ConsuIting StructuraI Engineers

94 Dixon Street, PO Box 27-153, Wellington 6141

Telephone (644) 385-0019, E-Mail: dtcwgtn@dunningthornton.co.nz






Ref: 7352


18
th
February 2014

Greater Wellington Regional Council
C/- Jigsaw Property Consultancy Ltd
55 Waterloo Quay
WELLINGTON 6011

Attention: Tim Penwarden

Dear Tim

GWRC BuiIding WakefieId Street: Seismic Status
Peer Review of Reporting to Date

Firstly, apologies for the delay in formalising our review report. We confirm we
have completed our review as per the scope of work defined in our proposal dated
1
st
November 2013, including meeting Spencer Holmes on the 19
th
December
2013. We have not carried out a walkthrough inspection of the building, and do not
believe it necessary based on our conclusions below.

Current Assessment:
n general we concur with the findings of the reports relating to the current seismic
strength and the scope of this issues that are of concern. ndeed we have also
identified another three issues of primary concern with the current expected
seismic performance, though note that these are as, but not more critical than the
items considered to date. As such this detailed review should not significantly
affect the conclusion that has informed GWRC's thinking to date. Our issue by
issue review is detailed in the body of our report below.

Retrofit Options:
With respect to the seismic retrofit, the means proposed are pragmatic,
conventional means of achieving better performance. However, given the scope of
the issues and the extent of the intervention required throughout the building, we
are not surprised that the 100% NBS strengthening option has significant
structural and non-structural cost (approaching that of a new building). n effect,
you are providing a complete new bracing system for the building, the majority of
the facades, and almost complete disruption of the fitout/ceiling/services, all of
which needs to be constructed within the existing fabric which attracts a
premium on cost. Similarly matching the existing building stiffness, and
constructing new foundation in poor ground inside the structure add to difficulty.
We believe the overall scope/budget proposed should cover the additional three
GWRC Wakefield St: Peer Review of Seismic Reporting to Date, Page 2


ConsuIting StructuraI Engineers
94 Dixon Street, PO Box 27-153, Wellington 6141
Telephone (644) 385-0019, E-Mail: dtcwgtn@dunningthornton.co.nz

issues we have identified. Unfortunately at the conclusion of this you have a
building that is almost as good as new, but there will still be compromises and
unknowns associated with retrofitting. From our commercial experience in this
field, we are not surprised that the 100% Strengthening option is undesirable.
Although we believe there may be alternatives which may be more economic with
respect to those proposed, we believe these would only slightly trim the cost,
rather than provide any significant shift in budget.

Strengthening to a lower level does not provide many alternatives. A retrofit to
>67%NBS will still require intervention of the same order of scope as the 100%
scheme, albeit the structural sizes will be smaller. This is because almost all
issues become critical at 30-50%NBS deflections. As a result it is likely that the
retrofit may cost more than 67% of the 100% scheme cost.

nterim securing to 40% does provide this change of scope, and we generally
concur with the items identified on the Spencer Holmes reports. However this
would need to be seen as an interim measure for two reasons:
1. Relative risk: at 5-10 times the risk relative to a new building over its 50 year
design life, on a risk basis this would suggest that the solution should be
considered as something like a 10 year lifespan.
2. Nature of the failures: the term %NBS implies the level at which likely
strength of the building is exceeded. There is an implication in the code,
which was clarified by the Royal Commission into the Canterbury
Earthquakes, that a building should have a resilience to withstand 1.5-1.8
times this shaking before collapse. An example of this resilience was the
Hotel Grand Chancellor, which even though it crushed a major wall and two
columns due to a design flaw, did not collapse. We do not believe the
Wakefield St building has this type of inherent resilience, and it would only
be augmented to some degree by the 40% scheme. Proper augmentation
would begin to look like the >67% scheme discussed above. Given the
height of the building and this nature of failure, we believe it prudent only
considering the 40% scheme as an interim measure.

Re-occupying the building as earthquake prone could only be considered a stop-
gap measure, and as a minimum the stairs would require retrofit. Although there
are other buildings that have lower %NBS scores, point 2 above should be
considered with respect to consequence, as well as risk.

Other Strengthening Options:
Because of the nature of the structure (fairly stiff and brittle, on liquefiable ground)
it is our opinion that there are no conventional strengthening options that would
significantly change the scope of intervention proposed in the 100% scheme.

The only possible alternative could be to consider Base solation. Typically this
would not be done in such a tall existing structure, nor with one confined by
surrounding existing buildings (a Base solated building requires a significant
rattle space around it to allow it to move sideways on its bearings). However we
believe the following could be considered:
GWRC Wakefield St: Peer Review of Seismic Reporting to Date, Page 3


ConsuIting StructuraI Engineers
94 Dixon Street, PO Box 27-153, Wellington 6141
Telephone (644) 385-0019, E-Mail: dtcwgtn@dunningthornton.co.nz

Creating a transfer grillage throughout first and second floors to connect the
shear walls and columns together. This space would only likely be usable
for storage. For the rear building this would only be at Level 1
Locating the base isolators at ground floor, meaning they will end up a
predominant feature at this level
Creating new foundations to the west of the existing ones
Moving the building 500mm to the west onto the new isolators and
foundations. This creates rattle space to the east, adding to the existing
road frontages to the north and west.
Demolishing and re-building either:
o The rear of the rear building to create the rattle space here if the
buildings were to be joined and isolated together.
o The front of the rear building if only the office tower were to be
isolated.

While this is an unconventional solution, it would have the benefits that:
1. The significance of the base isolation would help restore the confidence of
building users in its seismic performance
2. The majority of the work would be confined to the lower three floors. n this
way, much of the existing fabric could be left intact (assuming it has a
reasonable residual value).

n conclusion we agree that the building is a difficult proposition, and that we
generally concur with the assessments to date by Spencer Holmes. We agree that
a retrofit greater than 67%NBS is likely to involve significant intervention
throughout the building, and as such the cost be a significant proportion of re-build
cost. The only alternative to this could be base isolation: itself still costly however
with careful placement of the majority of the work in the lower floors of the building
it could provide a more economic solution both in cost and in completed value.

We trust this provides you with the information you require.

Yours faithfully,


Alistair Cattanach
DRECTOR
140218AGC


Encl.

Detailed Review of Damage Mechanisms (3 pages)
GWRC Wakefield St: Peer Review of Seismic Reporting to Date, Page 4


ConsuIting StructuraI Engineers
94 Dixon Street, PO Box 27-153, Wellington 6141
Telephone (644) 385-0019, E-Mail: dtcwgtn@dunningthornton.co.nz

Damage Mechanisms Identified by Spencer HoImes

(As per summary reporting not in order of criticality)

Liquefaction of the Upper 3-4m zone below the building's foundations
Fragility of Dycore system to take building inter-storey drifts, especially at
seating
Non-ductile nature of 665 mesh floor topping reinforcement
Vertically over-reinforced nature of the shear walls
Off-set columns/transfers in front gravity beam system
nadequate separation from Carpark
nadequate movement provision in stairs
nadequate tension capacity of existing concrete piles
nadequate connection between shear walls and adjacent floor structure
around stairs
High nterstorey drift due to flexible lateral load resