liquefaction
for land development in Canterbury are summarised below.
G E OT E C H N I C A L A S S E S S M E N T / PAG E 16 . 1

16. G E OT E C H N I C AL
AS S E S S M E N T D
16.2 Site investigation

UP D A TE: Appropriate geotechnical investigations shall be carried out to enable the characterisation
December 2012 of ground-forming materials to at least 15 m depth below ground level, unless the ground
is known to be of acceptable quality from lesser depths, for example, in areas known to
be underlaid by competent gravels and deep groundwater profiles, or in hillside areas.
Areas that are within the Ecan/GNS assessment area defined as ‘damaging liquefaction
unlikely’ (refer to GNS Science Consultancy Report 2012/218 and the relevant data layer
on the Canterbury Geotechnical Database or Ecan /TA GIS system) are also less likely to
be subject to liquefaction hazard. Within such areas, investigations in most cases can be
designed primarily for other geotechnical hazards. Liquefaction, however, must at least be
considered by the geotechnical professional in all cases.
Following an appropriate desktop study to evaluate existing subsurface information in the

vicinity of the site, deep investigations shall consist of one of, or an appropriate mix of:
• CPT (Cone Penetrometer Test) testing
• physical drilling and sampling with SPT (Standard Penetration Testing) (refer NZS
4402.6.5.1:1988)
• testpit excavations (eg, in ground of acceptable quality from shallow depths)
• laboratory testing
as judged appropriate by a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng.) with competence in

geotechnical engineering.
Scala Penetrometer testing (refer NZS 4402:1998 Test 6.5.2) is often useful as a shallow
investigation tool in conjunction with the methods outlined above. However, Scala
Penetrometer testing is not considered appropriate as the primary ground characterisation
method for liquefaction purposes.
UP D A TE: Given the relative cost of CPT data it is considered best practice to push CPTs to refusal,
December 2012 however where there are very deep deposits of penetrable materials (for example in excess
of 20 m) some judgement is required regarding the usefulness of the deeper information.
It must be recognised also that early termination of CPT investigation depths may result
in loss of potentially useful information regarding possible pile founding depths, ground
improvement options, overall site settlements and general site characterisation. For this
reason, termination of CPTs at a given depth is not recommended.
It is recognised that CPT data is generally superior to SPT data in determining liquefaction
susceptibility. Therefore, CPTs will normally be carried out in preference to SPTs. CPT
equipment should be calibrated, and procedures carried out, to ASTM D5778-12.
UP D A TE: In many areas of Canterbury however, liquefiable deposits contain interbedded layers
December 2012 of relatively stiff gravel deposits. Therefore, CPT testing alone may not penetrate deep
enough to achieve the depth of ground characterisation required. Physical drilling, sampling
and SPT testing may be required in this case.
Where ground conditions dictate the need for SPTs it is important that equipment is used
that has been properly energy rated so that an appropriate energy ratio can be used to
correct SPT ‘N’ values.
G E OT E C H N I C A L A S S E S S M E N T / PAG E 1 6 . 2

D 16. G
EOTEC H NIC A L
1. INTROD UC TION
AS S ES S M ENT
Geophysical methods such as MASW (multi-channel analysis of surface waves) can be

useful in characterising ground conditions between borehole locations.
Knowledge of the geological depositional environment can also be a guide to identifying

areas of likely liquefaction susceptibility.
These guidelines relate primarily to residential subdivisions – commercial and industrial U P D A TE:
December 2012
subdivisions may require more substantial investigations.
16.3 Site investigation density for overall

ground characterisation
The following minimum investigation density guidelines are recommended for deep
investigations:
Investigation stage Total number of test/investigation locations (cumulative)
Site 1 hectare or more Site 2500 m2 or more, Site less than 2500 m2
but less than 1 hectare
Plan change 0.2 to 0.5 per hectare 2 to 5 total 2 total

(minimum of 5)
Subdivision consent 0.25 per lot (minimum 5 total 1 per lot

of 5) (urban)
1 per house site (rural)
Note: The lower end of the recommended minimum range might be appropriate
where investigations show ground conditions to be reasonably consistent (especially if
MASW or the like is being used between investigation locations), while the upper end
of the range may be more appropriate if ground conditions prove to be highly variable.
For the purposes of this table, a minimum effective lot size of 600 m2 may be used.
If initial investigations for a subdivision (carried out at minimum densities tabulated

above for ‘Plan Change’) demonstrate an absence of liquefaction potential, the
engineer may judge somewhat fewer test locations or shallower depths of
investigation to be appropriate (however, potential geotechnical issues other than
liquefaction must be considered in making this judgement). Conversely, higher
densities may be required where particular site conditions (subsurface complexities,
site geometry etc) exist. In commercial or industrial land, specific development
proposals may also lead the engineer to judge that fewer or more test locations are
appropriate.

16.4 Liquefaction assessment

UP D A TE: In addition to standard geotechnical characterisation, the site data shall be analysed using
December 2012 the methods outlined below to determine liquefaction susceptibility and in particular likely
ground deformations under design serviceability limit state (‘SLS’) and ultimate limit state
(‘ULS’) ground motions (It is important to note that the methods outlined below must be
employed when using these guidance documents).
UP D A TE: 16.4.1 Liquefaction analysis methodologies (minimum requirements)

December 2012
A standard liquefaction analysis methodology shall be used, as outlined below, in
conjunction with specified input ground motions and, where appropriate, observations
of land damage from recent seismic events. Other methods or adjustments that are not
included in this document (for example ‘thin layer’ correction techniques) do not form part
of this standardised methodology.
Ground input motions

Refer to Appendix C2, Guidance on PGA values for geotechnical design in Canterbury.
Liquefaction hazard, liquefaction-induced settlements and

lateral spread
Refer to the following documents or methodologies:
• For background information: refer to the latest edition of NZGS guidelines Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering Practice Module 1 – Guideline for the identification, assessment
and mitigation of liquefaction hazards (current edition July 2010).
• For specific analysis methodology for liquefaction triggering: refer to Idriss & Boulanger
2008 Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes – EERI monograph MNO12. This is to be
modified for fines correction, settlement calculation, surface crust assessment and site
observations in accordance with Appendix A of this (subdivision) document. (Note: this
requirement is only for the purposes of determining settlement deformations and their
comparison with the limits set out in Table 16.1).
• Where land is within 200 m of a free edge then the potential effects of lateral spreading
shall be assessed.
• It is hoped that, with time, a modified methodology for liquefaction settlement/damage
calculation (that will be depth weighted) will be derived from extensive site data and
damage observations in the recent earthquake sequence. This will be incorporated into
these requirements at an appropriate stage.
• Modification by reference to soil deposit ageing is not considered appropriate in the
Canterbury region.

D 16. G
EOTEC H NIC A L
1. INTROD UC TION
AS S ES S M ENT
16.5 Broad classification of land

The site’s liquefaction characteristics shall be assessed against the limits in the guidance
document as summarised below in Table 16.1.
Liquefaction characteristics need to be assessed over the full depth of the soil profile U P D A TE:
December 2012
investigated. However, when comparing calculated settlement values to the index values
in Table 16.1, calculations may be limited to the upper 10 m of the soil profile (this does
not in any way imply that potential issues do not need to be considered below 10 m depth,
this is simply a calculated ‘index’ number for comparison to the index values in Table 16.1).
Settlements resulting from soil liquefaction at depths greater than 10 m do contribute to
total ground settlements, which can be important in areas of high flooding hazard or for
proper functioning of some utilities. Therefore, the amount of ground settlement resulting
from deep liquefaction should also be estimated when evaluating deep soil profiles where
liquefiable soils with low resistances are encountered.
Table 16.1: Liquefaction deformation limits and house foundation implications
Technical Liquefaction deformation index limits Likely implications for house

Category foundation (subject to
individual assessment)
Vertical settlement Lateral spread (across

a house site)
SLS ULS SLS ULS
TC1 15 mm 25 mm nil nil Standard NZS 3604 – like

foundations with tied slabs*
TC2 50 mm 100 mm 50 mm 100 mm The Ministry’s enhanced

foundation solutions
(section 5.2) of the 2011
Repairing and rebuilding
houses affected by the
TC3 >50 mm >100 mm >50 mm >100 mm The Ministry’s TC3 foundation

solutions, but preferably
ground treatment to upgrade
land to align with TC2
characteristics.
Note: Certain foundation details included in NZS 3604 are precluded from use (refer to Building Code
Acceptable Solution B1/AS1 at www.dbh.govt.nz/compliance-documents#b1.
Where investigations have shown that a mix of land classifications might apply across
a site, the site should either be classified as a whole according to the most conservative
result on the site, or micro-zoned into multiple classifications on a conservative basis.
(This might require further investigations to more tightly define these areas). The
geotechnical report shall identify likely requirements for construction of buildings to meet
the design requirements as prescribed by the Ministry, with respect to liquefaction and
lateral spread. In addition to this, the geotechnical report in all cases should address all
other geotechnical aspects (soil types, static bearing capacities, settlements, stability, U P D A TE:
RMA section 106 hazards etc). December 2012

16.6 Land already classified TC1 by

the Ministry
Where land that is already subject to a Technical Category classification of TC1 by the
Ministry is to be further subdivided, then it may be assumed that the land remains as TC1
for liquefaction assessment purposes subject to the following:
• Visual assessment and reasonable enquiry does not suggest that the original TC1
classification is inappropriate.
• Normal geotechnical investigations are undertaken for the purposes of evaluating all
other potential geotechnical issues.
16.7 Land already classified TC2 by

the Ministry
Where land that is already subject to a Technical Category classification of TC2 by the
Ministry is to be further subdivided, and the original parcel size is less than 2500 m2, then
it may be assumed that the land remains as TC2 for liquefaction assessment purposes
subject to the following:
• Visual assessment and reasonable enquiry does not suggest that the original TC2
classification is inappropriate.
• Normal geotechnical investigations are undertaken for the purposes of evaluating all
other potential geotechnical issues.
• Hybrid TC2/TC3 foundations, or TC3 surface structure foundations are recommended in
the geotechnical report.
In the absence of the above a full investigation, and analysis in accordance with
section 16.4 shall be undertaken to determine the liquefaction characteristics and land
performance, and appropriate foundation solution for the site.
16.8 Site investigation density at building

consent stage
The density and depth of ground investigation at building consent stage will vary depending
on the information already available from earlier stages of investigation.
For land that fits the characteristics of TC1 and TC2, the Ministry guidelines require
as a minimum a shallow investigation to be carried out at each house site (similar to a
normal NZS 3604-type investigation). As a minimum four test locations for each house
site would be required. The geotechnical engineer may judge it appropriate to carry out
deeper or more intense investigations than this, particularly for TC2-like land if the previous
subdivision consent level of investigation indicated a high variability in the assessed
liquefaction potential.

D 16. G
EOTEC H NIC A L
1. INTROD UC TION
AS S ES S M ENT
For building sites on TC3-like land, deep investigations and liquefaction assessments
should be initiated as outlined in Part C, as well as a shallow investigation as judged
necessary by the geotechnical engineer.
16.9 Engineering Advisory Group

recommendations regarding liquefaction
performance for new subdivisions
(Advisory only)
The expectations of a now risk-averse public (who will be increasingly aware of the
significance and in particular the cost implications of the three foundation technical
categories) are such that developers should consider the potential advantages of the
following:
• Incorporating building-consent-level investigations at subdivision consent stage.

• Undertaking subdivision-wide ground remediation to bring liquefaction deformation
performance characteristics up to the equivalent of TC1 performance (ie, ready to
receive NZS 3604-cited foundations). This is particularly important where multi-section
remediation is the most appropriate approach (for example, along river margins).
• Providing TC2-compliant building platforms where it is not considered practical or
economic to provide TC1-compliant building platforms.
• Providing (as a package with the land sale) a cost-effective means of compliance with U P D A TE:
December 2012
the Ministry’s requirements for buildings on this type of land where the above is not
feasible, on land that will remain in the TC3-like category (which will be well signalled on
LIMs and in public databases).
Note: It is strongly recommended that residential lots in new subdivisions meet the U P D A TE:
December 2012
performance criteria specified for TC1 or TC2.


D 1. INTROD UC TION
APPENDIX D1
Appendix D1: Liquefaction Calculation

Methodology
To standardise the outcomes of land assessment for new subdivisions, for the purposes of
this document the calculation of liquefaction triggering and its effects shall be carried out
using the method outlined in Idriss & Boulanger 2008 Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes
– EERI monograph MNO12. However, the following modifications are to be applied to this
method:
• For estimating apparent fines content (FC) for use in the CPT fines correction set out in
Idriss & Boulanger (2008) (equation 78), where soil samples are not being retrieved: refer
to Robertson and Wride (1998) Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone
Penetration Test, Can. Geotech. J. 35(3), 442-459. ie, – (a) if Ic < 1.26, apparent
FC = 0%; (b) if 1.26 < Ic < 3.5, apparent FC (%) = 1.75 Ic 3.25 - 3.7; and (c) if Ic > 3.5,
apparent FC = 100%.
• For estimation of post liquefaction-induced settlements in CPT analyses, refer to Zhang,
Robertson & Brachman (2002) Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Ground Settlements
from CPT for Level Ground, Can. Geotech. J. (39), 1168-1180. In particular, Appendix A
of that paper provides useful guidance on calculating volumetric strains. Note: the input
parameters of FOS and (qc1n)cs are to be derived from the method of Idriss & Boulanger
(2008), as modified above.
• For surface crust assessment: refer to Ishihara (1985) Stability of Natural Deposits
During Earthquakes, Proc. of the 11th International Conference in Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, pages 321-376 – Figure 88 page 362. (Reproduced as Figure
107 on page 157 of Idriss & Boulanger (2008) (optional).
• For refinement of SLS assessment: observations of damage or lack thereof in areas
deemed to have been ‘sufficiently tested at SLS’ by recent seismic events can be
used to judge the applicability, or not, of settlements calculated at the design SLS level
(optional). This is to be achieved by reference to the PGA conditional median contours
and associated conditional standard deviations contained in the paper (Bradley and
Hughes 2012) and kmz file that can be found at the Canterbury Geotechnical Database
https://canterburygeotechnicaldatabase.projectorbit.com.
−− As an initial screening tool, where a site has experienced at least 170% of design
SLS (using the conditional median pga values from one of the three compiled events
corrected to a M7.5 event; ie PGA 7.5 = PGA/MSF), then the site can be regarded as
having been ‘sufficiently tested’ for an SLS event.
−− If this screening test is not met, then the site can be evaluated by calculating the 10
percentile PGA from each of the three compiled events (i.e. the median value less
1.28 standard deviations, again magnitude scaled to M7.5). If one of these values
equals or exceeds the design SLS event then the site can be regarded as having been
‘sufficiently tested’ for an SLS event. (At this level it is likely that most sites will have
been tested to SLS or beyond by enough of a margin that in future SLS events the
land damage will likely be no worse than already experienced at that site).
A P P E N D I X / PAG E D 1. 1

1. I N T RO D D1
APPENDIX U C T I ON
D
−− To calculate the 10 percentile PGA, use PGA10 = PGA 50*exp(-1.28*σlnPGA ), where PGA 50
is the conditional median PGA and σlnPGA is the conditional standard deviation of PGA
at a site.
−− For consistency with the methodology used to analyse liquefaction triggering,
the Magnitude Scaling Factor of Idriss & Boulanger (2008) should be used – ie
MSF = [6.9*exp(-M/4)]-0.058 ≤ 1.8. Thus, PGA10_7.5 = PGA10 /MSF.
Note: This does not imply that these methodologies are mandated for applications
outside the scope of this document.
A P P E N D I X / PAG E D 1. 2

GUIDANCE E CONTENTS
Part E: Repairing and rebuilding

multi-unit residential buildings
Contents
17. Introduction 17.1
17.1 Background.................................................................................................................................17.1
17.2 Scope...........................................................................................................................................17.2
17.3 General principles......................................................................................................................17.4
17.4 Regulatory requirements........................................................................................................17.4
17.5 Building ownership and legal considerations...................................................................... 17.7
18. Assessment process 18.1

18.1 Overview.....................................................................................................................................18.1
18.2 Building assessment criteria..................................................................................................18.4
18.3 Buildings that exceed threshold criteria..............................................................................18.9
18.4 Firewall assessment criteria................................................................................................ 18.10
18.5 Damage mechanism...............................................................................................................18.13
18.6 Geotechnical investigations..................................................................................................18.17
19. Foundation repairs and relevel 19.1

19.1 Overview.....................................................................................................................................19.1
19.2 Repair or replace........................................................................................................................19.1
19.3 Relevelling.................................................................................................................................. 19.3
20. Partial foundation rebuild and repair 20.1

20.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................... 20.1
20.2 Partial rebuild considerations............................................................................................... 20.2
20.3 Partial foundation rebuild solutions................................................................................... 20.4
20.4 Future relevellability..............................................................................................................20.10
20.5 Conceptual partial rebuild solutions in TC3........................................................................20.11
D AT E : A P R I L 2 01 4 . V E R S I O N : 1
PA R T E . M U LT I - U N I T S
CONTENTS
1. I N TRO D U C T I O N
E
21. Superstructure repair 21.1

21.1 Overview..................................................................................................................................... 21.1
21.2 Partial superstructure replacement...................................................................................... 21.1
21.3 Reinforced and unreinforced masonry MUBs..................................................................... 21.2
21.4 Junction detailing..................................................................................................................... 21.3
21.5 Firewall repair/rebuild.............................................................................................................. 21.4
22. Full foundation rebuild 22.1

22.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................... 22.1
22.2 Geotechnical information and investigations................................................................... 22.2
22.3 Design principles for TC3........................................................................................................ 22.2
22.4 Foundation rebuild references..............................................................................................22.3
23. Junction details for partial rebuilds 23.1

23.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 23.1
23.2 Existing floor and firewall details......................................................................................... 23.2
23.3 Partial rebuild slab to existing slab connection details................................................... 23.4
23.4 Partial rebuild slab and firewall connection details.......................................................... 23.6
23.5 Partial rebuild firewall details.............................................................................................. 23.12
23.6 Partial rebuild against retained firewall details................................................................ 23.21
23.7 Type 2A surface structure details...................................................................................... 23.24
23.8 Floor-level driven slab solution details............................................................................. 23.26
Appendix E1:
Garages within the building structure E1.1
Appendix E2: Definitions E2.1
D A T E : A P R I L 2 014 . V E R S I O N : 1
P A R T E . M U LT I - U N I T S
CONTENTS / PAGE II
E CONTENTS
1. INTROD UC TION
Figures
Figure 18.1: Process overview......................................................................................................18.2
Figure 19.1: Type B foundation repair limit example................................................................ 19.2
Figure 19.2: Type C foundation repair limits example.............................................................. 19.2
Figure 20.1: Partial foundation rebuild example....................................................................... 20.1
Figure 20.2: Detail of a 400mm thick gravel layer with geogrid.......................................... 20.6
Figure 20.3: Schematic illustrations of a gravel layer in a partial foundation rebuild...... 20.6
Figure 20.4: TC3 Type 1 surface structure constructed against an existing
Type B foundation................................................................................................... 20.12
Figure 20.5: TC3 Type 2 constructed against an existing Type B foundation..................... 20.13
Figure 20.6: TC2 option 2 constructed in TC3...........................................................................20.14
Figure 20.7: Alternate detail for Type 2A and 2B slabs..........................................................20.16
Figure 21.1: Unreinforced brick masonry block demolition detail......................................... 21.5
Figure 21.2: Unreinforced brick masonry block remedial detail............................................. 21.6
Figure 22.1: Full foundation rebuild example............................................................................ 22.1
Figure 23.1: Existing foundation (timber framed floor)......................................................... 23.2
Figure 23.2: Existing possible concrete slab configurations..................................................23.3
Figure 23.3: Existing foundation (timber framed floor/concrete slab).................................23.3
Figure 23.4: Footing retained (configuration A)....................................................................... 23.4
Figure 23.5: Footing retained (configuration C)....................................................................... 23.4
Figure 23.6: New footing (all configurations)............................................................................23.5
Figure 23.7: Alternative edge configuration..............................................................................23.5
Figure 23.8: Suggested double stud wall (concrete slab)....................................................... 23.6
Figure 23.9: Suggested double stud wall (Nib wall).................................................................. 23.7
Figure 23.10: Suggested double stud wall (timber framed floor)........................................... 23.8
Figure 23.11: Suggested double stud wall
(new timber framed floor/existing concrete slab)............................................. 23.9
Figure 23.12: Suggested double stud wall
(existing timber framed floor/new concrete slab)............................................23.10
Figure 23.13: Foundation junctions surface structure slabs and Type B
existing (plan section)............................................................................................23.10
existing (elevation section)....................................................................................23.11
Figure 23.15: Two storey first floor detail.................................................................................. 23.12
Figure 23.16: Suggested double stud wall at ceiling level....................................................... 23.12
Figure 23.17: Suggested double stud wall with corrugated roof.......................................... 23.13
Figure 23.18: Suggested double stud wall with concrete tile roof........................................ 23.13
Figure 23.19: Exterior wall junction (veneer cladding)............................................................. 23.14
CONTENTS / PAGE III
CONTENTS
E
Figure 23.20: Exterior wall junction (weatherboard cladding)................................................ 23.14

Figure 23.21: Exterior wall junction (sheet cladding)............................................................... 23.15
Figure 23.23: Butyl wall flashing and fire stopping................................................................... 23.16
Figure 23.24: Exterior wall junction (offset framing)................................................................23.17
Figure 23.25: Butyl wall flashing....................................................................................................23.17
Figure 23.26: Soffit reflected plan...............................................................................................23.18
Figure 23.27: Soffit reflected perspective..................................................................................23.18
Figure 23.28: Retained firewall with corrugated roof.............................................................. 23.19
Figure 23.29: Retained firewall with concrete tile roof............................................................ 23.19
Figure 23.30: Angle connection................................................................................................... 23.20
Figure 23.31: Angle location.......................................................................................................... 23.21
Figure 23.32: Retained firewall junction (wall junction)........................................................... 23.21
Figure 23.33: Type 2A-300 surface structures detail.............................................................. 23.22
Figure 23.34: Type 2A-300 edge pile detail............................................................................... 23.23
Figure 23.35: Suggested double stud wall (high slab)............................................................. 23.24
Figure 23.36: Suggested double stud wall (new high slab/existing concrete slab)........... 23.24
Figure 23.37: Foundation junctions high slab and Type B existing (plan section)............. 23.25
Figure 23.38: Foundation junctions high slab and Type B existing (elevation section).... 23.25
Figure E1.1: Plan view of typical integrated MUB garages...................................................... E1.2
Figure E1.2: Garage/timber subfloor wall junction details for TC3 type 2A
structure with repairable zone ...............................................................................E1.3
Figure E1.3: TC3 Type 2A-150, 2A-300 surface structure with garage in middle..................E1.3
Figure E1.4: Garage/garage wall junction details with repairable zone ............................... E1.4
Tables
Table 18.1: Overall MUB assessment and repair process...................................................... 18.3
Table 18.2: Indicator criteria for floor/foundation relevel, repair, or rebuild in MUBs...... 18.5
Table 18.3: MUB firewall damage indicator criteria................................................................ 18.11
Table 18.4: Typical MUB foundation damage mechanisms..................................................18.13
Table 20.1: Partial foundation rebuild options within MUBs for Type A, B,
and C foundation types in TC1, TC2, and TC3........................................................20.7
Table 20.2: Constraints and reinforcement for TC2 option 2 (300mm slab)
foundation configuration when used in TC3......................................................20.10
Table 20.3: Constraints and reinforcement for TC2 option 4 (385mm waffle
slab) foundation configuration when used in TC3............................................20.10
Table 20.4: Maximum distance between top of slab and underside of joist (m).............20.16
Table 22.1: Full foundation rebuilds...........................................................................................22.3
CONTENTS / PAGE IV
E INTRODUCTION
1. INTROD UC TION
17. Introduction
17.1 Background
Part E addresses the special conditions required for the repair and rebuild of one and two
storey multi-unit buildings (MUBs), and in particular situations involving the replacement
of only part of the block. There are many of these units in Christchurch, often in the
eastern parts of the city. All technical categories are covered with specific solutions
provided for TC3.
This guidance addresses technical issues, providing advice and solutions that assist
practitioners to comply with the Building Act and Building Code. Depending on their
insurance policies, homeowners may have additional entitlements that are not addressed.
While some information is provided on different ownership arrangements, multi-unit
ownership can be complex and each situation will need to be resolved on a case specific
basis between all unit owners and their insurers.
Where possible, the MUB guidance is consistent with Parts A to D for detached houses.
It highlights that the whole block needs to be considered as one building. Damage
assessment and repair strategies need to consider the whole building performance as
well as that of individual units.
The main differences between Part E and the rest of the residential guidance involve
consideration of party (fire) walls between units and the interaction between individual
units. Some of the decision criteria and solutions provided have been slightly modified in
recognition that unit footprints are generally smaller and more regular in shape.
Those familiar with the residential guidance will find Part E has many common threads
and follows a similar approach as the guidance for detached houses. Use this guidance
when preparing consent applications to improve the quality of the applications, which will
assist the building consent authorities with their processing. This will also contribute to a
quicker recovery.
Multi-unit residential buildings of two storeys or more and three household units or
more fall within the scope of needing to be assessed for earthquake-prone buildings
(refer Building Act s 122). These buildings may require Detailed Engineering Evaluations
to be undertaken.
INTRODUCTION / PAGE 17.1
INTRODUCTION
E
17.2 Scope
This guidance applies to single and double storey MUBs. For practical reasons it has not
been possible to cover all potential multi-unit building arrangements. To cover the most
common building arrangements, this guidance addresses attached units built in a straight
line. The concepts developed in this guidance should also be applicable to other multi-unit
configurations not specifically within the scope of this document but will depend on
case-specific circumstances.
This guidance addresses assessment, repair, and replacement of MUBs in Canterbury with
the following characteristics:
ȣȣ they are one or two storeys, and
ȣȣ they are located on TC1, TC2, and TC3 sites, and
ȣȣ the ownership is horizontal, ie, vertical inter-tenancy walls.
The technical aspects of buildings in the Port Hills and associated foothills are not
addressed. While many of the principles of this guidance may be adopted, the MUBs that
fall within this group will require case-by-case consideration, including reference to the
MBIE guidance relating to the Port Hills entitled Guidance for building in toe slump areas
of mass movement in the Port Hills (Class II and Class III)1.
The following table details MUB characteristics used for assessment, repair, and rebuild
of MUBs in Canterbury.
Driver Description
Constructed form ȣȣ There can be two, three, or more units all physically connected.
ȣȣ There can be one, two, or more storeys in a single building.
Note: This guidance only applies to one or two storey buildings.
ȣȣ Abutting units are separated by fire and acoustically-rated, inter-
tenancy walls.
ȣȣ Foundation construction types within MUBs vary and include Types
A, B, C as per section 2, Type B buildings with Type C internal garages
(assumed to be Type B for assessment purposes), and mixed (eg, Type
B buildings with Type C extensions).
ȣȣ Although they may have been originally constructed to NZS 3604/
Light Timber Frame Buildings, the building will often incorporate stiff
and/or heavy elements (eg, block or brick masonry, inter-tenancy
walls), that perform several purposes (eg, have structural, fire-rating,
and acoustic functions). Many MUB buildings in Canterbury also
predate NZS 3604.
ȣȣ There can be both domestic and commercial uses within a building.
Note: This guidance only applies to the residential MUBs.
1 Refer to www.dbh.govt.nz/supplementary-guidance-port-hills-index
E INTRODUCTION
1. INTROD UC TION
Driver Description
Building geometry ȣȣ MUB footprints vary between regular, offset, and branched
arrangements. Typically the length to width aspect ratio (L/B) is large,
ie, large length compared to width. Note: This guidance only applies
to MUBs in a straight line.
ȣȣ The individual unit’s foundation size typically depends on the number
of bedrooms in the unit, but will generally be small, eg, from 50m²
(1 bedroom) to 100m² (3 bedrooms).
Ownership ȣȣ MUBs have different title types (eg, single title, unit title, strata title,
cross lease, fee-simple, company share).
ȣȣ MUBs can include horizontal ownership (where each unit has a ground
floor area) and vertical ownership (where some unit/s are supported
by unit/s below). Note: This guidance only applies to horizontal
ownership.
Insurance ȣȣ Insurance arrangements will depend on the property ownership type.

Refer to section 17.5 for detail, particularly for unit titles.
Foundation and Damage may often vary:

superstructure
ȣȣ due to the structural behaviour of the MUB as a whole
damage
ȣȣ according to the geotechnical conditions across the site
ȣȣ along the building and can be concentrated in particular
units/areas
ȣȣ due to experiencing different seismic loading and/or ground
responses during the Canterbury earthquake sequence subject to the
location in the building (eg, height).
Site conditions ȣȣ MUBs covered in this guidance are located anywhere in TC1, TC2,
and TC3 sites on flat residential land. Because of their size, the site
conditions may vary significantly along the building footprint.
For MUBs, some of the provisions for detached houses have been further developed, and
in some cases, altered. These modifications reflect the various features of MUBs that
generally differ from detached houses, including:
ȣȣ they typically have much smaller floor plate dimensions and areas (eg, 50m2 to 100m2)
and are usually regular in layout
ȣȣ there are many physical constraints, including the connection to adjacent units and the
limited site area surrounding the building
ȣȣ there are legal constraints arising both from the common elements of land and building
aspects that require pragmatic solutions.
INTRODUCTION
E
17.3 General principles

There can be challenges in finding appropriate solutions for MUBs where parts of the
building, under different ownership, may require different physical treatments. As well as
the legal complexities involved, there are technical and regulatory issues in relation to the
repaired building’s performance in future earthquakes that need careful consideration.
This is particularly true where repairs result in different foundations systems within a MUB.
The following sections highlight some of the key regulatory and legal considerations in
relation to MUBs. However there are a range of matters that are outside the scope of this
guidance that may require separate investigation by the professional advisors involved in
designing the repair or rebuild of the MUBs, including:
ȣȣ the need to understand property law complexities for multi-unit building ownership
(refer to section 17.5)
ȣȣ the need for any resource consent arising from the proposed repair or rebuild
ȣȣ insurance issues
ȣȣ reaching multi-unit homeowner agreement for achieving the repair or rebuild
ȣȣ flood management solutions.
17.4 Regulatory requirements

17.4.1 Treating the building ‘as a whole’
The principal regulatory requirements for specifying repairs and rebuilding aspects
of residential buildings are outlined in section 8.2. The key Building Act provisions are:
ȣȣ Section 17 of the Building Act, which requires that all new building work (including new
building work that is repair work for existing buildings) complies with the Building Code
ȣȣ Section 112(1)(b) of the Building Act, which provides that a building consent authority
must not grant a building consent for the alteration of an existing building (or part of
an existing building) unless after the alteration the building will continue to comply
with the other provisions of the Building Code to at least the same extent as before
the alteration (ie, the building cannot perform any worse after the alteration).
The definition of building means a permanent immovable structure and refers to the whole
of a building (refer to section 8(1)(a) of the Building Act). Where section 112(1)(b) refers to
‘the building’ continuing to comply to at least the same extent as before the alteration,
it is referring to the ‘whole building’ and it is the performance of the whole building
(ie, all the units in the building) that must be considered when assessing the effect the
proposed alteration will have on the building.
This principle is in accordance with the approach adopted for weathertightness issues
where it was found to be efficient to address the whole building performance.
A consequence of this approach is that when considering compliance with section 112
of the Building Act, this ‘whole building’ definition reguires consideration of a repair
(eg, relevelling and/or partial replacement) to extend across the whole building.
E INTRODUCTION
1. INTROD UC TION
Nett benefit
The ‘whole building’ concept is fundamental when establishing compliance.

The compliance test that extends from section 112 of the Building Act is that when
considering Building Code Clause B1:
if there is a nett benefit to the whole building from parts that perform
structurally better after alteration notwithstanding other parts that could
structurally perform to a lesser extent after alteration, then the repair complies.
The test (normally qualitative) applies by comparing the structural performance of

the whole of building pre-repair (that is, not pre-earthquake), and the state it will be
in post-repair.
Note: It is not possible to use improved performance with respect to one code clause,
eg, Fire Safety, as a means to offset lesser performance under B1, Structure.
Assessment
Treating a MUB as a whole building leads to the following assessment principles:
ȣȣ The engineer should assess each individual unit and assess the building as a whole,
ie, each unit’s interior and the whole building’s exterior.
ȣȣ The engineer should identify the damage mechanism across the whole building and
determine whether the damage in one unit is related to damage in one or more of the
other units.
ȣȣ The assessment should be based on the predominant building foundation type, ie, for
a mixed foundation type building such as a Type B with concrete slab on ground internal
garage, the building should be assessed as a Type B building.
Repairs and rebuilds

The ‘whole building’ approach enables the complete rebuilding of one or more units
within a block to be considered as an alteration to the building. In general, for multi-unit
residential buildings,
the introduction of a section of newer more resilient foundation means the

overall structural performance of the whole building will be better than before the
alteration, even though in some future events there may be a possible negative
impact of the new section on elements of the existing structure.
For example, consider the case of a building that before the earthquake was uniform in
construction. In the earthquake, part of the building foundation is significantly damaged
and other parts require only minor repairs. The significantly damaged part of the building
foundation is replaced with a more resilient foundation and new superstructure, all tied
into the remainder of the building. The whole building is now made up of pre-existing units
that have demonstrated better resilience than the replaced parts together with new works
that are built to a higher specification than the damaged component. The building as a
whole therefore has greater resilience. Even where there is the possibility of damage at the
junction between old and new if the two parts of the structure perform slightly differently,
the potential for damage at Serviceability Limit State (SLS) is low and would be readily
repairable. Overall a better performance for the building is achieved.
INTRODUCTION
E
From a structural perspective, the objective is to restrict damage in future moderate

earthquakes (SLS) to being readily repairable (refer to section 8.2.3).
For further explanation of performance expectations at SLS and Ultimate Limit State
(ULS), the concepts of readily repairable, and other regulatory considerations, refer to
section 8.2.
17.4.2 Flood risk and floor levels

Building Code Clause E1 requires buildings and site work to be constructed in a way that
protects people and other property from the adverse effects of surface water. Building
Code Clause E1.3.2 requires floor levels to be above the one in 50-year flood level.
As outlined in section 8.4, Building Code Clause E1.3.2 will not apply to relevelling and repair
work involving part of a foundation because the Building Code requirement in Clause E1.3.2
only applies to a building as a whole. Therefore, a building will not need to be raised under
the Building Code to meet one in 50-year flood level requirements unless the foundations
for the whole building need to be replaced.
Relevelling and foundation repair work, including partial foundation rebuilding, should not
make the flooding vulnerability of the whole building worse than it was prior to the repair.
Therefore, the requirement of section 112 of the Building Act to comply to at least the
same extent as before the repair with respect to Building Code Clause E1 is satisfied.
For additional RMA requirements for floor levels, refer to section 8.4
However, the full rebuilding of one or more units in a building represents substantial work
in respect of the unit and that will be, in the majority of cases, substantial in relation to
the whole building. It will require significant investment. It will not generally be practical to
rebuild the replacement unit in a block at a higher level than the existing units, where the
whole block is below the one in 50-year flood level (or, within the Christchurch City Council
Flood Management Area, the higher of 11.8m above Christchurch datum in tidal areas or
the one in 200-year flood level). However, on a case-by-case basis, it may be possible to
reconfigure the block so that the unit(s) needing to be rebuilt are rebuilt elsewhere. This,
however, is not a requirement of the Building Act and is an issue for homeowners, councils,
EQC, and insurers to resolve. Alternatively, area-wide flood protection may be possible.
Full rebuilds need to fully comply with the requirements of Building Code, including
minimum floor level heights per Clause E1.3.2. For further foundation rebuild details,
refer to section 5 (TC1 and TC2), section 15 (TC3), and section 22 (MUBs).
E INTRODUCTION
1. INTROD UC TION
17.5 Building ownership and legal

considerations
17.5.1 Overview
It is important to establish the ownership obligations before commencing work.
There are legal factors in regards to MUBs that are not present in detached houses on
their own titles. The ownership type has a bearing on whether repairs will be isolated or
taken across whole structures. The latter approach is the recommended option but may
not always be possible.
Resolving cost obligation/recovery of costs from owners/insurers of individual units is

beyond the scope of this guidance.
17.5.2 Individual title to shared property

Multi-unit developments have complex ownership structures that need to be understood
to determine where building consents and changes to titles might be required as a result
of repairs or rebuilding work.2
The differing types of shared property ownership include:

1. Cross lease complex – where a number of people share in the ownership of
a piece of land and the owners lease their units from each-other on long-term
leases. A memorandum of lease details the specific arrangements in each complex.
The buildings shown on a cross lease title are often referred to as ‘flats’ and cross
lease plans are commonly called ‘flats plans’. This plan is also attached to the
certificate of title held by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ).
2. Unit title complex3 – where each person owns their own unit and shares the
common property with other owners. A MUB with more than nine units must have
a body corporate committee that administers the complex and is responsible
for managing the common property. The units are shown on a unit plan that is
attached to the certificate of title held by LINZ.
3. Company-share complex – where the MUB is owned by a company, and each
owner has the right to use a unit through ownership of particular shares in that
company.
4. Fee-simple – where each owner owns their own unit and land, but has rights in
relation to common parts of the MUB on other properties (such as party walls)
through easements or other legal interests.
2 Refer to sections 75 and 84 Unit Titles Act 2010 and sections 12,15 and 16 Unit Titles Act 1972
INTRODUCTION
E
Cross lease complex

Cross lease ownership of the land is complicated. Every cross lease property is described
in a flats plan that is held at LINZ. The flats plan shows the building footprint, as well as
any restrictive areas and common areas. If changes are made to the building footprint,
the flats plan will need to be updated. Where land is subject to a cross lease, the lessees’
obligations will mostly be found in the terms of each lease, the terms of which may vary
between properties. There are no relevant regulatory requirements that apply governance
obligations on lessees. A cross lease contains reciprocal obligations between the lessees.
Insurance will not necessarily be common with all or any two leased units. Collective
processes (such as body corporates) are unlikely to be in place.
It is the owner’s (or the owner’s insurer if the rebuild work is covered by an insurance
policy) responsibility to have the flats plan updated, when any changes are made to the
building footprint. The flats plan is often reviewed at time of sale in conjunction with the
cross lease. If there has been a change to the building footprint3 and the flats plan has not
been updated then the owner will have a defective title and this will have implications if
the property is to be sold. As part of updating the flats plan the written consent of all
of the other owners in the multi-unit complex is required. In order to deposit a new flats
plan redefining the property a resurvey, new flats plan, and new cross lease are required.
A subdivision consent is required from the council before the new flats plan and cross lease
are lodged with LINZ. Building consent will also be required from the council. There are
surveying, council, and legal costs associated with updating a flats plan.
Unit title complex

A unit title complex is documented and a body corporate created on the deposit of a unit
plan at the initial registration of the title.
Where there is a small boundary adjustment between units that does not materially
affect the common property or another unit, the unit plan can be amended. All other
redevelopment changes require the cancellation of the existing unit plan and replacement
with a new unit plan as well as additional documentation requirements under the Unit
Titles Act 2010. In both situations, the district plan rules need to be checked and approval
from other unit holders, usually via the body corporate, is required. A subdivision consent
from the council is required before the unit plan and accompanying information can be
lodged with LINZ. There are surveying, legal, and council costs involved in changing the unit
plan.
The body corporate must insure ‘all buildings and other improvements’ on the base land
to full insurable value, which is generally done under a single policy called the principal
insurance policy.
The principal insurance policy does not prevent a unit owner from taking out insurance
against destruction or damage of units. Therefore you may end up with several different
insurance policies relating to one building.
3 Any departure from the building footprint shown on the flats plan is, technically, a defect in title. Whether or not
the flats plan is corrected is usually a decision made by the owner.
E INTRODUCTION
1. INTROD UC TION
No of units Description
Ten or more Where more than nine units are joined, under Unit Titles Act 2010 there
must be a body corporate committee in place to manage the building
(unless the body corporate, by special resolution, decides not to form a
body corporate committee). The body corporate or the body corporate
committee (using delegated powers from the body corporate) must
establish and regularly update a long-term maintenance plan and among
other obligations must insure all buildings and other improvements on
the land to their full insurable value.
The Unit Titles Act 2010 also specifies funding to cover administration
and repair of damage. The body corporate is responsible for dealing with
the insurer in the event of claims. When damage has occurred, the body
corporate (through the body corporate committee) generally will keep
unit owners informed about developments with the claim. Unit owners
may have separate insurance for their unit (and most will have their own
contents insurance).
The insurer will mostly deal with the body corporate committee,
although only the body corporate can apply insurance monies in or
towards reinstatement. The insurance policy will detail how claims are
made and resolved.
Nine or less Where there are nine or less owners, a body corporate committee can be
formed, but often is not. Unit title owners in this situation may find that
for practical, insurance, maintenance, and financial purposes, there are
advantages in ensuring a body corporate committee is in place.
For these MUBs there will be a range of management regimes from
body corporates that have taken out insurance; to scenarios, where the
owners have taken individual responsibility for insurance; and other
scenarios where there is no insurance at all. Common property issues will
be addressed in the Unit Titles Act, the unit plan and the body corporate
rules. But these issues may not be well understood by an owner. The
Ministry’s experience with the resolution of weathertight home issues
is that owners of units in buildings comprising less than nine units and
who have not formed a body corporate committee have had long delays
in achieving claim resolution. The main reason for this is individual unit
owners have needed to deal with separate insurance companies, and
there is no mechanism to reach consensus agreement on repair. There
is a strong requirement for goodwill between neighbours to agree on
actions and payments.
Company-share complex
Management of issues relating to reinstatement and rebuild are less complex due to the
fact that there is a company structure in place.
Fee-simple
Any common ownership issues will be included on the property title.
INTRODUCTION
E
17.5.3 Multiple owners, allotments and consent documentation

Building consents can either apply to work within one unit of a MUB (ie, from individual
unit owners) or to all work across more than one unit in a building (ie, from all unit
owners collectively).
Building consent authorities do not require a separate building consent application from
every owner where there is more than one landowner for the same building or parcel
of land.
In a cross lease situation, the unit’s owner for the purposes of a building consent can
be taken as the individual cross lease owner (refer to DBH Determination 2009/45).
This approach relies on the component of the definition of ‘owner’ in section 7 of the
Building Act referring to the entitlement to the rack rent.
Similarly, in unit title situations, the building’s owner can be taken as the unit proprietors
who hold a stratum estate in freehold and are entitled to the rack rent of the land
(refer to DBH Determination 2011/068).
Building consent authorities have discretion as to how to handle and process a building
consent involving multiple units within one building (refer to DBH Determination 2009/56):
The nature and extent of the building work described in a building consent and the
management of the building consent process clearly fall within the discretionary
powers of the building consent authority.
Given the need to treat the MUB ‘as a whole’ for an appropriate application of sections
17 and 112 of the Building Act as outlined in section 17.4.1, it is desirable for consent
documentation to cover all work to be undertaken in the building where practicable.
17.5.4 Consent requirements

Repair or rebuild work for a multi-unit development will require a building consent unless
the work is exempt from the requirement in accordance with section 41 of the Building
Act. Schedule 1 to the Building Act, Exempt building work, lists details of building work
that does not require a building consent. Even though the work may not require a building
consent, the work undertaken still needs to comply with the Building Code. For details
on exemptions, refer to the MBIE guidance Building work that does not require a building
consent (March 2014)4 .
Partial rebuilds (refer to section 20) are alterations to the building and will require a
building consent.
Any application for a building consent for repair or rebuild will begin with an assessment
for compliance with the district plan rules. This will indicate the need for any resource
consent under the Resource Management Act 1991.
4 www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Guidance-information/pdf/building-work-consent-not-
required-guidance-3rd-edition.pdf
E INTRODUCTION
1. INTROD UC TION
Although existing use rights will be taken into account, it is likely that land use consent
might be required where there is a change to the units on the site as part of a rebuild
process. Section 8.4.2 outlines the elements that need to be met for existing use rights to
apply. In all cases, compliance will need to be checked against the full range of district plan
rules, including for building bulk and location, setbacks, vehicle access, and outdoor living
to determine if land use consent is required. This applies even if the units are replicated.
Examples of cases when land use consent may be required are where:
ȣȣ repair or rebuild solutions involve changes to building bulk, location requirements, and
land use (eg, the raising of a unit to meet council flood requirements may encroach into
a height recession plane)
ȣȣ there are more extensive changes proposed to the multi-unit development (eg, a new
unit has been added or the arrangement of units on the site has changed).
Christchurch City Council has a multi-unit design document that guides the design and
layout of new multi-unit developments in some of the living zones within the City5.
Where the repair or rebuild of a multi-unit development changes the footprint of buildings
on a site then the owner may wish to update the flats plan to ensure the title is accurate.
In order to alter the flats plan/unit plan, a subdivision application needs to be lodged with
the council. Because unit plans require body corporate agreement, anything from minor
amendments to major changes will require formal documentation and submission through
the council.
5 Refer to http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/Homeliving/buildingplanning/forms/P332_UrbanDesignGuideL3Zones.
pdf
INTRODUCTION
E
E ASSESSMENT
1. INTROD UC TION
PROCESS
18. Assessment process

18.1 Overview
The flowchart in Figure 18.1 and Table 18.1 summarise the suggested assessment process
for determining whether a MUB needs individual unit repairs, partial rebuild and repairs,
or full foundation rebuild.
The assessment process should consider both the building as a whole (refer to section
17.4.1) and each individual unit. The principal objective is to establish the primary damage
mechanism affecting the building.
ASSESSMENT PROCESS / PAGE 18.1
ASSESSMENT
PROCESS E
Figure 18.1: Process overview
Inspect, measure, and record floor levels and damage

to individual units and across the whole building
Apply criteria to unit foundations and firewalls

(Tables 18.2 and 18.3)
Consider whole building damage mechanisms

(Table 18.4)
Determine repair strategy
Does any unit within

the building exceed the Individual unit
NO
foundation replacement threshold repairs only
of Table 18.2 (column 4)?
YES
Do 50% or more Undertake unit

of the units exceed partial rebuilds
the foundation replacement and repairs as
NO
threshold and is the performance appropriate
of the land consistently
poor? (section 20)
YES
A full foundation rebuild is indicated

(sections 5, 15, and 22)
Document solution
E ASSESSMENT
1. INTROD UC TION
PROCESS
Table 18.1: Overall MUB assessment and repair process
Step Individual unit Whole building
1. Inspect, measure, Inspect each individual unit ȣȣ Inspect the whole building,
record including: including foundation and
superstructure for damage
ȣȣ Record internal floor levels
and surrounding land for
and any damage, eg, cracks
indications of performance,
ȣȣ Record in-plane and out-of- eg, land cracking
plane tilt for each firewall
ȣȣ Produce plan with levels
and any damage
along the whole building
ȣȣ Record evidence of
Note: Relate levels to a single
superstructure damage
datum and refer to Table 18.2,
such as racking and
Note a
verticality of walls
2. Apply criteria ȣȣ Apply individual foundation ȣȣ Apply MUB overall building

criteria to each unit (refer to criteria across the whole
Table 18.2) building and determine
damage mechanism (refer
to Tables 18.2 and 18.4)
ȣȣ Apply firewall criteria
to all firewalls (refer to
Table 18.3)
ȣȣ Quantify extent of
superstructure damage
across the whole building
3. Identify repair ȣȣ Identify repair strategy for Identify repair strategy for
strategies and decide individual unit foundations the whole building foundation
solution (repair/relevel or rebuild)
ȣȣ Identify repair strategy
for each firewall
4. Document solution Synthesise and document most appropriate repair strategy for
building as a whole
Note: This will detail the nature of the foundations for rebuilds
along with repair/relevel solutions for remaining foundations,
if retained
ASSESSMENT
PROCESS E
18.2 Building assessment criteria

The assessment process looks at the building as a whole and considers the guidance
on a threshold level of damage leading to repair and replacement decisions. Where the
performance or geometry of the building varies significantly along the length it may be
appropriate to analyse the building in distinct sections. This must only be done with due
regard to any impact on the whole building.
Due to the wide variety and combination of MUBs, it is not practical to provide a blanket
threshold for a whole-of-building rebuild. Where ground movement has resulted in
significant damage in all or in part of a building, complete replacement may be warranted
on some sites while on others repair may be sufficient. Where the majority of the
foundation of the whole building is damaged as a consequence of the Canterbury
earthquake sequence, the foundation performance in future earthquakes could be similar
and so a replacement of all of the building’s foundations is likely to be necessary.
The recommendations in Part E are focussed on single and two storey MUBs with
horizontal ownership where the units are generally smaller than detached houses.
The principles of Table 2.3 (refer to section 2) have been adapted to apply to such MUBs.
Table 18.2 incorporates the existing criteria of Table 2.3 with additional criteria (in red
italics) that result from the need to consider both the whole building and individual units
when assessing MUBs. The tilt criteria for piles in Table 2.2 also apply to MUBs with Type A
and Type B foundations.
The assessment of foundation damage is based on the predominant foundation of a

building. Engineering judgement is required to assess the relationship with secondary
foundation types (eg, garage slab, porch, patio) and the implications of repairs and/or
replacement of such structures.
The solution should consider, where appropriate, the need for the removal of ejected
material from beneath a building and that may require the building to be lifted.
Note: This is not applicable for Type C6 buildings.
The indicator criteria in Table 18.2 provide guidance and should not be treated as absolutes,
as emphasised by the dotted vertical lines between the columns.
For example, issues arising from the ownership arrangement or damage to firewalls may
lead the adoption of a different approach to that indicated in Table 18.2.
6 Type C is defined in section 2.1 as slab-on-grade
E ASSESSMENT
1. INTROD UC TION
PROCESS
Table 18.2: Indicator criteria for floor/foundation relevel, repair,

or rebuild in MUBs
This table draws on Table 2.3 in section 2, using indicator criteria appropriate
for multi-unit buildings within the scope of Part E.
Floor type NO foundation Foundation Foundation Foundation

relevel relevel and/or rebuild rebuild
considered repair indicated indicated for indicated for
necessary individual unit whole building
[Note j]
(partial rebuild)
[Note l]
Type A The slope The variation The variation This will relate
between any in floor level is in floor level is to the degree
Timber-framed
two points >2m >50mm and >100mm within of total damage
suspended
apart is <0.5% (1 <100mm within a single unit and the
timber floor
in 200) within a a single unit [Note c and q] number of unit
structures
single unit [Note [Note q] foundations
supported only or
a, g, and q] requiring
on piles or
The floor has replacement
and
The slope along stretched exceeding
The variation in the whole >20mm within economic repairs
the level over the building is >0.5% a single unit [Note f and n]
floor plan within (1 in 200) [Note e]
a single unit is [Note d]
or
<50mm
or
≥50% of piles
and
<50% of piles within any single
The slope along within any single unit require
the whole unit require replacement
building is <0.5% replacement [Note m]
(1 in 200) [Note [Note m]
d]
or
and
1 or more
Firewalls do not firewalls require
require repairs, replacement
refer to Table – partial
18.3 foundation
replacement of
individual unit
ASSESSMENT
PROCESS E

[Note j]
(partial rebuild)
[Note l]
Type B The slope The variation The variation This will relate
between any in floor level is in floor level is to the degree
Timber-framed
two points >2m >50mm and >100mm within a of total damage
suspended
apart is <0.5% (1 <100mm within single unit [Note and the
timber floor
in 200) within a a single unit c, and q] number of unit
structures
single unit [Note [Note b, and q] foundations
with perimeter or
a, g, and q] requiring
concrete or
The floor has replacement
foundation and
The slope along stretched exceeding
The variation in the whole >20mm within economic repairs
the level over the building is >0.5% a single unit [Note f and n]
floor plan within (1 in 200) [Note e]
a single unit is [Note d]
or
<50mm
or
≥50% of piles
and
1 or more and/or the
The slope along firewalls require perimeter beam
the whole replacement within any single
building is <0.5% – partial unit require
(1 in 200) foundation replacement
[Note d] replacement of [Note m]
individual unit
and
[Note p]
Firewalls do not
require repairs,
refer to Table
18.3
E ASSESSMENT
1. INTROD UC TION
PROCESS

[Note j]
(partial rebuild)
[Note l]
Type C The slope The slope along The variation This will relate
between any the whole in floor level is to the degree
Timber-framed
two points >2m building is >0.5% >150mm within a of total damage
dwelling on
apart is <0.5% (1 (1 in 200) single unit and the
concrete floor
in 200) within a [Note d] number of unit
or
single unit [Note foundations
or
a and g] There is requiring
The variation irrepairable replacement
and
in floor level is damage to exceeding
The variation in >50mm and buried services economic repairs
the level over <150mm within a within a unit’s [Note f and n]
the floor plan single unit footprint
is <50mm in a
or or
single unit
1 or more The floor has
and
firewalls require stretched
The slope along replacement >20mm within
the whole – partial a single unit
building is <0.5% foundation [Note e]
(1 in 200) replacement of
or
[Note d] individual unit
>50% of the
and
concrete slab
There is no within any single
distress in floor unit requires
coverings replacement
[Note m]
and
Services are
functioning
and
Firewalls do not
require repairs,
refer to Table
18.3
ASSESSMENT
PROCESS E
Note Commentary
a Floor and superstructure damage repair may still be required, even if these indicator
limits are not exceeded. Floor slopes are normally established by recording levels at the
intersections of grid lines spaced at approximately 2m in both directions and at obvious
high spots and low spots.
b For veneer cladding to Type B construction, there may be a need to rebuild the veneer.
c Pile packing in Type A and B construction is considered to be unstable at greater than

100mm without specific design details.
d Engineering judgement is required to assess whether any planar tilt of the floor plate
(refer to Table 18.4, damage mechanism 2) has implications on the performance of the
building, or parts thereof (more likely to be related to services or firewalls). If not, then
for Column 2 cases it is likely that foundation relevelling is not necessary to repair the
building, or for Column 3 cases relevelling will be required. If there are overall performance
implications, a foundation rebuild (partial or full) may be necessary.
e The presence of firewalls makes the response of MUBs to lateral stretch somewhat
different to the response of a detached house. For example, if a gap has opened between
the firewalls of a single unit (Types A, B, or C foundations) then there will be no benefit in
attempting to pull the foundation together again. Instead, consideration should be given
to adjusting the superstructure roof and wall framing to accommodate the gap that has
been created at the foundation (refer to Table 18.3). Individual circumstances
will determine whether the foundation can be repaired or should be rebuilt.
f This is an economic decision for all foundation types (A, B, or C) on a particular property.
This decision may be influenced by the number of units and/or firewalls in a building
requiring replacement, and the practicality of rebuilding those units and firewalls. In
some instances, due to construction practicality, the replacement of a middle unit may
necessitate the replacement of adjacent unit/s as a consequence and may lead to a total
constructional loss.
g Any abrupt changes in floor level may require at least local relevelling, depending on the
type of floor covering.
h Units will have different degrees of damage, and in some cases the rebuilding of
foundations may only be needed in the vicinity of the damage.
i More restrictive limits may be appropriate if there is concern that distortions in the floor
from earthquake damage may cause superstructure damage over time. For example:
ȣȣ Damage to partitions (gravity load bearing and/or non-gravity load bearing) supported
by a floor or foundation that undergoes angular distortion. Note: Damage limits
applicable to specific types of partition are given in other standards (eg, AS 2870
Table 8.1, ISO 4356 Annex D Table 1). AS/NZS 1170.0 Table C1 also provides guidance on
acceptable deflection limits for wall linings.
ȣȣ Damage to external cladding leading to contravention of the various Building Code
performance requirements (eg, Clause E2).
j Foundation rebuilds are triggered by excessive differential settlements settlements

(particularly abrupt changes) or excessive floor stretches, as covered in Table 18.2.
However, the size of crack widths determines only whether or not a structural repair is
required and this indicator criterion is already covered in the last column of Table 2.2.
E ASSESSMENT
1. INTROD UC TION
PROCESS
Note Commentary
k The indicator criteria provide guidance; they are not absolutes, as suggested by the
dotted vertical lines between the columns.
l The column title that states ‘NO foundation relevel considered necessary’ is intended
to indicate ‘if all of the criteria below are met’. Accordingly, all of the criteria listed below
the title, which are actually upper limits on slopes and levels below which the floor must
be performing, must be satisfied (therefore ‘AND’ is used). When a relevel or rebuild is
triggered by any of the situations described in the columns to the right of column 2, the
recommendation is to at least regain all of the maximums stated in column 2.
m If ≥50% of a concrete slab or ≥50% of the perimeter beam and/or ≥50% of the piles
within any individual unit require replacement, the extent of the damage is such that it is
recommended that all of the foundations of these affected unit/s should be replaced.
If the number of units affected is less than half of those in the building, this results in a
partial rebuild (alteration) of the building.
n If ≥50% of the units require rebuilding and where the performance of the land is
consistently poor (refer to Table 18.4, notably damage mechanisms 3, 4, 5, and 8 but may
include others), a foundation rebuild for the building is recommended.
p Replacement with a timber-framed, fire-rated, inter-tenancy wall may negate the need
for a partial foundation replacement as the firewall can be truncated at floor level and the
timber-framed firewall constructed from the floor level up.
q Excludes step change for garages, etc.
18.3 Buildings that exceed threshold criteria

If 50% or more of the units within a building exceed the foundation rebuild threshold
criteria for individual units in Table 18.2 and the overall damage mechanism indicates
that the land has performed poorly, a full rebuild of the entire building’s foundation is
recommended. Where 50% or more of the units require the foundation to be rebuilt, it
is likely that the land has generally not performed well and that more robust foundations
are required.
There may be cases where the damage mechanism of the building shows that the 50%
threshold could be exceeded without the need to rebuild the foundations of the whole
building. In making this assessment, the number and extent of areas proposed for
repair within units needs to be considered together with the number of units within a
building that exceed these limits. In considering rebuilding it is also important to assess
superstructure damage and functional performance impacts.
A partial or full foundation replacement will in most cases require a full superstructure
rebuild because there is limited opportunity to lift a MUB superstructure (or part) to enable
replacement of just the foundations. This is in contrast to detached houses where lifting
of the superstructure is normally more practical.
For full foundation rebuilds, refer to section 5 (TC1 and TC2), section 15 (TC3), and
section 22 (MUBs).
ASSESSMENT
PROCESS E
18.4 Firewall assessment criteria

Generally MUBs have filled and reinforced concrete block, unreinforced concrete block, or
brick masonry (URM) inter-tenancy walls/firewalls separating the units.
Firewalls (inter-tenancy walls) are typically integrated into the MUB construction, but differ
from the adjacent construction in that they are:
ȣȣ rated in terms of their fire resistance and acoustic performance
ȣȣ typically constructed in heavy materials
ȣȣ often incorporate special building features, eg, chimneys
ȣȣ often laterally supported on each side by the adjoining structure, eg, typically
plasterboard-lined and braced timber-framed construction.
For the purposes of this guidance, firewalls are divided into two broad categories:
ȣȣ Type F1: Constructed integrally with a Type C foundation
ȣȣ Type F2: Constructed with independent strip or perimeter beam-type foundation,
with a Type A or B foundation on either side, or not mechanically tied into a Type C
foundation
Firewalls should be assessed against the firewall criteria outlined in Table 18.3. Firewall
damage differs in type and extent from the adjacent foundations. Careful assessment of
the firewall’s status, particularly in relation to the surrounding structure, is required before
deciding on the repair/replacement approach.
The indicator criteria in Table 18.3 provide guidance and should not be treated as absolutes,
as emphasised by the dotted vertical lines between the columns.
Heavy firewalls can cause or exacerbate localised settlements and deformations in

MUB foundations. Firewalls can be subjected to damage within the roof cavity. It will be
necessary to assess the damage to each individual firewall within a MUB, and undertake
repairs or replacement, as required.
For explanations of terms used in Table 18.3, refer to appendix E2.
E ASSESSMENT
1. INTROD UC TION
PROCESS
Table 18.3: MUB firewall damage indicator criteria
Repair/partial rebuild of Replacement of firewall

Do nothing
firewall indicated indicated
In-plane tilt <0.25% In-plane tilt >0.25% Widespread cracking to the

[Note a, b, and c] [Note a, b, and c] firewall >2mm [Note d]
and or or
Out-of-plane tilt is lesser of <1 Out-of-plane tilt is >1 in 240 Firewall repair/relevel not
in 240 (eg, 10mm over 2.4m) or (eg, 10mm over 2.4m) or considered to be practical/
20mm over the total firewall >20mm over the total firewall economically viable
height [Note a and b] height
and or
No visible cracking of firewall Isolated cracking constrained
[Note d] to mortar courses >0.5mm
and ≤2mm [Note d]
and
or
The fire resisting capability
of the firewall, particularly Partial collapse of the firewall
around its edges, is not above ceiling [Note e]
compromised
ASSESSMENT
PROCESS E
Note Commentary
a The firewall in-plane tilt criteria relates to firewall damage that deviates from the damage
to the adjacent foundations, ie, differential movement of the firewall from the adjacent
foundations.
Careful consideration is required to adequately assess the full extent of repairs
recommended to a building’s foundation, and relevelling firewalls may often be
recommended when relevelling adjacent foundations as the firewall may have settled
uniformly with the foundations.
b The firewall type needs to be determined for assessment and repair/rebuild. Firewalls are
divided into two broad categories. Treatment is therefore likely to be different.
Type F1 Replacement of an F1 firewall founded on a Type C foundation is likely to require

partial replacement of the concrete slab foundation immediately adjacent to
the firewall. The new firewall foundation should be tied back into the existing
concrete slab. In some cases where the replacement of the firewall with a
timber-framed, fire-rated, inter-tenancy wall is undertaken, it may not be
necessary to replace the slab.
Relevelling of both the firewall and the existing adjacent foundations may be
an option. Relevelling up to 150mm of a firewall with a Type C foundation is
considered achievable/economical and therefore practical.
The repairs need to ensure that the lateral support of the firewall remains and
the fire purposes of the wall remain intact.
Type F2 Differential settlement of a firewall with respect to the adjacent floor is a

common damage feature for Type F2 firewalls. Often, it may be possible for
Type A and B timber subfloors to be repaired by detaching and refixing the
framing higher into the firewall. The firewall may be left in its settled state and
repairs undertaken to the top of the firewall to ensure it retains its fire resistance.
These repairs need to ensure that the lateral support of the firewall remains and
the fire purposes of the wall remain intact. Isolated relevelling of the adjacent
floors may be practical.
c It is assumed that at up to 0.25% in-plane tilt there will be:

ȣȣ total vertical settlement of the firewall of <25mm
ȣȣ gradient issues with the floors either side of the firewall. This criterion is 0.25% of in-plane
tilt of the firewall that is additional to the tilt of the adjacent foundations (refer to note a).
d An assessment of the structural integrity of the firewall should include the following:
ȣȣ assessing the location and size of cracks (where visible). Widespread cracking of the
firewall may indicate the wall has been structurally compromised beyond repair and/or
that it has compromised fire resistance. Note: Cracks will require a repair that is
fire resistant
ȣȣ determining whether steel reinforcement is present
ȣȣ estimating the likely structural performance of the firewall during a future seismic event,
ie, SLS and ULS limits
ȣȣ estimating the likely structural performance of the firewall after a fire burnout to ensure
it will remain stable.
Note: If an end wall is on a boundary or within 1m of a boundary the end walls need to be fire
rated and be self-supporting in a fire burnout situation.
e Partial collapse of firewalls can occur. Often partial collapses occur in the roof cavity where
there is less confinement of the firewall. It is considered practical to partially replace a firewall
with a timber-framed, fire-rated wall in the roof cavity. For repair details, refer to section 21.5.
E ASSESSMENT
1. INTROD UC TION
PROCESS
18.5 Damage mechanism

During the assessment of a MUB, the characterisation of damage to the building as a
whole is described as the ‘damage mechanism’ within the building. Identifying the principal
damage mechanism within a building is necessary to develop a suitable repair strategy.
It is essential that damage mechanisms are understood before a repair or rebuild is
contemplated.
Typical damage mechanisms and repair solutions are identified in Table 18.4. Damage
mechanisms referred to in this recommendation focus on foundation/firewall movement
along the building length rather than across the building width to identify the interaction
between each individual unit.
Some damage mechanisms can be more difficult to identify/determine on an individual

unit basis, but can generally be more easily identified when assessing the whole building
as damage levels will often vary from unit to unit. For example in Table 18.4 damage
mechanism 3 illustrates that while superstructure damage to a single unit within a MUB
has occurred, another portion of the building has also settled excessively resulting in a
whole building repair strategy.
Damage types generally include:

ȣȣ hogging
ȣȣ sagging
ȣȣ differential settlement or uniform settlement of a portion of the building.
Note: The distortion effects within the superstructure in these cases may be
significant, and may require the introduction of relief points, eg, repairable zones,
before repairs can be made. Also, the verticality and racking of walls other than
firewalls need to be assessed when considering a repair or rebuild approach.
Table 18.4: Typical MUB foundation damage mechanisms
Damage Mechanism Analysis Potential Solution
1. End unit settlement Unit 3 has localised Relevel foundation

foundation of unit 3 and repair
(b) damage, negligible cracking or rebuild
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 foundation damage end unit.
to units 1 and 2.
(c)
(a)
Typical indicators:
(a) Evidence of foundation settlement relative to
land or nett settlement (uniform settlement
of a portion of the building) of the land that is
more difficult to observe
(b) Distress in walls and ceiling
(c) Cracking in ring beam (Type B) or concrete slab
(Type C)
ASSESSMENT
PROCESS E
2. Gradual settlement of whole building Units 2 and 3 have Relevel foundations

(planar tilt) a degree of gradual of all units.
settlement relative
to the original level.
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 If the slope is
greater than
(d) 0.5% over the
entire building
Typical indicators:
foundation then
(d) Relatively linear increase in recorded the foundations of
foundation settlement along the building. unit 2 and/or 3 may
Evidence of foundation settlement relative to need to be replaced.
land or nett settlement (uniform settlement Note: Unit 3 may
of a portion of the building) of the land that is have inadequate
more difficult to observe ground clearance.
[Note 1]
3. Uniform settlement of a portion of the Units 2 and 3 Relevel foundations

building may not appear of all units. Repair
to exceed slope cracking in ring
or differential beam (Type B) or
Unit 1 (e) Unit 2 Unit 3 settlement criteria; slab (Type C).
however they have
If units 2 and 3
(c) a degree of uniform
have settled too
settlement relative
(a) low for relevelling
to be practical
Typical indicators:
(Type A, B, or C)
(a) Evidence of foundation settlement relative to then the majority
land or settlement (uniform settlement of a of units require
portion of the building) of the land that is more replacement. This
difficult to observe means the building
(c) Cracking in ring beam (Type B) or concrete slab should be replaced.
(Type C) However, it may be
possible to separate
(e) Distress in superstructure units 2 and 3 from
unit 1 and relevel
them. [Note 1]
E ASSESSMENT
1. INTROD UC TION
PROCESS
4. Stretch Check if stretch If stretch is minor

exceeded on (ie, <20mm per
individual unit basis. unit) and stresses
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3
(f) (f) in the roof and/or
Check if stretch
walls can be locally
has damaged
relieved, repair
(g) (g) superstructure
unit foundations
to neighbouring
Typical indicators: and repair
units. If so, consider
(f) Separation along construction joint between superstructure on
replacing the whole
concrete slab (Type C) and firewall an individual basis.
building foundation.
(g) All firewalls out of vertical as stretch not or
Stretching of
accommodated by superstructure a building’s If stretch results
foundation can in significant
influence the additional stress in
verticality of the the roof and walls
firewalls and end consider replacing
walls. Stretch may part or whole of
be repaired locally building.
if the damage to
the superstructure
of the building can
be repaired and
the firewall out-of-
plane tilt is within
the acceptable
tolerance.
5. Firewall settlement Check firewall Relevel floor

verticality. adjacent to firewall
(b) or for a small area
breakout and
replace (Type C).
(h) (h)
Relevel firewall,
(c) (c)
replace if more
practical. It may be
Typical indicators:
possible to leave
(b) Distress in walls and ceiling the firewall in place
(c) Cracking in ring beam (Type B) or concrete slab and extend height
(Type C) to marry back
in with the roof
(h) Localised settlement in floor structure.
Repair
superstructure.
ASSESSMENT
PROCESS E
6. Dishing (sagging) Unit 2 may not Relevel foundations

appear to exceed of all units, as
(j) slope or differential required, if outside
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 settlement criteria; the Table 18.2
(b) (b) however it has a criteria. If unit 2
degree of uniform has settled greater
(a) settlement relative than 100mm or
to the original 150mm (Type A/B or
Typical indicators: foundation level. C respectively) then
(a) Evidence of foundation settlement relative to [Note 1] unit 2 foundation
land or nett settlement (uniform settlement may need to be
of a portion of the building) of the land that is replaced.
(b) Distress in walls and ceiling
(j) Deformation of roofline
7. Hogging Units 1 and 3 Relevel foundations

may also have a of units 1 and 3.
(k) degree of uniform
settlement relative
(a) (a) [Note 1]
(c) (c)
Typical indicators:
(a) Evidence of foundation settlement relative to
land or nett settlement (uniform settlement
of a portion of the building) of the land that is
(c) Cracking in ring beam (Type B) concrete slab
(Type C)
(k) Deformation of roofline
8. Punching settlement Differential Relevel firewall,

settlement of the replace if more
(m) firewall where practical. It may be
the adjacent possible to leave
foundations the firewall in place
have not been and extend height
(l) (l) ‘pulled’ down to marry back
(eg, mechanism in with the roof
Typical indicators: 5) indicates the structure.
(l) Foundation of firewall may form section of firewalls are Type
Repair
floor adjacent to wall and have settled creating F2, ie, not integrally
superstructure.
a step down tied into the
foundations of the
(m) Distress in walls and ceiling adjacent to the building. This can
firewall often result in the
need for isolated or
alternative repairs
to the firewalls,
refer to section
18.4.
E ASSESSMENT
1. INTROD UC TION
PROCESS
Explanatory note to Table 18.4
Note Commentary
1 Overall building settlement relative to the surrounding land can result in localised issues
such as ponding water adjacent to the building. If the extent of settlement relative to
the surrounding land has resulted in the building’s floor clearance above the ground
level being significantly compromised, refer to section 2.6 for further information. Site
work may be needed even if the settlement of the building has been relatively uniform,
ie, negligible slopes of the foundations. Additionally, nett settlement of the land or
settlement of the building relative to the surrounding land may result in services no
longer functioning correctly. This needs to be addressed.
18.6 Geotechnical investigations

If partial or full foundation rebuilds are required on TC1 or TC2 sites, shallow geotechnical
investigations should be carried out in accordance with section 3.4.1. Deep geotechnical
investigations are expected to be carried out for TC3 sites.
The scope of deep geotechnical investigation must be determined by the geotechnical

professional responsible for giving advice on the property in question.
There will be two general sources of deep geotechnical information:

ȣȣ single or isolated MUB site investigation
ȣȣ area-wide investigation, considering other information available using the Canterbury
Geotechnical Database.
Geotechnical investigations for MUBs in TC3 should generally be undertaken in accordance

with section 13 (refer to Figure 13.1), with adaptations and engineering judgement as
appropriate for MUB situations. The long, linear nature of MUBs is such that ground
conditions may vary more significantly under a MUB than under the normally more
compact area of a detached house.
If heavy cladding and/or roof are to be retained, the following are additional considerations:
1. If a partial rebuild of a heavy MUB is undertaken, it is recommended that deep
investigations are completed on the site to determine the replacement foundations
in accordance with the requirements for a foundation rebuild. Information from area-
wide investigations or from neighbouring properties is not generally expected to be
sufficient, and investigations on the property are recommended.
2. If designers are considering retaining heavy cladding and/or roofing, assessment of
the building’s performance in relation to the land during the Canterbury earthquake
sequence is critical. If the existing heavy building did not settle in relation to the land,
this will generally indicate that similar performance could be expected in the future
from similar earthquakes.
3. When assessing liquefaction settlements for MUBs with heavy cladding and/or roof,
due consideration should be given to the depth in the soil column where the majority
of the settlement is occurring. When a suitable overlying thickness of soil is present,
the retention of the heavier cladding and/or roofing is generally more acceptable. In
contrast, sites where the non-liquefying curst is thin, retaining heavy cladding and/or
roofing is not recommended without suitable foundation modifications.
ASSESSMENT
PROCESS E
E FOUNDATION
1. INTROD UC TION
REPAIRS
19. Foundation repairs

and relevel
19.1 Overview
Foundation repairs and relevels of individual MUB units should generally be undertaken in
accordance with section 4 (TC1 and TC2) and section 14 (TC3).
19.2 Repair or replace

In accordance with Table 18.2, elements within individual units such as perimeter
foundation beams or groups of isolated piles supporting suspended floors may be
repaired or replaced with a comparable foundation to the extent that is reasonably
practicable, such as:
ȣȣ <50% of a perimeter foundation beam
ȣȣ <50% of isolated subfloor piles
ȣȣ <50% of concrete slab.
Where the limits above are exceeded in an individual unit, all of that unit’s foundation
should be replaced with a stiffer and/or stronger foundation.
Additional inspection and assessment is recommended where the replacement of an

internal concrete garage slab occurs within a Type B unit. If the concrete slab is not an
integral component of the building’s foundations, ie, is separated from the structure on
either side, it is advisable to consider it as an isolated component and replace, if necessary,
with a suitably proportioned (possibly stiffened) concrete slab connected to the adjacent
foundation.
For indicative illustrations of these foundation repair limits, refer to Figures 19.1 and
Figure 19.2.
F O U N D AT I O N R E PA I R S / PA G E 1 9 . 1
FOUNDATION
REPAIRS E
Figure 19.1: Type B foundation repair limit example
<50% of Unit 1 piles damaged <50% of Unit 2 foundation ≥50% of Unit 3 foundation
so replace affected piles with beam damaged so replace the beam damaged so replace
comparable affected section(s) entire unit foundation
Perimeter foundation Floor pile
Figure 19.2: Type C foundation repair limits example
<50% of Unit 1 concrete slab

damaged so replace affected
area with comparable Concrete slab foundation
19.2.1 Replacement of heavy cladding in TC3

For detached houses, in certain circumstances, the replacement of heavy claddings and/
or roofing materials with lightweight ones is recommended when carrying out repairs.
For MUBs, if there is evidence that the building, in part or whole, has settled excessively
relative to the land due the weight of a heavy roof and/or wall cladding, these elements
should be removed and replaced with lighter-weight materials. This may require some
architectural input to preserve the aesthetics of the building as a whole. However, where
units did not settle in relation to surrounding land due to the earthquakes, it is more
appropriate to retain heavy elements.
E FOUNDATION
1. INTROD UC TION
REPAIRS
19.3 Relevelling
Section 4 and Appendix A1 outline methods that can be used to relevel foundations and
firewalls. When relevelling a portion of the building consider the effects on the rest of the
building, as well the added complications arising from the presence of masonry firewalls.
When relevelling a firewall, consider whether the firewall is a Type F1 or Type F2 (refer to
section 18.4 for definitions of the firewall types). A Type F1 firewall will either have to be
lifted with the adjacent floors or it will need to be disconnected from the adjacent unit
foundation. Alternatively for small settlements, the firewall could be left in place and the
floor levelled with a floor levelling compound. It may be possible to leave Type F2 firewalls
in their settled state and lift the floors adjacent to them. A check must be made of the
roof and ceiling space for damage as small changes can have an impact on acoustic or fire
performance.
Depending on the firewall’s length, structural integrity, strength and stiffness, lifting of
a firewall foundation may require jacking points along the extent of the firewall, or could
alternatively be achieved by jacking at either end of the firewall.
After foundation relevelling, Type C floor slabs may need to be reinstated:

ȣȣ It is imperative to maintain or restore the under-slab vapour barrier 7.
ȣȣ It is also important to create full support under the slab. There are a number of options
to consider, including cement grout or urethane injection after lifting.
Alternatively the floor slab can be demolished and rebuilt (either partially or in whole),
with a new damp-proof membrane.
7 The under-slab vapour barrier provides moisture protection to a Type C foundation. As it is usually immediately
against the underside of the concrete it is easily damaged during and through slab activity.
FOUNDATION
REPAIRS E
E PARTIAL REBUILD
1. INTROD UC TION
AND REPAIR
20. Partial foundation rebuild

and repair
20.1 Overview
A partial foundation rebuild for a MUB is where one or more unit foundations, within
the building, is fully replaced, with other units retaining their existing foundation and
superstructure (with or without repairs).
A partial foundation rebuild is indicated when the damage threshold to the foundation
of an individual unit in Table 18.2 is exceeded. This includes:
ȣȣ ≥50% of floor piles (Type A)
ȣȣ ≥50% of a perimeter foundation beam (Type B)
ȣȣ ≥50% of isolated subfloor piles (Type B)
ȣȣ ≥50% of a concrete slab (Type C).
Figure 20.1: Partial foundation rebuild example
Replace the foundation of 1 Replacement of firewall may

or more units also need to be undertaken
Firewall foundation replacement is covered in section 21.5 and full foundation replacement
is covered in section 22.
PARTIAL REBUILD AND REPAIR / PAGE 20.1
PARTIAL REBUILD
AND REPAIR E
20.2 Partial rebuild considerations

20.2.1 Managing difference in structural performance
Managing the difference in structural performance between new and existing sections of
the building is important because, in a future SLS event, there is potential for foundation
and superstructure deformation to occur due to differences in response (including induced
ground settlement) between new and existing foundation types.
In general, it will be easier to rebuild the foundation of an end unit of a block than the
foundation of a central unit because it will have only one junction with the existing
structure.
Design strategies for the interface between the new and existing sections typically
involve either:
ȣȣ concentrating and controlling potential superstructure deformation (as a result of
differing performance in SLS events) at the junction between the new and existing
superstructure by building in future repair capability (introducing repairable zones); or
ȣȣ separating the building into individual sections where significant differential movement
between the new and existing sections under SLS acdtions needs to be accommodated.
Repairable zones
The potential for differences in structural performance is generally considered low for TC1
and TC2 sites but may be an issue for TC3 sites. Accordingly standard junction details have
been developed (refer to section 23) to accommodate some performance differences.
The proposed superstructure junction details in section 23 are relatively simple and it
is recommended that they be used in all TCs. More resilient foundation types can be
adopted for partial rebuild in TC3 and any difference in performance is addressed by the
superstructure standard details. Junctions between new and existing concrete foundations
are designed to be mechanically fixed.
Structural separation
Deep ground improvement and/or deep piled foundations should only be used when the
replacement part of the building is structurally separated from the remainder. This will
allow the new structure to behave independently of the existing structure (ie, completely
separate structures).
E PARTIAL REBUILD
1. INTROD UC TION
AND REPAIR
20.2.2 Gravel layers for partial foundation rebuilds

Some foundation solutions in section 5.3 and 15.4 make use of compacted and reinforced
gravel layers under the foundation elements.
Gravel layers are generally not required to manage liquefied ejecta in TC1 and TC2 areas but
can enhance the performance of foundations in those areas.
The SLS performance of partial rebuilds on TC3 sites can be improved with the use of
compacted gravel layers. The principal purpose of these layers is to reduce the potential
future differential settlements by providing a stiffer layer than the previously existing
natural soils. This helps control liquefaction ejecta emitting from the ground immediately
adjacent to the foundations and also provides some pore pressure relief during
liquefaction events. This becomes more important with more liquefaction-prone land,
or where heavy cladding and/or roof materials are chosen (in order to be consistent with
adjacent units).
MUBs typically have smaller floor plate dimensions than detached houses, and therefore
are less vulnerable to differential settlements. They also have other significant constraints
compared to detached houses, specifically connections to adjacent units. Using gravel
layer depths as specified in section 15 poses problems for MUBs with regard to the stability
of excavations close to adjacent units. Additionally if thicker gravel layers are utilised under
one unit it can lead to significant performance incompatibility issues with attached units.
Gravel layer thickness for MUBs can generally be reduced in comparison to detached
houses, to limit incompatibility effects with adjacent units and also to aid in
constructability. Using repairable zones is considered a suitable trade-off for the reduction
in gravel thickness, and to keep unit performance relatively compatible. Where the gravel
layer thickness is reduced below 400mm, geotextile is recommended to at least minimise
liquefied ejecta passing into the gravels.
For partial rebuilds of MUBs where a TC3 Type 2 surface structure is specified the
accompanying gravel layer may either be removed or modified to limit performance
incompatibility issues (for limitations, refer to Table 20.1).
20.2.3 Retaining and rebuilding firewalls

For partial rebuilds, the retention of existing inter-tenancy firewalls associated with the
unit being rebuilt will depend on the damage assessment carried out per section 18.3.
If replacement is required, refer to section 21.5.
PARTIAL REBUILD
AND REPAIR E
20.3 Partial foundation rebuild solutions

20.3.1 Overview
The foundation solutions available for MUB partial foundation rebuilds are selected from
sections 4 and 5 (TC1 and TC2) and sections 14 and 15 (TC3), and include modifications
specifically for MUBs.
The partial foundation rebuild solutions recommended are summarised as follows:

ȣȣ TC1: NZS 3604 Type A, B and C (refer to section 5)
ȣȣ TC2: NZS 3604 enhanced Type B perimeter foundation with shallow piles
(refer to section 5)
ȣȣ TC2: enhanced foundation slabs options 2, 3, and 4 (refer to section 5)
ȣȣ TC3 modified Type 2 surface structure solutions (refer to Table 20.1)
ȣȣ TC3 perimeter wall with shallow piles (refer to Figure 14.3 and Table 20.1)
Some of the foundation replacement solutions for partial rebuilds of MUBs in TC2 and TC3
areas provided in Table 20.1 are different from those for detached houses, particularly the
allowance to maintain the weights of key elements, ie, cladding and roofing materials, and
the reduction in thickness of the gravel layer below structures. This is primarily due to the
following reasons:
ȣȣ The complexities of ownership in MUBs mean that at times, unless all parties agree,
cladding and roofing weights may not be reduced.
ȣȣ Where an excavation is required to repair a MUB foundation adjacent to a unit, the
risk of deeper excavation close to a remaining unit could cause unnecessary additional
damage. Accordingly there is a need to limit excavation depths, thereby limiting gravel
raft thicknesses.
ȣȣ MUBs typically have smaller floor spans and are more regular than detached houses.
ȣȣ Surface structure under-slabs have been stiffened to allow thinner gravel layers.
In addition, these multi-unit foundation configurations have been subjected to additional

analysis during preparation of Table 20.1. Solutions have been modelled and meet the
deflection criteria from section 5.48.
8 1 in 400 in the case of no support over 4m (ie, 5mm sag at the centre of a 4m length simply supported slab) and;
1 in 200 for the case of no support of a 2m cantilever at the extremes of the floor (ie, 10mm at the end of the
cantilevered floor of a 2m length).
E PARTIAL REBUILD
1. INTROD UC TION
AND REPAIR
20.3.2 Heavy cladding and roofing considerations

It is important to take into account the extent of building settlement in relation to the
land from the recent Canterbury earthquake sequence when considering specifying heavy
cladding and roofing in the section of the building where the foundation is being rebuilt.
If ground conditions permit, specifying heavy cladding in MUBs can be accommodated in

some cases with surface foundation structures in TC3. This approach is acceptable if it is
impractical to replace heavy elements with light elements, and satisfactory performance
can be achieved by providing some degree of compensation in the design of the foundation
and repairable zones.
Table 20.1 indicates a range of acceptable foundation configurations for both light/medium
and heavy weight claddings and light and heavy roofing.
Retaining heavier-weight cladding is considered unavoidable in many partial rebuild

situations due to construction practicalities and ownership constraints. However, this is
not considered appropriate for full rebuild situations in TC3 or for some of the TC2 options
(refer to Table 7.2). For full rebuild guidance, refer to section 5, section 15, and section 22.
Specific engineering design is required for MUBs outside the scope of this guidance such
as three (or more) storey structures and where there is potentially significant vertical land
settlement in TC3 (>100mm at SLS) if specifying heavy cladding.
20.3.3 Partial rebuild options

Partial foundation rebuild options within MUBs across foundation types and technical
categories are shown in Table 20.1.
Engineering judgement is required when using Table 20.1. Site observations and, where
appropriate, judgement may prevail over calculated settlements and land performance, ie,
building settlement relative to land. The use of repairable zones and careful consideration
of the junction details are required to compensate for potential variations in behaviour
between the rebuilt portion and the existing portion of the building. The provisions in
Table 20.1 for replacing heavy cladding with light cladding relate only to the unit/s with
foundations that are being rebuilt and not to the entire MUB (refer to section 20.3.2).
The following gravel layers are designed for use for MUBs in TC3 as specified in Table 20.1
for various situations:
ȣȣ 200mm thick with a single layer of geotextile located at the base of the gravel layer
ȣȣ 300mm thick with a single layer of geotextile located at the base of the gravel layer
ȣȣ 400mm with two layers of tri-axial geogrid and cement stabilisation with 5% cement
by weight (refer to Figure 20.2 for exposed edge detail).
PARTIAL REBUILD
AND REPAIR E
Figure 20.2: Detail of a 400mm thick gravel layer with geogrid
Ex. GL
mm
200
Grid #2 1200 100
GRANULAR FILL LAYER.
400
Grid #1 100 (AP40)
100
500
GEOGRID REINFORCEMENTS (2LAYERS)
UNDER LAYER WRAPPED UP AT ENDS AND
BACK UNDER SLAB (ONE DIRECTION ONLY).
The schematics in Figure 20.3 show a simplified illustration of a shallow gravel raft. Careful
detailing will be required on a site-by-site basis. When the firewall requires replacement,
proper consideration of the replacement firewall is required to ensure the loading of the
firewall is not placed solely on the edge of a gravel layer and is either cantilevered from the
foundation, or the gravel layer is extended so the maximum thickness of the raft is
beneath the firewall.
Figure 20.3: Schematic illustrations of a gravel layer in a partial

foundation rebuild
Repairable zone Existing firewall
Unit 1 Unit 1
New foundation
Gravel layer (for thickness Refer to specific

refer to Table 20.1) detailing (section 23)
Note: Firewall not requiring replacement, gravel layer to extend to the firewall.
Repairable zone New timber-framed firewall
Unit 1 Unit 1
New foundation
Gravel layer (for thickness Refer to specific

refer to Table 20.1) detailing (section 23)
Note: Firewall requires replacement, gravel layer to extend beneath the firewall.
E PARTIAL REBUILD
1. INTROD UC TION
AND REPAIR
Table 20.1: Partial foundation rebuild options within MUBs for Type A, B,
and C foundation types in TC1, TC2, and TC3
Row Technical Building Vertical Lateral Type A and B Type C

category cladding settlement Stretch (ULS) Timber floor Concrete slab
weight (SLS) of ground foundation foundation
across
(1-2 storeys) (1-2 storeys)
building
footprint
1 TC1 Light- 0-15mm Nil NZS 3604 NZS 3604 Type

medium Type A or Type B C foundation
foundation
and
Heavy
2 TC2 Light- 0-50mm Minor NZS 3604 TC2 concrete

medium <100mm Type A raft foundation
foundation options 1-4
or enhanced
Type B
foundation
3 Heavy Enhanced Type TC2 concrete

B foundation raft foundation
[Note 1] options 2 and 4
4 TC3 Light- <100mm Minor to TC3 Type 2A- TC2 concrete

medium moderate 300 surface raft foundation
<200mm structure from option 2 or
section 15 (with option 4 [Note 1,
and
no raft beneath) 4, and 7]
Moderate to [Note 2 and 4]
major 200-
or
500mm
Where <200mm
lateral stretch
and <30%
of overall
perimeter
for Type B,
consider using
an enhanced
perimeter
foundation
(refer to Fig.
14.3) [Note 3]
5 Light- >100mm Minor to TC3 Type 2A- TC2 concrete

medium moderate 300 surface raft foundation
<200mm structure from option 2 or
section 15 option 4 with
and
with a 200mm a 200mm
Moderate to gravel raft with gravel raft with
major 200- geotextile [Note geotextile [Note
500mm 2 and 4] 1, 4, and 7]
PARTIAL REBUILD
AND REPAIR E
Row Technical Building Vertical Lateral Type A and B Type C

category cladding settlement Stretch (ULS) Timber floor Concrete slab
weight (SLS) of ground foundation foundation
across
(1-2 storeys) (1-2 storeys)
building
footprint
6 TC3 Heavy <100mm Minor to Either: Either:

moderate
Specify light Specify light
<200mm
roof and heavy roof and
and cladding and heavy cladding
use TC3 Type and use TC2
Moderate to
2A-300 surface concrete raft
major 200-
structure from foundation
500mm
section 15 with option 2 or
a 300mm gravel option 4 with
layer with a 400mm
geotextile [Note gravel raft with
4, 5, and 6] two layers of
geogrid
or
[Note 4, 5,
Specify light
and 7]
roof and light or
medium weight or
cladding and
Specify light
refer to row 5
roof and light or
medium weight
cladding and
refer to row 5
7 >100mm Minor to Specific Specific

moderate engineering engineering
<200mm design, eg, design, eg,
relevellable relevellable
and
concrete slab concrete slab
Moderate to with ground with ground
major 200- improvement improvement
500mm [Note 5 and 8] [Note 5 and 8]
E PARTIAL REBUILD
1. INTROD UC TION
AND REPAIR
Note Commentary
1 Rebuilding using heavy cladding and roofing is considered acceptable for partial rebuilds
on this land due to the practicality and other contraints imposed on MUBs. This is not
appropriate for full rebuild situations. For full rebuild guidance, refer to section 5, section
15, and section 22.
2 Existing Type A foundation systems can use Type 1 surface structures for partial rebuild
provided the lateral stretch (ULS) of ground across the building footprint is less than
200mm.
3 An exterior perimeter foundation wall as detailed in Figure 14.3 with shallow piles may be
used for partial rebuild of a Type B foundation in TC3 where the replacement perimeter
wall makes up <30% of the total exterior perimeter of the whole building.
This is restricted to situations where:
ȣȣ the roof is lightweight and the cladding is light or medium weight, and
ȣȣ <200mm lateral stretch is expected, and
ȣȣ <100mm SLS vertical settlement expected, and
ȣȣ the land and the inter-tenancy wall(s) associated with the unit have not performed
poorly (refer to damage mechanisms 3, 5 and 8 of Table 18.4).
4 TC3 Type 2 surface structures are capable of withstanding lateral stretch up to 500mm
(ULS). The selected TC2 concrete slab foundation solutions are also considered capable
of withstanding lateral stretch up to 500mm (ULS). Accordingly there is no distinction of
solutions based on ULS lateral stretch.
5 Heavy cladding and/or roofing material are not recommended for TC3 land on these
foundation systems. To enable the use of a shallow foundation system on a site with
poor ground conditions, specification of light or medium weight roofing and/or cladding
is required. The foundation solutions in this guidance are on the basis that light roofing
will be used on rebuilds in TC3. A heavy clad building on land of this nature will most likely
require ground improvement or deep piles. These solutions are only suitable for whole of
building treatments and are not advisable for partial rebuilds.
6 It is recognised that retaining heavy cladding on this TC3 surface structure will
compromise relevellability. In the event of future seismic settlement the wooden floor
may still be able to be relevelled independently but the heavy cladding may need to be
rebuilt.
7 Concrete slab foundations used in TC3 should have sufficient strength to be relevelled
from the perimeter after future SLS earthquakes. Refer to Tables 20.2 and 20.3 for
configurations of TC2 option 2 and 4 concrete slabs. Note: Relevant only for end units
of a MUB.
8 Designers must consider the likely interaction between existing and new foundations.
Deep-piled, partial replacements are not recommended.
PARTIAL REBUILD
AND REPAIR E
20.4 Future relevellability

The partial rebuild solutions are based on structural connection at slab level between
new and old. Any need for future relevelling of rebuilt units will need to be done as part of
an overall MUB relevelling operation unless the rebuilt unit is at the end of the MUB. Slab
reinforcing details in Tables 20.2 and 20.3 will assist that procedure and are also applicable
where the partial rebuild involves the creation of a full structural separation.
Table 20.2: Constraints and reinforcement for TC2 option 2 (300mm slab)
foundation configuration when used in TC3
Foundation type Relevel access conditions Maximum Bottom reinforcing required

dimensions
Short span Long span
TC2 option 2 All four edges 10m x 10m HD12-150 HD12-150

(300mm)
used in TC3 Three edges 10m x 10m HD16-175 HD16-250
Refer to Table 15.2
Three edges 8m x 10m HD16-200 HD12-250
(8m side inaccessible)
Long edges only 8m x 10m HD16-200 HD12-250

(ie, 8m span)
Table 20.3: Constraints and reinforcement for TC2 option 4 (385mm waffle
slab) foundation configuration when used in TC3
Foundation Relevel Maximum Rib reinforcement Perimeter beam

type access dimensions required reinforcement required
conditions
Bottom Stirrups Bottom Stirrups
bar bars
TC2 option All four edges 10m x 10m HD12 R10-125 As per As per
4 (385mm) Figure 5.11 Figure 5.11
used in TC3
Refer to Three edges 10m x 10m 2HD12 or R10-125 4 HD16 R10-125
Table 15.2 1HD20
Three edges 8m x 10m HD16 R10-125 3 HD16 R10-125

(8m side
unsupported)
Long edges 8m x 10m HD16 R10-125 4 HD16 R10-125

only
(ie, 8m span)
E PARTIAL REBUILD
1. INTROD UC TION
AND REPAIR
20.5 Conceptual partial rebuild solutions in TC3

20.5.1 Type B partial foundation replacement option
Figures 20.4 and 20.5 provide conceptual partial rebuild solutions for Type B foundations
in TC3 that are based on surface structure options from section 15.4.
The details at the interface between the old and new foundations are complex and
require careful consideration. The perimeter foundation should be tied into the existing
foundation to achieve a more integrated performance.
Ventilation requirements
Observation of existing Type 2 MUB underfloor conditions has identified that the
requirements for optimum ventilation are not always evident in the as-built stock.
This can be rectified during the partial rebuild or full replacement activities.
Each unit must have self-sufficient, sub-floor ventilation. The firewalls are typically not
penetrated leaving middle units with limited ventilation unless the exterior walls have
substantial ventilation voids. Accordingly it is recommended to treat the NZS 3604
ventilation requirement of 3500mm2 per m2 as a minimum or use the alternatives set out
in section 6.14 of NZS 3604. It is also important to place the ventilation to take into account
likely points of interference, considering the highly likely impact of future cover-up and
blocking by gardens, patios, driveways, decks, and porches.
If the above criteria cannot be achieved then a damp-proof ground cover will be required
as per NZS 3604 Clause 6.14.3.
PARTIAL REBUILD
AND REPAIR E
Figure 20.4: TC3 Type 1 surface structure constructed against an existing

Type B foundation
Section:
Repairable zone Timber-framed firewall
New TC3 type 1 surface structure Type B
Firewall footing
Side Elevation:
Repairable zone
Plywood perimeter surround Firewall footing butted into Concrete perimeter beam
(refer to Figure 15.16) concrete perimeter wall
E PARTIAL REBUILD
1. INTROD UC TION
AND REPAIR
Figure 20.5: TC3 Type 2 constructed against an existing Type B foundation
Section:
Gravel layer may be Concrete slab Refer to specific detailing

required (refer to Table 20.1) (thickness refer to (section 23)
Table 20.1)
Side Elevation:
Repairable zone
Gravel layer may be Refer to specific detailing Concrete perimeter beam

required (refer to Table 20.1) (section 23)
PARTIAL REBUILD
AND REPAIR E
20.5.2 Type C partial foundation replacement option

The edge of the existing slab in common with the new work will need to be repaired
if it is undermined as a result of excavation for the new slab and under-course.
Figure 20.6: TC2 option 2 constructed in TC3
Section:
New TC2 option 2 concrete slab Type C
Gravel layer may be required 300mm concrete slab Concrete slab

(refer to Table 20.1)
Side Elevation:
Repairable zone
New TC2 option 2 concrete slab Type C
Gravel layer may be 300mm concrete slab Concrete slab

required (refer to Table 20.1)
E PARTIAL REBUILD
1. INTROD UC TION
AND REPAIR
20.5.3 Alignment of cladding to slab edge

When a Type 2A or 2B surface structure is specified in a detached house or multi-unit, an
alternative edge solution that aligns the edge of the slab in the same vertical plane as the
cladding line is possible. This is an alternative to Figures 15.19 to 15.21 in section 15 where it
is indicated that the slab should extend 500mm beyond the exterior row of piles and the
cladding line set inside this.
Where there is a 500mm slab extension it is not practical to cantilever the floor joists to
align with the cladding line. This slab design was developed on the principle that the timber
piles cantilevered from the slab, thus providing the lateral support for the superstructure
under wind and earthquake loading. All piles are therefore expected to introduce a bending
action to the slab under lateral loading.
The alternative solves the structural requirement by introducing reinforcing steel hairpins
(refer figure 23.34) to allow the pile to be placed closer to the slab edge. Adjusting the floor
joist, bearer sizes and adding a row of piles to reduce spans means that the overhang of
the joist on the bearer (the cantilever) at 150mm aligns with the slab edge line.
This is suitable for both single and two storey MUBs (and houses) with light roofs and
either light or medium weight wall cladding.
Water should not be allowed to pond beneath the floor of the completed building
foundation. Therefore, the top surface of the slab should be set at a level that is higher
than the surrounding land (expected to be more than 50mm).
An alternative detail for Type 2A and 2B slabs has been developed as shown in Figure 20.7.
This detail should be read in conjunction with Figures 15.19 to 15.21.
PARTIAL REBUILD
AND REPAIR E
Figure 20.7: Alternate detail for Type 2A and 2B slabs
150 MAXIMUM JOIST CANTILEVER
140 x 45 JOISTS AT 400 crs (2.7 m MAXIMUM CLEAR SPAN)
2/140 x 45 BEARER
PILE HEIGHT AS PER
TABLE 20.4 1mm THICK x 110 WIDE NAIL
PLATE CONNECTION EACH SIDE
NOTE: CLADDINGS NOT
300 (TYPE 2B)

150 (TYPE 2A)
INCLUDED FOR CLARITY.
125 x 125 PILE AT
1.65m CENTRES
75 APPROX
SLAB STEEL AS PER

FIGURE 15.19 OR 15.20
CROSS SECTION
Min. 60 cover
800
D16 hairpin
D16 500 long through pile
PLAN
Table 20.4: Maximum distance between top of slab and underside of joist (m)
Type 2A Type 2B
(150mm slab) (300mm slab)
Single storey light weight wall/light roof 1.00 1.15
Single storey medium weight wall/light roof 1.00 1.00
Two storey light weight wall/light roof 0.75 0.75
Two storey medium weight wall/light roof 0.60 0.60
E PARTIAL REBUILD
1. INTROD UC TION
AND REPAIR
20.5.4 Re-evaluation of the need for a Type 2 plywood skirt

It has been determined that a plywood skirt (as shown in Fig 15.21) is not necessary for
stiffening the Type 2A-300 and 2B foundations in either detached houses or multi units.
The need for a plywood skirt on Type 2A-150 foundations will be reviewed based on further
field observations.
The plywood skirt was specified in figure 15.21 for Type 2A and 2B foundation designs
because of a concern that there may be some ’shrinkage slop’ of the piles in the slab.
Observations of some as-built Type 2A-300 foundations have shown that the piles are
well anchored in the slab and therefore there is no need for the plywood skirt
Provision must still be made for ventilation of the subfloor space in accordance with
NZS 3604 requirements.
Note: The plywood skirt is still applicable where a Type 1 foundation is used.
20.5.5 Special case for multi units with low floors on Type A
and B foundations
In Canterbury there are a substantial number of MUBs with Type A or B foundations with
floor levels that are not high enough to provide a crawl space underneath (450mm below
floor joists). Many units have finished floor levels set at two or three steps with a door sill
above ground (nominal 400-450mm). This means that a new timber floor with the required
subfloor clearance cannot be used to provide a finished floor level common with adjacent
units.
For rebuilt unit foundations and floors, there are two options to produce a practical
solution for units with a lack of crawl space when reinstating floor levels aligned with the
remaining units:
1. Set the Type 2B lower slab into the ground, setting the base slab lower than the
adjacent land. Note: This option is not recommended in areas prone to flooding.
2. Change timber floor to a concrete slab founded nominally at ground level with a top
surface managed to align with existing floor level. The slab approach will deliver a
concrete floor that has the advantage of eliminating the need for ventilation.
For both options, there will be no difference to the superstructure details in section 21.
A waffle-slab will provide a practical partial rebuild solution and will minimise the additional
weight imposed on the ground. A waffle slab solution, if chosen, would need to be
specifically designed. Details of the floor level matching slab are included in section 23.
PARTIAL REBUILD
AND REPAIR E
E SUPERSTRUCTURE
1. INTROD UC TION
REPAIR
21. Superstructure repair

21.1 Overview
Superstructure repair can generally be undertaken in accordance with section 7.
The following topics cover superstructure considerations that are specific to MUBs.
21.2 Partial superstructure replacement

21.2.1 Interconnection principles
For a single-level MUB, consideration needs to be given to the structural implications of
connecting a new and robust superstructure into an existing superstructure that is less
resilient, and is unlikely to fully meet the current materials or loading standards.
The principal aspects to be considered are:

1. the appropriate detailing of the junctions to accommodate the relative movement
that could occur under future SLS events
2. the lateral strength and stiffness of the new and existing sections.
21.2.2 Junction detailing for movement

The potential for relative movement between the rebuilt units and existing units
(ie, those only requiring repairs) is considered to be limited for MUBs of regular structural
configuration and with units of less than 100m2. Even if there was a degree of movement
that gave rise to minor damage from a regulatory perspective the negative impacts of
this would be outweighed by the structural benefit to the building as a whole from the
improved resilience of the new unit(s). Refer to section 17.4.1.
This means that in most cases it will be sufficient to provide bracing to the rebuilt unit(s)
that corresponds to the requirements for that unit, and not to provide any additional
bracing to the existing (remaining) units.
In terms of the junction between new and existing sections, section 23 provides junction
details that feature a measure of repairability in the unlikely event of future relative
movement under serviceability conditions. This follows the readily repairable principles
outlined in section 8.2.3.
There will be occasional situations where a seismic separation is warranted. These

situations will typically arise where, for example, a completely different foundation system
is adopted for the rebuilt unit(s), or where the floor and roof levels of the rebuilt units are
different from the remaining unit(s), or where regularity limits for TC3 surface structures
are exceeded.
Each of these cases will need to be treated on its own merits.
SUPERSTRUCTURE REPAIR / PAGE 21.1
SUPERSTRUCTURE
REPAIR E
Seismic separations will need specific design and detailing to ensure that the following
performance aspects are addressed:
ȣȣ seismic clearances and/or transfer of impact forces due to seismic deformation
ȣȣ loss of function, eg, weathertightness, fire resistance or acoustic rating.
The introduction of seismic separations may result in the need for new lines of support,
eg, additional load-bearing walls.
21.2.3 Lateral strength and stiffness

Older timber-framed buildings are likely to have been braced differently than current
timber-framed structures. Before the introduction of NZS 3604, reliance was placed
on diagonal timber braces to provide lateral restraint. In most cases the bracing in the
remaining (less damaged) units will still be effective. However, they may not be as stiff as
they were before the Canterbury earthquake sequence, because of loosening of nail fixings
as a result of the earthquakes. If inspection of the remaining units indicates that these
units have demonstrated more lively behaviour in service level loads (wind or earthquake),
it may be necessary to refix some of the sheet wall lining elements in those units. For
refixing criteria, refer to Table 7.1.
The bracing in any rebuilt unit will need to be designed to current standards, and should
take into account only the mass contribution from the new unit and adjacent party walls.
The attachment to the remaining units may mean that in SLS events the new bracing will
be called on first to resist seismic actions until it becomes more flexible and the load is
distributed to the diagonal bracing elements in the existing units. Such action is likely to
give rise to only minor damage that can be readily repaired if suitable junction detailing is
used. Refer to section 23.
21.3 Reinforced and unreinforced masonry MUBs

The principles for timber-framed structures cannot be applied to masonry structures.
This section is MUB specific and should be read in conjunction with sections 7.7 and 7.8.
Existing MUBs can have:

ȣȣ masonry block superstructures; these can be reinforced, unreinforced, or partially
reinforced
ȣȣ unreinforced brick firewalls
ȣȣ masonry block firewalls that are also reinforced/unreinforced or partially reinforced.
This section focuses on masonry block superstructures.
Sections 7.7 and 7.8 provide direction on assessing the structural integrity of masonry walls
and superstructure.
Any repairs to earthquake-damaged, unreinforced-concrete-block masonry needs to focus

on adding structural basketing reinforcement and providing alternative load paths for any
potential loss of gravity support. Refer to section 7.8.
E SUPERSTRUCTURE
1. INTROD UC TION
REPAIR
Potential repair solutions for an unreinforced concrete block masonry structure could
involve a partial replacement with a:
ȣȣ timber-framed structure with concrete block veneer
ȣȣ lightweight wall (no veneer)
ȣȣ concrete block wall built to current standards (NZS 4229, NZS 4230).
Establishing an appropriate connection between the rebuilt portion and the existing
structure requires careful consideration, whether it is a reinforced concrete block
construction (built to meet NZS 4229), or a timber-framed structure with concrete block
veneer cladding (built to meet NZS 3604).
If it is deemed practical to carry out a partial replacement of the masonry wall, balancing
the stiffness of the new element with the existing should be undertaken.
When tying the rebuilt structure into the existing, it is recommended that the foundation
reinforcement be continued to a location in the building foundation where, in a future
seismic event, the interface is not in an area with points of high structural demand,
ie, at the inter-tenancy wall line.
The expectation is that any replacement firewalls will be timber framed. Where a block wall
is being reinstated, it is expected to be tied in to the exterior walls and may not warrant
the introduction of a repairable zone.
21.4 Junction detailing

The objective of detailing the junctions between new and existing units is to accommodate
any minor movement and provide for easy repair following future SLS events. The detailing
of junctions between new and existing units requires a consistent approach throughout
the superstructure. Elements to consider are:
ȣȣ roof fabric (eg, specifically designed joints and flashings to ensure continued
weathertightness) capable of accommodating the movement that may occur across the
joints at future times without undue deformation
ȣȣ roof structure (eg, tile battens discontinuous)
ȣȣ ceiling structure (eg, ceiling joists discontinuous)
ȣȣ wall fabric (eg, specifically designed joints and flashings to ensure weathertightness
even when movement may occur across the joints at future times)
ȣȣ wall structure (eg, top plates discontinuous).
Consideration of the external cladding across a repairable zone should be given.

Access to such components should be considered during the design of these zones.
It may be undesirable to truncate weatherboards or brick cladding at the junction due to
the repercussions on the aesthetic appeal of the building. However, suitable architectural
detailing may lessen the impact of a break. These details can be incorporated into
the design of a repairable zone to withstand expected SLS deformation with
negligible damage.
SUPERSTRUCTURE
REPAIR E
Details illustrating how junctions might be achieved are shown in section 23. The proposed
superstructure detailing at junctions is relatively simple and it is recommended that they
be used in all partial rebuilds in TC1, TC2, and TC3.
21.5 Firewall repair/rebuild

21.5.1 Overview
On TC2 and TC3 sites, new firewalls constructed as part of foundation rebuilds (partial
or full) should be in the form of a timber-framed, fire-rated, inter-tenancy wall regardless
of any superstructure weight constraints on foundation choice.
It may also be possible to truncate the existing firewall at the foundation/floor level and
build a timber-framed firewall on the existing base. This will remove the requirement in
some situations for a foundation repair adjacent to the firewall. However, the face load
stability of the replacement wall must be ensured with stabilising elements suitably
designed, proportioned, and fire rated. Meeting B1/AS1 and C/AS design requirements
is one approach that satisfies the stability requirements.
Note: Masonry firewall vulnerabilities such as localised foundation deformation

within a building have been highlighted following the Canterbury earthquake
sequence. Replacing existing heavy masonry firewalls with timber-framed firewalls
is recommended (when replacement is indicated using Table 18.3 or required for
partial rebuilds).
21.5.2 Lateral stability

Unless built as a freestanding element, lateral support from two sides is a feature of
firewalls and is essential in MUBs because the wall must remain stable in fire burnout
conditions, ie, when fire burnout on one side of the wall leads to loss of lateral support
from that side.
Replacing earthquake-damaged firewalls will require that particular attention be given to

the maintenance of these performance characteristics, particularly where new repairable
zones are being introduced.
Due to the requirement to cover off the fire burnout case, some specific design
modifications may be required to satisfy the lateral stability of evacuation and escape
routes for fire-rated construction (Building Code Clause C4 compliance). In some cases,
these may dictate that:
ȣȣ the existing heavy-masonry, acoustic, fire-rated wall is demolished (notwithstanding
its post-earthquake condition); and
ȣȣ a replacement acoustic, fire-rated wall is constructed in timber framing incorporating
structural support specifically designed to satisfy the face load stability requirements
in post-fire conditions.
E SUPERSTRUCTURE
1. INTROD UC TION
REPAIR
21.5.3 Firewall remedial details

Figures 21.1 and 21.2 provide an example detail of a partial firewall replacement within
the roof cavity.
Figure 21.1: Unreinforced brick masonry block demolition detail
REMOVE TILES AS REQUIRED

TO CARRY OUT WORK AND
REPLACE AT END OF CONTRACT.
EXISTING EARTHQUAKE
DAMAGED WALL TO BE
REMOVED TO LEVEL OF
CEILING JOISTS.
EXISTING FIREWALL.
SUPERSTRUCTURE
REPAIR E
Figure 21.2: Unreinforced brick masonry block remedial detail
FIRE STOPPING MINERAL

WOOL OR CERAMIC FIBRE. MAKE GOOD ROOFING UNDERLAY.
CONTINUE PURLIN (DASHED).
4kN TENSION/ 2kN COMPRESSION

LAST TRUSS AGAINST WALL.
ACOUSTIC CONNECTION AT 1.8m
c/c AT ROOF LEVEL.
FRAMING 70X45, WITH STUD
SPACING AS PER TABLE 8.2, WALL LININGS AND INSULATION INSTALLED
8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND TO MEET MINIMUM FFR OF 30/30/30 AND
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. MINIMUM STC OF 55.
FIX 12mm PLY TO TOP

OF EXISTING CEILING FIXING OF FRAMED NIB WALL TO EXISTING
JOISTS (900mm WIDE) FIREWALL TO BE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED
EACH SIDE OF WALL. BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
EXISTING FIREWALL.
E FULL FOUNDATION
1. INTROD UC TION
REBUILD
22. Full foundation rebuild

22.1 Overview
Full foundation rebuilds of an entire MUB or the construction of new MUBs can generally
be undertaken in accordance with section 5 (TC1 and TC2) and section 15 (TC3). For specific
guidance section references, refer to section 22.4.
No specific engineering design principles need to be employed for TC1 beyond what is
in section 5. For TC2 the deflection criteria in section 5.4 (TC2) must be adhered to. The
deflection criteria in section 5.4 also apply for TC3.
When replacing the foundations of whole buildings on TC2 and TC3 sites generally the
recommendation regarding using light and/or medium cladding as per section 7 will apply.
This may result in either lighter-weight construction or more resilient foundations being
required to support heavier construction.
When a total foundation rebuild is undertaken, a single foundation design should be

adopted across the whole building, ie, avoid multiple foundation types within one building.
Figure 22.1 illustrates an example of when a full foundation rebuild is recommended.
Figure 22.1: Full foundation rebuild example
The majority of the unit foundations

require replacement; therefore consider
replacing the entire building foundation
F U L L F O U N D AT I O N R E B U I L D / PA G E 2 2 . 1
FULL FOUNDATION
REBUILD E
22.2 Geotechnical information and

investigations
With regard to geotechnical investigations for full foundation rebuilds of an entire MUB
or the construction of new MUBs, refer to Part C. In cases of long aspect ratio MUBs that
might traverse a greater variation in ground conditions than a more compact detached
house, the CPEng geotechnical engineer may consider that additional investigation points
are warranted.
22.3 Design principles for TC3

The design principles outlined in section 11.2 (and supplementary guidance, in particular for
TC3) remain applicable when rebuilding MUBs. It is noted that:
1. All surface structures must be a regular shape. For information on restrictions for cut
outs and projections, refer to supplementary guidance: Regular Structural Plan Shapes
in TC3 (September 2013)9.
2. The maximum aspect ratio is 2:1 for Type 1 surface structures and all site ground
improvement foundations. The maximum aspect ratio can be increased from 2:1 to
3:1 for Type 2 and Type 3 surface structures provided additional reinforcing steel
is included. For more information, refer to the supplementary guidance: Regular
Structural Plan Shapes in TC3 (September 2013).
Note: The concrete foundation solutions for long narrow rectangular blocks of units
may be specifically designed to allow the aspect ratio of 3:1 to be exceeded without
raising the potential for damage in a future SLS event.
Note: For concrete under-slabs in Type 2A and 2B foundations, experience has shown
that the piles are sufficiently retained in the concrete so that the plywood skirt can
be eliminated. For maximum heights to the underside of joists, refer to Table 20.4.
3. The recommended maximum plan area is 150m2 for Type 1 surface structures. The area
limitation is likely to preclude the use of Type 1 surface structures on full rebuilds of
most MUBs.
4. Specific engineering design is required for any buildings that extend beyond the scope
of these design principles.
Coordination of replacement solutions is recommended across the units so that a suitable

foundation solution is implemented across the whole building. If the building was originally
a mixed foundation type, for example a Type B building with a Type C extension, then it is
recommended to replace it with a uniform foundation system across the whole building.
9 Refer to www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Guidance-information/pdf/canterbury-regular-
structural-plan-shapes-tc3-supplementary-guidance.pdf
E FULL FOUNDATION
1. INTROD UC TION
REBUILD
22.4 Foundation rebuild references

Rebuilding information by technical category is described in Table 22.1.
Table 22.1: Full foundation rebuilds
TC1 Use current building standards and specifications.
TC2 and TC3 Refer to sections 5 and 15.
For design principles, refer to section 11.2.
Where proposed roof/cladding weight and/or number of storeys

exceed the stated limitations, specific engineering design is required.
FULL FOUNDATION
REBUILD E
E 1.JUNCTION DETAILS
INTROD UC TION
23. Junction details

for partial rebuilds
23.1 Introduction
The principles set out in section 17 have a practical impact on the way repair and rebuild
solutions are constructed. There are many combinations of material and geometry that
will arise in the application of the repairable zone principle making it impractical to depict
them all here. Instead this section contains selected details to illustrate application
of the principle to some of the most common circumstances. In addition to structural
considerations, there are also matters related to weathertightness, fire-rating, acoustic
performance and sub-floor ventilation to address.
Note: The details in this section are not ready for either consenting or construction
use. In particular, details have been simplified to illustrate only those aspects of the
junction that are specific to MUBs and therefore some standard items are either
not labelled or not shown. For example, typical or common construction design
and detailing for compliance with acceptable solutions such as E2/AS1 or industry
standards such as NZS 3604 need to be added to these details or documented
elsewhere by the designer. Product specification has also been left up to the designer
and is anticipated to be driven by compatibility requirements with remaining units.
Therefore the designer has to take these details as a starting point and add to them
to produce a site-specific construction detail that is suitable for building consent
application and construction while complying with this guidance.
The proposed superstructure detailing at junctions is relatively simple and it is

recommended that they be used in all partial rebuilds in TC1, TC2, and TC3.
There is obvious repetition across these details in order to illustrate the principles behind
the detailing and to enable on-site construction to be consistent across different projects.
There will be numerous situations where these details cannot be directly applied. The
designer is expected to apply the principles behind these details to derive their own
project-specific details that are consistent with this guidance as well as meeting other
Building Act and Building Code compliance requirements.
There is a strong preference for replacing heavy cladding with a lighter alternative during
any rebuilding. However, it is also understood that this may not always be possible.
Designers should include, with their construction documentation and consent application,
the manufacturer’s documentation for the specific system that they will use.
J U N C T I O N D E TA I L S / PA G E 2 3 . 1
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
Note: The New Zealand Building Code Clause G6, Airborne and Impact Sound, is being
reviewed. A new clause is being drafted. It is anticipated that the clause will become
operational at the end of 2014.
Where STC (Sound Transmission Class) is noted on the details it should be kept in
mind that the revised Clause G6 changes both the metric (STC) to the ISO airborne
sound reduction measure DnT,w (weighted standardised level difference) and the
performance level to DnT,w no less than 53dB. This is approximately 3dB higher than
the minimum FSTC (Field sound transmission class) performance requirement.
Details affected are Figure 23.8, Figure 23.9, Figure 23.10, Figure 23.11, Figure 23.12,
Figure 23.15 to Figure 23.22, and Figure 23.24.
This section has been further subdivided to group material by topic:

ȣȣ Existing floor and firewall details
ȣȣ Partial rebuild slab to existing slab connection details
ȣȣ Partial rebuild slab and firewall connection details
ȣȣ Partial rebuild firewall details
ȣȣ Partial rebuild against retained firewall details
ȣȣ Type 2A surface structure details
ȣȣ Floor-level driven slab solution details
23.2 Existing floor and firewall details

Figure 23.1: Existing foundation (timber framed floor)
MASONRY, BLOCK
WORK OR CONCRETE TIMBER FLOOR ON
FIREWALL. TIMBER JOISTS.
INTROD UC TION
Figure 23.2: Existing possible concrete slab configurations
CONCRETE, BLOCKWORK CONCRETE, BLOCKWORK

OR MASONRY FIREWALL. OR MASONRY FIREWALL.
A - CONTINUOUS SLAB WITH THICKENING B - CONTINUOUS SLAB WITH NO THICKENING
CONCRETE, BLOCKWORK
OR MASONRY FIREWALL.
C - DISCONTINUOUS SLAB, SEPARATE WALL

- FOUNDATION WITH OR WITHOUT STARTER
- BARS INTO FLOOR SLABS
Figure 23.3: Existing foundation (timber framed floor/concrete slab)
MASONRY, BLOCK
WORK OR CONCRETE
FIREWALL.
GARAGE OR
CARPORT SLAB.
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
23.3 Partial rebuild slab to existing slab

connection details
Figure 23.4: Footing retained (configuration A)
NEW EXISTING
D12 STARTER RODS REFER TO FIGURE 23.8 FOR

EPOXIED 250mm INTO UNIT/UNIT WALL AND FIGURE 23.9
EXISTING FOOTING AT FOR CARPORT/CARPORT WALL.
800 c/c AND PROJECTED
400mm INTO NEW SLAB.
1
REFER TO TABLE 20.1 FOR
SLAB SYSTEM SELECTION,
INCLUDING GRAVEL LAYER.
GRAVEL LAYER THICKNESS

FROM TABLE 20.1
Note: If a masonry wall is required, specific design of the new slab edge will be necessary.
Figure 23.5: Footing retained (configuration C)
NEW EXISTING
D12 STARTER RODS REFER TO FIGURE 23.8 FOR

EPOXIED 250mm INTO UNIT/UNIT WALL AND FIGURE 23.9
EXISTING FOOTING AT FOR CARPORT/CARPORT WALL.
800 c/c AND PROJECTED
2
1

INCLUDING GRAVEL LAYER

FROM TABLE 20.1
Note: If a masonry wall is required, specific design of the new slab edge will be necessary.
INTROD UC TION
Figure 23.6: New footing (all configurations)
NEW EXISTING
REFER TO FIGURE 23.8 FOR D12 STARTER RODS EPOXIED

UNIT/UNIT WALL AND FIGURE 23.9 250mm INTO EXISTING FOOTING
FOR CARPORT/CARPORT WALL. AT 800 c/c AND PROJECTED
2
1

FROM TABLE 20.1
Note: It may be appropriate to retain an existing masonry wall provided the wall is intact. Refer to Table 18.3.
Figure 23.7: Alternative edge configuration
NEW EXISTING
REFER TO FIGURE 23.8 FOR

D12 STARTER RODS EPOXIED
UNIT/UNIT WALL AND FIGURE 23.9
250mm INTOEXISTING FOOTING
FOR CARPORT/CARPORT WALL.
AT 800 c/c AND PROJECTED
IF NEW SLAB IS THICKER

THAN EXISTING SLAB, IT CAN
2 BE FINISHED SQUARE.
1
FROM TABLE 20.1
Note: It may be appropriate to retain an existing masonry wall provided the wall is intact. Refer to Table 18.3.
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
23.4 Partial rebuild slab and firewall

connection details
Figure 23.8: Suggested double stud wall (concrete slab)
25
NEW EXISTING
WALL LININGS AND
FRAMING 70X45 WITH STUD INSULATION INSTALLED
SPACING AS PER TABLES 8.2, TO MEET MINIMUM FFR
8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. STC OF 55.
REFER TO FIGURE 23.7

FOR SLAB DETAILS.
Note: This detail will apply for all internal situations, including garages.
INTROD UC TION
Figure 23.9: Suggested double stud wall (Nib wall)
25
NEW EXISTING
WALL LININGS AND INSULATION
INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM FFR
FRAMING 70X45 WITH STUD OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM STC
SPACING AS PER TABLES OF 55.
8.2, 8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. AS WALL LININGS EXPOSED
TO WEATHER, PROTECT WITH
CLADDING ON DRAINED CAVITY
TO E2/AS1.
D12 BLOCK WORK OR CONCRETE NIB.
D12 STARTER AT 800mm c/c WITH

150mm LEG INTO SLAB.

FOR SLAB DETAILS.
Note: This detail will apply for all situations where wall linings are exposed to weather.
Note: For any configuration with non-habitable spaces both sides of wall, the acoustic insulation is not required
(refer clause G6.2 of Building Code).
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
Figure 23.10: Suggested double stud wall (timber framed floor)
25
NEW EXISTING
FRAMING 70X45 WITH STUD WALL LININGS AND
SPACING AS PER TABLES INSULATION INSTALLED
8.2, 8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND TOMEET MINIMUM FFR
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM
STC OF 55.
FLOOR FRAMING SIZE AND

450mm CRAWL SPACE
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. EXISTING CONSTRUCTION

CONNECTED TO NZS 3604.
)
NZS 3604
CI. 6.14.4
D16 @ 600 c/c.

CONCRETE BLOCK OR
D12 STARTER @ 600c/c. WITH INSITU CONCRETE
500mm HORIZONTAL LEG. FOUNDATION WALL.
(
D12 - CAN BE REPLACED BY

BOTTOM STEEL OF SLAB IF
200
EQUIVALENT OR BETTER.
SLAB THICKENED AS
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
75mm BOTTOM COVER.
REFER TO TABLE 20.1

GRAVEL LAYER FOR SLAB SELECTION,
THICKNESS FROM INCLUDING GRAVEL LAYER.
TABLE 20.1
INTROD UC TION
Figure 23.11: Suggested double stud wall (new timber framed floor/existing
concrete slab)
25
FRAMING 70X45 WITH STUD NEW EXISTING
SPACING AS PER TABLES INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM FFR
8.2, 8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM STC
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. OF 55.
IF WALL LININGS EXPOSED

TO WEATHER, AS IN CARPORT,
FLOOR FRAMING SIZED AND PROTECT WITH CLADDING ON
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. DRAINED CAVITY TO E2/AS1.
D16 @ 600mm c/c. CONCRETE BLOCK OR

INSITU CONCRETE
D12 STARTER @ 800mm c/c FOUNDATION WALL.
WITH 500mm HORIZONTAL LEG.
250mm INTO EXISTING SLAB AT
800mm c/c AND PROJECTING
200
SLAB THICKENED AS REQUIRED

TO PROVIDE 75mm BOTTOM COVER.
2
1 REFER TO TABLE 20.1 FOR

GRAVEL LAYER THICKNESS SLAB SELECTION, INCLUDING
FROM TABLE 20.1 GRAVEL LAYER.
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
Figure 23.12: Suggested double stud wall (existing timber framed floor/new
concrete slab)
25
EXISTING NEW
FRAMING 70X45 WITH STUD WALL LININGS AND INSULATION
8.2, 8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM STC OF 55.
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604.
IF WALL LININGS EXPOSED TO
WEATHER, AS INCARPORT, PROTECT
WITH CLADDING ON DRAINED CAVITY
TO E2/AS1.
D16 @ 600mm c/c.

EXISTING FLOOR FRAMING
FIXED TO FOUNDATION CONCRETE BLOCK OR INSITU
WALL TO NZS 3604. CONCRETE FOUNDATION WALL.
D12 STARTER @ 600mm c/c D12, CAN BE REPLACED BY

WITH 500mm HORIZONTAL LEG. BOTTOM STEEL OF SLAB IF
200
SLAB THICKENED AS
REQUIRED TO PROVIDE
75mm BOTTOM COVER.
2
REFER TO TABLE 20.1 1

FOR SLAB SELECTION, GRAVEL LAYER THICKNESS
INCLUDING GRAVEL LAYER. FROM TABLE 20.1

existing (plan section)
D12 STARTER RODS @ 400mm c/c

MAXIMUM EPOXIED 250mm INTO
EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL AND
FOOTING, AND PROJECTING 400mm
INTO NEW CONCRETE.
EXISTING TYPE B
FOUNDATION WALL.
STARTER ROD FOR WALL.
FOOTING BELOW - STARTER RODS

EPOXIED INTO FOOTING AND CAST
INTO NEW SLAB.
EDGE OF SLAB.
SUBFLOOR CLADDING AND
SUPPORT FRAMING DETAILS
BY DESIGNER.
J U N C T I O N D E TA I L S / PA G E 2 3 . 1 0
INTROD UC TION

existing (elevation section)
25
NEW EXISTING
140X45 JOIST. EXISTING FLOOR CONSTRUCTION.
BLOCK OR CONCRETE WALL

D16 @ 600c/c.
D12 STARTER @ 600c/c. WITH EPOXIED STARTER RODS @

500mm HORIZONTAL LEG. 400mm c/c MAXIMUM, EPOXIED
2/D12, CAN BE REPLACED BY 250mm INTO EXISTING WALL AND
BOTTOM STEEL OF SLAB IF FOOTING, AND PROJECTING 400mm
EQUIVALENT OR BETTER. INTO NEW CONCRETE.
GROUND LEVEL.
200
EXISTING TYPE B
FOUNDATION WALL.
EXISTING FOOTING
(ASSUMED 150mm THICK).
2
FROM TABLE 20.1 1 SLAB THICKENED AS REQUIRED
REFER TO TABLE 20.1
FOR SLAB SELECTION,
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
23.5 Partial rebuild firewall details

23.5.1 Double storey wall details
Figure 23.15: Two storey first floor detail
25
NEW EXISTING
FRAMING 70X45, WITH STUD WALL LININGS AND INSULATION

SPACING AS PER TABLE 8.2,8.3, INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM
8.4 NZS 3604, AND INSTALLED FFR OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM
TO NZS 3604. STC OF 55.
4kN TENSION/2kN COMPRESION

ACOUSTIC CONNECTORS AT 1.8M c/c.
FLOOR FRAMING AND

FLOORING TO NZS 3604. FIRE STOPPING MINERAL
WOOL OR CERAMIC FIBRE.
IF FLOOR JOISTS AT 90° TO WALL JOISTS NOT CONTINUOUS.
ALLOWABLE SPAN LIMITED.
INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM
FFR OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM
SPACING AS PER TABLE 8.2, 8.3,
STC OF 55.
8.4 NZS 3604, AND INSTALLED
TO NZS 3604.
Figure 23.16: Suggested double stud wall at ceiling level
NEW EXISTING
STC OF 55.
CEILING FRAMING TO NZS 3604.

FRAMING 70X45 WITH STUD CEILING FRAMING OR BOTTOM
SPACING AS PER TABLES CHORD OF TRUSS FIXED TO WALL
8.2, 8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND TO REDUCE EFFECTIVE HEIGHT
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. OF WALL STUDS.
INTROD UC TION
23.5.2 Exterior wall and roof junction details

Figure 23.17: Suggested double stud wall with corrugated roof
NEW 25 EXISTING
CORRUGATED ROOFING STOPS PEAKED FLASHING, OVER
WITH "VALLEY" EACH SIDE. TWO RIDGES EACH SIDE.
PEAK 50H X 50W.
FIRE-RETARDANT ROOFING
PURLINS STOP ON TOP PAPER CONTINUOUS OVER
PLATE EACH SIDE. SOLID GAP WITH 50mm SAG.
BLOCK BETWEEN PURLINS.
4kN TENSION/2kN COMPRESSION
LAST TRUSS AGAINST WALL. ACOUSTIC CONNECTION AT 1.8m
C/C AT ROOF LEVEL.
SPACING AS PER TABLES INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM
8.2, 8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND FFR OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. STC OF 55.
Figure 23.18: Suggested double stud wall with concrete tile roof
NEW EXISTING CUT LAPS AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE

100mm MIN CLEARANCE FOR
COLOURSTEEL SECRET CLEANING OUT OF DEBRIS.
GUTTER.
728
50x50 TILE BATTENS, STOPPED ON

FIRE-RETARDANT ROOFING TOP PLATE, WITH EDGE BATTEN
PAPER CONTINUOUS OVER BLOCKING.
GAPWITH 50mm SAG.
4kN TENSION/2kN COMPRESSION
ACOUSTIC CONNECTION AT 1.8m
c/c AT ROOF LEVEL.
FRAMING 70X45, WITH STUD INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM FFR
SPACING AS PER TABLE 8.2, OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM STC
8.3,8.4 NZS 3604, AND 25 OF 55.
INSTALLEDTO NZS 3604.
75 185 75
10mm UPTURNED HEM
50
50x50 PEAK, WITH 90° BEND

SECRET GUTTER DETAIL
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
Figure 23.19: Exterior wall junction (veneer cladding)
NEW EXISTING
EXISTING VENEER - CUT END
SEALANT OVER PEF TO STRAIGHT LINE.
BACKING ROD.
t t FIRE STOPPING IN CAVITY. MINERAL
NEW VENEER - FINISH WITH WOOL OR CERAMIC FIBRE FULL
20mm GAP TO EXISTING. DEPTH OF CAVITY, THICKNESS (t)
MINIMUM OF 40mm OR DEPTH OF
CAVITY, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
BUILDING WRAP TAPED

ONTO BUTYL FLASHING.
BUTYL FLASHING WITH SAG
FIGURE 23.23 INTO CAVITY.
FRAMING 70X45, WITH STUD WALL LININGS AND INSULATION
SPACING AS PER TABLE 8.2, INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM FFR
8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM STC
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. 25 OF 55.
Figure 23.20: Exterior wall junction (weatherboard cladding)
NEW EXISTING EXISTING WEATHERBOARD

190X19 FACING BOARD
WITH SCRIBERS. REMOVED AS REQUIRED TO
INSTALL BUTYL FLASHING
NEW WEATHERBOARD CUT AND CUT BACK IN LINE WITH
SQUARE IN LINE WITH FIREWALL FRAMING.
FIREWALL FRAMING.
BUILDING WRAP TAPED

FIGURE 23.23
INTO CAVITY.
SPACING AS PER TABLE 8.2, WALL LININGS AND INSULATION
8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. FFR OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM
STC OF 55.
25
Note: Use similar detail for vertical board cladding.
INTROD UC TION
Figure 23.21: Exterior wall junction (sheet cladding)
NEW EXISTING
EXISTING SHEET MATERIAL
190X19 FACING BOARD.
REMOVED AS NECESSARY TO
INSTALL BUTYL FLASHING, AND
NEW SHEET MATERIAL CUT
LINE WITH FIREWALL CUT BACK
SQUARE WITH FIREWALL
IN FRAMING.
FRAMING.
BUILDING WRAP TAPED FIGURE 23.23

FRAMING 70X45, WITH STUD INTO CAVITY.
SPACING AS PER TABLE 8.2, WALL LININGS AND INSULATION
8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. FFR OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM
NEW EXISTING STC OF 55.
25
Figure 23.22: Exterior wall junction (weatherboard to veneer)
NEW EXISTING
COLOUR STEEL FLASHING EXISTING VENEER - CUT END
FIXED OVER SEALANT BED TO STRAIGHT LINE.
WITH FIXING INTO MORTAR
JOINTS. t FIRE STOPPING IN CAVITY. MINERAL
WOOL OR CERAMIC FIBRE FULL DEPTH
90X19 FACING BOARD WITH
OF CAVITY, THICKNESS (t) MINIMUM
SCRIBER TO WEATHERBOARD.
OF 40mm OR DEPTH OF CAVITY,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
WALL REBUILT IN BUILDING WRAP TAPED ONTO
SAME POSITION. BUTYL FLASHING.
FIGURE 23.23
FRAMING 70X45, WITH STUD INTO CAVITY.
SPACING AS PER TABLE 8.2, 8.3, WALL LININGS AND INSULATION
8.4 NZS 3604, AND INSTALLED INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM
TO NZS 3604. FFR OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM
STC OF 55.
50 50
25
10mm
UPTURNED
HEM TO SUIT
CLADDING
TYPE
FLASHING DETAIL
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
Figure 23.23: Butyl wall flashing and fire stopping
FOR CAVITY CONSTRUCTION

ONLY FIRE STOPPING LOCATED
ON FLASHING TAPE.
BUILDING WRAP LAPS BUTYL 45mm

AND SEALED TO BUTYL WITH 50mm
50mm FLASHING TAPE.
WIDE FLASHING TAPE.
200mm WIDE STRIP OF BUTYL,

WITH 70mm STAPLED TO FACE
OF EACH STUD, AND REST SAGGING
INTO CAVITY. BUTYL STRIP FIXED FULL
HEIGHT OF FRAMING.
25
INTROD UC TION
Figure 23.24: Exterior wall junction (offset framing)
FIRE STOPPING IN CAVITY.

140X19 FACING BOARD WITH NEW EXISTING
MINERAL WOOL OR CERAMIC
SCRIBER.
FIBRE FULL DEPTH OF CAVITY,
NEW WEATHERBOARD CUT THICKNESS (t) MINIMUM OF
SQUARE IN LINE WITH 40mm OR DEPTH OF CAVITY,
FIREWALL FRAMING. WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
t
ALIGNMENT OF FRAMING AS FIGURE 23.25
60
REQUIRED FOR ALIGNMENT
OF CLADDING.
BUILDING WRAP TAPED ONTO

BUTYL FLASHING.
WALL BUILT FURTHER OUT BUTYL FLASHING WITH SAG
TO FACE OF NEW CLADDING INTO CAVITY.
WITH EXISTING.
STCOF 55.
SPACING AS PER TABLE 8.2,
8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND
INSTALLED TO NZS3604.
25
Figure 23.25: Butyl wall flashing
BUILDING WRAP LAPS BUTYL

45mm AND SEALED TO BUTYL WITH
50mm WIDE FLASHING TAPE.
50mm FLASHING TAPE.
FIRE STOPPING LOCATED ON

FLASHING TAPE.
50mm FLASHING TAPE.
200mm WIDE STRIP OF BUTYL,

70mmSTAPLED TO FACE OF STUDS,
WITH REMAINDER SAGGING INTO
CAVITY. BUTYL STRIP FIXED FULL
HEIGHT OF FRAMED WALL.
25
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
Figure 23.26: Soffit reflected plan
FASCIA JOINED ON LAST

TRUSS OR RAFTER ONE AT EAVES FIRE-RATED
SIDE OF FIREWALL. WALL CONSTRUCTION
CARRIED OUT WITHIN
EXPANSION OUTLET OR EAVES VOID.
JOINER TO GUTTER. FIGURE
23.27 TRUSSES OR RAFTERS.
NO SOFFIT FRAMING AT
BUILDING JUNCTION.
AT EAVES FIRE-RATED WALL

200mm - 250mm CONSTRUCTION CARRIED
SEPARATE SOFFIT SHEET. OUT WITHIN EAVES VOID.
25
FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION
Figure 23.27: Soffit reflected perspective
EXPANSION OUTLET OR
JOINER TO GUTTER.
FASCIA JOINED ON LAST

TRUSS OR RAFTER.
NO SOFFIT FRAMING AT
BUILDING JUNCTION.
TRUSSES OR RAFTERS
(DASHED).
200mm - 250mm
SEPARATE SOFFIT SHEET.
INTROD UC TION
23.6 Partial rebuild against retained

firewall details
Figure 23.28: Retained firewall with corrugated roof
NEW EXISTING
CORRUGATED ROOFING PEAKED FLASHING, OVER

STOPS WITH "VALLEY" EACH FIGURE TWO RIDGES EACH SIDE.
SIDE. 23.30 PEAK 50H X 50W.
NEW PURLINS NOT FIXED TO

FIREWALL, 50mm MIN GAP FIRE-RETARDANT ROOFING
BETWEEN PURLINS EITHER PAPER CONTINUOUS WITH
SIDE OF WALL. 50mm SAG. REMOVE
EXISTING ROOFING AS
LAST TRUSS 15MM CLEAR REQUIRED TO LAP NEW
OF FIREWALL. PAPER WITH EXISTING.
75x75 SLOTTED ANGLES.
CEILING FRAMING TO BLOCK WORK OR

NZS 3604. CONCRETE FIREWALL.
15 EXISTING CEILING FRAMING

OR TRUSS ROOF.
FIGURE 23.30
Figure 23.29: Retained firewall with concrete tile roof
NEW EXISTING
COLOURSTEEL SECRET CUT TILE LAPS AS REQUIRED
GUTTER. TO PROVIDE 100mm MIN
CLEARANCE FOR CLEANING
FIGURE 23.30 100
OUT OF DEBRIS.
NEW PURLINS NOT FIXED TO

FIREWALL. FIRE-RETARDANT ROOFING
PAPER CONTINUOUS WITH
50mm SAG. REMOVE
LAST TRUSS 15MM CLEAR EXISTING ROOFING AS
OF FIREWALL. REQUIRED TO LAP NEW
PAPER WITH EXISTING.
75x75 SLOTTED ANGLES.
CEILING FRAMING TO NZS 3604. BLOCK WORK OR

CONCRETE FIREWALL.
15 EXISTING CEILING FRAMING

OR TRUSS ROOF.
FIGURE 23.30
75 185 75
10mm UPTURNED HEM
50
50x50 PEAK, WITH 90 DEGREE BEND.

SECRET GUTTER DETAIL
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
Figure 23.30: Angle connection
15
TOP CHORD. EXISTING CONCRETE OR

BLOCK FIREWALL.
12g x 50mm TYPE 17 GALV.
TEKSCREWS INTO TOP CHORD,
WITH TEFLON WASHERS EACH 2X10mmX100mm
FACE OF ANGLE LEG. EXPANSION ANCHORS.
75x75x6mm GALV.
ANGLE 200mm LONG.
75x75x6mm GALV.
ANGLE 200mm LONG. 15
12g x 50mm TYPE 17 GALV.

TEK SCREWS INTO BOTTOM CHORD, 2X10mmX100mm
WITH TEFLON WASHERS EACH EXPANSION ANCHORS.
FACE OF ANGLE LEG.
EXISTING CONCRETE OR
BOTTOM CHORD.
BLOCK FIREWALL.
CEILING FRAMING TO NZS 3604.
CEILING LINING WITH TAPE ON

REVEAL TO EDGE.
SEALANT ON BOND BREAKER TAPE.
30x7mm SLOT IN
TC3 ZONE,OTHERWISE
7mm Ø HOLE.
75x75x6mm GALV. eq
ANGLE 200mm LONG.
eq
12Ø HOLES.
40
40 200
INTROD UC TION
Figure 23.31: Angle location
0 50
50 0
00 15
15 X MA 00
MA X
00 15
15 AX MA00
M X
00 1,0
1,0 00
750 1,500 1,500 1,500 750

MAX MAX MAX
Note: Angles to be placed at 1.5m c/c maximum, starting 500mm from ridge along the top chord,
and 750mm from the exterior walls along the bottom chord.
NOTE: ANGLES TO BE PLACED AT 1.5m c/c MAXIMUM,
STARTING 500mm FROM RIDGE ALONG THE TOP
CHORD, AND 750mm FROM THE EXTERIOR WALLS
ALONG THE BOTTOM CHORD.
Figure 23.32: Retained firewall junction (wall junction)
COLOURSTEEL PEAKED FLASHING

WITH 90 DEGREE BEND.
(FLASHING PROFILE TO SUIT
SITUATION)
15
10mm UPTURNED HEM
PROPOSED CLADDING
RETAINED FIREWALL
10mm ANCHOR @ 800mm c/c
WALL FRAMING TO NZS 3604.
LINING WITH TAPE ON REVEAL TO EDGE.
SEALANT ON BOND BREAKER TAPE.
COLOURSTEEL PEAKED FLASHING

WITH 90 DEGREE BEND.
(FLASHING PROFILE TO SUIT
SITUATION)
RETAINED
15
FIREWALL
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
23.7 Type 2A surface structure details

Figure 23.33: Type 2A-300 surface structures detail
150mm
CANTILEVER
2/140x45 BEARER.
140x45 JOIST @ 600c/c
CANTILEVER 150mm MAX.
CLADDING DETAILS
BY DESIGNER.
FFL. 610MM minimum

(NZS 3604 CI. 6.14.4)
450 CRAWL SPACE
SUB FLOOR CLADDING
AND SUPPORT FRAMING
DETAILS BY DESIGNER.
VENTILATION TO NZS 3604.
AAC PANEL 75mm.
310mm HIGH 125x125 PILE.

50
TYPE 2A-300 SLAB 300mm THICK,

25X75 SECTION THAT REINFORCING D12 @ 250mm c/c
CAN BE REBATED FOR EACH WAY TOP AND BOTTOM.
CLADDING DETAILS.
REFER TO TABLE 20.1 FOR GRAVEL

2 LAYER REQUIREMENTS.
SLAB PROJECTS 150mm 150

BEYOND PILES.
Note: This reinforcing applies to a slab with an aspect ration of no more than 2:1. For aspect ratios up to 3:1
the steel in the perimeter 1m of the slab and running parallel to the foundation edge shall be increased
to D16 bars.
INTROD UC TION
Figure 23.34: Type 2A-300 edge pile detail
800
25X75 SECTION THAT

CAN BE REBATED FOR
CLADDING DETAILS.
D16 500mm D16 HAIRPIN AT

LONG THROUGH EACH STEEL LAYER.
PILE. PLAN
150
125X125 PILE.
D16 500mm LONG
THROUGH PILE.
150
D16 HAIRPIN AT EACH
25X75 SECTION THAT STEEL LAYER.
CAN BE REBATED FOR SLAB REINFORCING
CLADDING DETAILS. OMITTED FOR CLARITY.
400mm X 400mm
12mm H3.1 PLY.
1
REFER TO TABLE 20.1
FOR GRAVEL LAYER
REQUIREMENTS.
SECTION
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
23.8 Floor-level driven slab solution details

Figure 23.35: Suggested double stud wall (high slab)
25
NEW EXISTING

EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
CONNECTED TO NZS 3604.
HIGH SLAB
Figure 23.36: Suggested double stud wall (new high slab/existing

concrete slab)
25
NEW EXISTING

IF WALL LININGS EXPOSED TO
WEATHER, AS IN CARPORT, PROTECT
WITH CLADDING ON DRAINED CAVITY
TO E2/AS1.
HIGH SLAB.
D12 STARTER RODS
EPOXIED 200mm INTO
EXISTING SLAB AT 800mm c/c
AND PROJECTING 400mm
INTO NEW SLAB.
INTROD UC TION
Figure 23.37: Foundation junctions high slab and Type B existing

(plan section)
D12 STARTER RODS @

400mm c/c MAXIMUM
EPOXIED 200mm INTO
EXISTING FOUNDATION
WALL AND FOOTING,
AND PROJECTING 400mm
INTO NEW CONCRETE.
EXISTING TYPE B
FOUNDATION WALL.
FOOTING BELOW -
STARTER RODS EPOXIED
INTO FOOTING AND CAST
INTO NEW SLAB.
HIGH SLAB.
Figure 23.38: Foundation junctions high slab and Type B existing

(elevation section)
25
NEW EXISTING
EXISTING FLOOR CONSTRUCTION.
HIGH SLAB.
D12 STARTER RODS @ 400mm c/c

MAXIMUM EPOXIED 200mm INTO
EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL AND
FOOTING, AND PROJECTING
400mm INTO NEW CONCRETE.
GROUND LEVEL.
EXISTING TYPE B
FOUNDATION WALL.
EXISTING FOOTING
(ASSUMED 150mm THICK).
JUNCTION
1. I N TRO DDETAILS
UCTION
E
E APPENDIX
1. INTROD E1
UC TION
Appendix E1: Garages within

the building structure
Garages and carports within the building structure are a feature of many MUBs.
They are generally located between units and often two garages for adjacent units will
have a common firewall between them. Typical arrangements are shown in Figure E1.1.
The garage floors are usually concrete slabs that are either accessed by steps down
from the adjacent living area of a Type B dwelling or at the same level when it is a
Type C dwelling.
For partial rebuilds the garage slab may be retained or an under-slab carried through.
In either case where garages are integral to the building structure and located side by side
(refer to Figure E1.3) the garage-to-garage wall will be built as both the acoustic firewall and
the repairable zone (refer to Figure E1.4). For units with one integral garage between units
the repairable zone wall will occur at the adjacent unit to garage wall (refer to Figure E1.2).
For full foundation rebuilds in TC3, continuity of the foundation beneath the living area
and the garages is essential. If the living areas are to have a suspended timber floor then a
Type 2A-150, 2A-300, or 2B foundation is suitable, depending on the calculated SLS vertical
settlement. For these foundation options, the under-slab can extend through the garage
areas. Alternatively a full replacement of existing Type C foundations may be achieved with
a relevellable slab option for the better parts of TC3 (refer to section 15.4.8). A small step
down from the living area into the garage area may be incorporated to control ingress of
surface water but this is not essential.
Special provisions are recommended at the intersections of the walls and roof between the
living and garage area when the unit floor foundation is a Type 2A-150 or 2A-300 and the
garage is located on the end of a block of units. In this case, provision should be made for
lateral differential movement of the cladding elements at the garage to unit wall line using
the repairable zone details. This is especially true when the roof plane for the garage is at a
different level from the unit.
APPENDIX E1 / PAGE E1.1
APPENDIX
1. I N TRO DE1
UCTION
E
Figure E1.1: Plan view of typical integrated MUB garages
Firewall at centre of garage or

carport. Refer to Figure E1.4 for detail
Unit Unit
Garages
Firewall on unit to garage line.

Refer to Figure E1.2 for detail
Unit Unit
Garage Garage
E APPENDIX
1. INTROD E1
UC TION
Figure E1.2: Garage/timber subfloor wall junction details for TC3 type 2A
structure with repairable zone
25
FRAMING 70X45 WITH STUD NEW EXISTING
8.2, 8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM STC
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. OF 55.
IF WALL LININGS EXPOSED

TO WEATHER, AS IN CARPORT,
FLOOR FRAMING SIZED AND PROTECT WITH CLADDING ON
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. DRAINED CAVITY TO E2/AS1.
D16 @ 600mm c/c. CONCRETE BLOCK OR

INSITU CONCRETE
D12 STARTER @ 800mm c/c FOUNDATION WALL.
WITH 500mm HORIZONTAL LEG.
250mm INTO EXISTING SLAB AT
800mm c/c AND PROJECTING
200
SLAB THICKENED AS REQUIRED

2
1 REFER TO TABLE 20.1 FOR

GRAVEL LAYER THICKNESS SLAB SELECTION, INCLUDING
FROM TABLE 20.1 GRAVEL LAYER.
Figure E1.3: TC3 Type 2A-150, 2A-300 surface structure with garage in middle
Timber-framed
firewall
New TC3 type 2A or Garages

2B surface structure
Typical details for the garage to garage junction are shown in Figure E1.4.
APPENDIX
1. I N TRO DE1
UCTION
E
Figure E1.4: Garage/garage wall junction details with repairable zone
25
NEW EXISTING
INSTALLED TO MEET MINIMUM FFR
FRAMING 70X45 WITH STUD OF 30/30/30 AND MINIMUM STC
SPACING AS PER TABLES OF 55.
8.2, 8.3, 8.4 NZS 3604, AND
INSTALLED TO NZS 3604. AS WALL LININGS EXPOSED
TO WEATHER, PROTECT WITH
CLADDING ON DRAINED CAVITY
TO E2/AS1.
D12 BLOCK WORK OR CONCRETE NIB.
D12 STARTER AT 800mm c/c WITH

150mm LEG INTO SLAB.

FOR SLAB DETAILS.
E APPENDIX
1. INTROD E2
UC TION
Appendix E2: Definitions

Term/Acronym Definition
The Act This refers to the Building Act 2014.
Building This refers to the building as a whole, as defined by section 8 of the Building
Act 2014 incorporating buildings having multiple titles and/or separate
living arrangements rather than a standalone, single-titled detached house.
The Building
Unit 1 Unit 2
Comparable Similar to the extent that performance will be the same.
Complete or The removal of the whole or a major proportion of an existing building and
substantial replacement with new foundations and superstructure.
replacement
Damage The characterisation of damage to the whole building. Refer to section 18.4.
mechanism
Determination Formal decision after an application under section 177 of the Building Act.
Differential Varying foundation settlement along or across a building as referenced to

settlement level surface.
FFL Finished floor level(s).
Firewall A wall between fire cells that is rated to arrest fire transmission. Normally
at the party wall boundary.
FMA Flood management areas, as defined by the Christchurch City Council

District Plan.
Heavy building A building is considered heavy when it comprises either heavy cladding
and/or roof. For definitions of heavy, medium, and lightweight cladding and
roofing, refer to the glossary of terms.
APPENDIX
1. I N TRO DE2
UCTION
E
Hogging This term is used to describe foundation movement (edge settlement).
Unit 1 Unit 2
Horizontal Ownership distributed laterally along the building, ie, each unit has a
ownership ground floor area and a portion of the roof, and can be one or more storeys
in a single unit.
In-plane/out of Used to express movement of a firewall.

plane tilt
In-plane tilt
Firewall
Out-of-plane tilt
Light building A building is considered ‘light’ when both its roof is light and the cladding
is of light or medium weight material. Refer to the glossary of terms for
weight limits.
Mixed foundation When a single building has more than one foundation type, for example a
Type B building with a Type C extension or a Type B building with an internal
concrete slab (Type C) garage.
In the instance of a Type B building with an internal concrete slab (Type C)
garage, the garage will typically be less than 25% of the entire foundation
footprint. In this situation the predominant foundation type is Type B and
the building foundation may be assumed to be Type B for the purposes of
assessment.
MUB Multi-unit building. A building with more than one residential unit.
Nett structural A process of performance evaluation whereby the benefits of the new
benefit test works proposed to be undertaken within parts of a building are compared
to the detrimental effects of those works to the building as a whole.
On the flat This term is used to distinguish the areas on the Canterbury Plains from
areas in the Port Hills.
E APPENDIX
1. INTROD E2
UC TION
Partial rebuild A partial rebuild for a MUB is where one or more units within a building
(foundation or superstructure) require replacement, with other units
retaining their existing foundation and superstructure (with or without
repairs).
Planar tilt A gradual or cumulative settlement of a building resulting in the whole

building tilting uniformly. Refer to differential settlement.
Sagging/dishing This term is used to describe foundation movement (settlement) where the
middle of the building has settled more relative to the end or edge portions
of the building.
Unit 1 Unit 2
Settlement When the building has settled into the land often resulting in the land
relative to sloping towards the building.
surrounding land
Site performed This term is used when making an assessment of whether the site and
poorly building have performed well or poorly, factors to consider include:
(section 14.2.1)
ȣȣ Were there large amounts of liquefaction ejecta during the earthquake
events?
ȣȣ Was there extensive ground cracking of the site?
ȣȣ Are there large ground undulations as a result of the earthquake events?
ȣȣ Has the dwelling settled relative to the surrounding land?
Type A, B, or C Type A Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures supported

foundations only on piles.
Type B Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures with

perimeter concrete foundation.
Type C Timber-framed dwelling on concrete floor (slab-on-grade).

For more information, refer to section 2.
Uniform This term is used to describe the displacement of superstructure loads

settlement of a laterally through the foundation in a manner that limits differential
portion of the movement (settlement).
building
Unit 1 Unit 2
APPENDIX
1. I N TRO DE2
UCTION
E
Unit A single residential occupancy within a larger building complex.
Unit repair Threshold of repair where up to 50% of the concrete slab, 50% of the
threshold perimeter foundation beam, and/or 50% of the piles can be replaced within
an individual unit within a multi-unit building without separate foundation
rebuild criteria being imposed.
URM Unreinforced concrete block or brick masonry wall.
Vertical Different owners on each level of a building, ie, apartment style ownership.
ownership
GUIDANCE REFERENCE MATERIAL
References U P D A TE:
December 2012
Bhattacharya, Madabhushi and Bolton (2004) An Alternative Mechanism of Pile Failure in

Liquefiable Deposits During Earthquakes, Geotechnique 54(3), 203 – 213.
Bradley and Hughes (2012): Conditional Peak Ground Accelerations in the Canterbury
Earthquakes for Conventional Liquefaction Assessment – Technical Report for the Ministry
of Business, Innovation and Employment.
BRANZ Bulletin 548 – Repairing plasterboard after an earthquake, June 2012.
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering Publication No. QED-

02 ‘General guidelines for the assessment and repair of earthquake damage in residential
woodframe buildings’. January 2004.
Department of Building and Housing (2011): Interim Guidance for Repairing and Rebuilding
Foundations in Technical Category 3 – Appendix C to Revised Guidance on Repairing and
Rebuilding Houses Affected by the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.
Department of Building and Housing 2012 Christchurch Ground Improvement Trials

www.dbh.govt.nz/canterbury-earthquake-ground-improvement-options.
Ecan (2012) Review of liquefaction hazard information in eastern Canterbury, including

Christchurch City, parts of Selwyn, Waimakariri and Hurunui Districts – GNS Science
Consultancy Report 2012/218.
Idriss, I.M. & Boulanger, R.W. (2008): “Soil liquefaction during earthquakes”, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute Monograph MNO12.
Ishihara, K. (1985): “Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes”, Proc. 11th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, pp 321-376.
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Labour information fact sheet, June
2012 – Disaster Recovery – Asbestos Management, available at www.dol.govt.nz/quake/
asbestos-management.pdf.
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Labour information fact sheet,

September 2012 – Lifting earthquake-affected buildings in Christchurch, available at
www.dol.govt.nz/quake/lifting-earthquake-affected-buildings-christchurch.pdf.
New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS, 2010), Guidelines for Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering Practice in New Zealand. Module 1 – Guideline for the identification,
assessment and mitigation of liquefaction hazards. July 2010.
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Assessment and Improvement of the
Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes. June 2006.
Robertson and Wride (1998) “Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using the Cone
Penetration Test” Can. Geotech. J. 35(3), 442-459.
R E F E R E N C E M AT E R I A L
PAG E 1
Canterbury Technical Guidance - References.indd 1 22/01/2013 8:57:43 a.m.

R EIFNETRRO
1. E NDCU
E CM
T AT E RIAL
I ON
Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand, AS/NZS 1170 Structural Loadings
Standard (various parts).
Standards New Zealand, NZS 3604:2011 Timber Framed Buildings.
Standards New Zealand, NZS 3124:1987 Specification for Concrete Construction

for Minor Works.
Standards New Zealand, NZS 4229:1999 Concrete Masonry Buildings Not Requiring
Specific Engineering Design.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T & T, 2010), Darfield Earthquake 4 September 2010 Geotechnical Land
Damage Assessment & Reinstatement Report, Stage 1 Report for EQC. October 2010.
Tonkin & Taylor Ltd (T & T, 2010), Darfield Earthquake 4 September 2010 Geotechnical Land
Damage Assessment & Reinstatement Report, Stage 2 Report for EQC. November 2010.
Zhang, Robertson & Brachman (2002) “Estimating Liquefaction-Induced Ground

Settlements from CPT for Level Ground”, Can. Geotech. J. (39), 1168-1180.
R E F E R E N C E M AT E R I A L
PAG E 2

GLOS
1. SINTROD
A RY OFUC
TER MS
TION
Glossary of terms U P D A TE:

December 2012
The following terms are used throughout this document.
Term Definition
AP40 and AP65 Aggregate specification relating to grading
Building platform A prepared mass of compacted soil to provide a base on which

to construct a dwelling (refer to sections 5.2 and 15.1.3). For properties
potentially affected by flooding (refer to section 8.4).
Deep piles Non-3604 piles (driven, bored or screw) that are designed to transmit
foundation loads to a deeper bearing stratum.
Foundation damage In the context of this document, damage (differential settlement,

cracking, stretching, tilting, twisting) to foundation elements (individually
or collectively) resulting from land or structure movement (vertical or
horizontal) attributable to the earthquake sequence. Refer also to Table
2.2 and 2.3.
Foundations Building element that transmits loads from the structure directly to
the ground.
Geotechnical ultimate The ‘geotechnical ultimate’ bearing capacity is the calculated ultimate
bearing capacity bearing capacity of the soil in geotechnical terms. The ‘structural’
(or ‘dependable’, ‘allowable’, ‘reduced’) ultimate limit state bearing
capacity’ is the geotechnical ultimate bearing multiplied by a strength
reduction factor (normally in the vicinity of 0.5), to be compared
with fully factored loads as per AS/NZS 1170. The ‘allowable bearing
capacity’ is the geotechnical ultimate limit state bearing capacity divided
by a factor of safety (often 3), to be compared with unfactored working
loads (ie. the old ‘working stress’ method),
Good ground Ground that has static bearing capacity (geotechnical ultimate) of
300 kPa or better and is free of other hazards, as defined in NZS
3604:2011.
Heavy roof A roof with roofing material exceeding 20 kg/m² but not exceeding
60 kg/m² of roof area (eg, concrete and clay tiles).
Heavy wall cladding A wall cladding having a mass exceeding 80 kg/m², but not exceeding
220 kg/m² of wall area. Typical examples are clay and concrete masonry
veneers.
Lateral stretch The degree of lateral stretching of the ground which may occur across
a building footprint in an earthquake, as opposed to global lateral
movement, where the entire superstructure and foundation is able to
move as one along with the global movement of the block
Light roof A roof with roofing material not exceeding 20 kg/m² of roof area (eg,
sheet metal roofing and metal tiles)
Light wall cladding A wall cladding having a mass not exceeding 30 kg/m². Typical examples
are weatherboards.
Medium wall cladding A wall cladding having a mass exceeding 30 kg/m² but not exceeding
80 kg/m² of wall area (a typical example is stucco cladding).
G LO S S A R Y O F T E R M S
PAG E 3

G LO
1. I NSTSRO
A RY
D UO
CTF ITON
ERMS
Term Definition
NZS 3604 All references in this document to NZS 3604 are to the most recent
publication of NZS 3604, this being NZS 3604:2011, unless specifically
stated. References include modifications made to NZS 3604 in
Acceptable Solution B1/AS1.
Piles A block or column-like member used to transmit loads from the building
and its contents to the ground (from NZS 3604:2011).
Generally, house piles are founded at a shallow depth (<1.2 m) when
the ground is ‘good ground’ as defined in NZS 3604. However, the
presence of poor soils and liquefiable soils below the house may result
in the need to install piles founded at significantly greater depths.
Scala penetrometer Hand held penetrometer test primarily used in New Zealand and
Australia, using equipment manufactured in accordance with NZS 4402
Test 6.5.2:1988 (sometimes incorrectly referred to as ‘DCP’).
Readily repairable Refer definition in Part B, section 8.2.3
Slab-on-grade Also known as slab-on-ground (refer to NZ3 3604).
Superstructure That portion of the dwelling above the underside of the wall bottom plate.
Type A dwelling Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures supported only on

shallow piles.
Type B dwelling Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures with perimeter

concrete foundation and shallow piles in the interior space.
Type C dwelling Timber-framed dwelling on concrete slab-on-grade ground floor.
G LO S S A R Y O F T E R M S
PAG E 4

LIST OF AC RONY
1. INTROD MS
UC TION
List of acronyms
The following acronyms are used throughout this document.
Acronym Definition
AEP Annual exceedence probability
AS Acceptable solution
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
BCA Building consent authority
BRANZ Building Research Association of New Zealand
CBR California bearing ratio
CCC Christchurch City Council
CERA Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
CFA Continuous Flight Augur (piles)
CPEng. Chartered Professional Engineer
CPT Cone penetrometer test
DBH Department of Building and Housing (now part of MBIE)
DC Dynamic compaction
DPC Damp proof course
DPM Damp proof membrane
DPT Dynamic penetrometer test
DSM Deep soil mixing
EAG Engineering Advisory Group
EECA Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority
EERI Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
EIFS Exterior insulation finishing system
ELS Earthquake Loadings Standard
EQC Earthquake Commission
FC Fines content
FFL Finished floor level
Fletcher EQR Fletcher Construction – Earthquake Recovery
FMA Flood management area
FHWA Federal Highway Administration – for geotechnical research and

publications
GNS Science New Zealand Crown Research Institute that focuses on geology,
geophysics (including seismology and volcanology), and nuclear science
(particularly isotope science and carbon dating)
LIST OF ACRONYMS
PAG E 5

L I ST
1. I N TORO
F AC
D URO
C TN Y MS
I ON
Acronym Definition
IL Importance level
IPENZ Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging – a measuring device
LBP Licensed building practitioner
LFA Localised flooding area
LMG Low mobility grout
MASW Multi-channel analysis of surface waves
MBIE Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
MSF Magnitude scaling factor
NZGS New Zealand Geotechnical Society
NZS New Zealand Standard
PGA Peak ground acceleration
PMO Project management office
QPID Quotable value property identification number
RBW Restricted Building Work
RIC Rapid Impact Compaction
RMA Resource Management Act
SCJ Shrinkage control joint
SHS Square hollow section
SLS Serviceability limit state (refer to AS/NZS 1170)
SPT Standard penetration test (refer to NZS 4406.6.51:1988)
SWS Swedish Weight Sounding
TC Technical category
t-m tonne-metres
ULS Ultimate limit state
VM Verification method (refer to AS/NZS 1170)
vs versus eg, cost vs benefits
LIST OF ACRONYMS
PAG E 6

Repairing and Rebuilding Houses Affected by The Canterbury Earthquakes

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Repairing and Rebuilding Houses Affected by The Canterbury Earthquakes

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

GUIDANCE V ERS ION C ONTROL

Repairing and rebuilding

Canterbury Technical Guidance - Introduction.indd 1 29/01/2013 10:12:32 a.m.

This document’s status

ISBN: 978-0-478-39907-3 (print)

UP D A TE: Scope of update

• Part A – Technical Guidance

• Part B – Technical Information

• Part C – Guidance for assessing, repairing and rebuilding foundations in TC3

• Part D – Guidelines for the investigation and assessment of subdivisions in the

The guidance is presented in a new format, with associated editorial adjustments,

David Kelly, Director Canterbury Rebuild and Recovery

Mike Stannard, Chief Engineer

The Ministry’s Engineering Advisory Group (Residential), consisting of:

Dave Brunsdon Kestrel Group Ltd

Earthquake Commission (EQC), particularly: Hugh Cowan and Pat Moynihan

The Natural Hazards Research Platform

Part A: Technical guidance

Part B: Technical information

Part C: Assessing, repairing and rebuilding

Part D: Guidelines for the geotechnical

1.1.1 Damage from the Canterbury earthquake sequence

1.1.2 Residential land zones

• Green – repair/rebuild process can begin

1. are appropriate to the level of land and building damage experienced

Increasing the resilience of residential dwellings is also an underlying objective.

1.3 Regulatory context

1.4.2 Canterbury focus

1.4.3 Technical scope

• TC1: Liquefaction damage is unlikely in future large earthquakes. Standard residential

To mitigate the effects of liquefaction, as a guiding principle it is preferable to build

Where new Where foundations Superstructure

TC1 Liquefaction is Use foundations

TC2 Liquefaction damage New houses with Refer to

TC3 Liquefaction damage Specific geotechnical Refer to

Part A: Technical guidance

4. Repairing house foundations

5. New foundations in TC1 and TC2

Appendix A1: Re-levelling systems and outline

Appendix A2: Outline method statements for

Appendix A3: Assessment and repair options for

Appendix A4: Assessment and repair options for

2.1 Typical dwelling foundation types

Figure 2.1: Dwelling foundation Types A, B and C

Type A house Type B house – timber floor Type C house

Table 2.1: House foundation and floor types on the flat

Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures supported only on piles. Stucco,

Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures with perimeter concrete foundation.

Timber-framed suspended timber floor structures with perimeter concrete foundation.

Timber-framed dwelling on concrete floor (slab-on-grade). Stucco, weatherboard or

Timber-framed dwelling on concrete floor (slab-on-grade). Brick or concrete masonry

2.2 Assessing foundation damage

1. differential and overall settlement of the dwelling

For example, if significant differential and/or overall settlement (aspect 1) occurs, it

Conversely, severe damage to particular foundation elements (aspect 3) can be addressed

Superstructure repairs may still be necessary, even if there is no foundation damage

Pile tilt <15 mm per

(1) Crack widths are those principally related to earthquake actions

A survey of new concrete floors conducted by members of the Engineering Advisory

Indicator criteria – Table 2.3

If there is a question around whether a specific criterion applies to a particular situation,

• the intended use of the space

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5

4.3.3 Re-levelling perimeter concrete foundation wall

4.3.4 Re-levelling perimeter concrete foundation wall

4.3.5 Re-levelling slab-on-grade floors (light- or medium-weight

4.3.6 Re-levelling slab-on-grade floors (heavy veneer cladding)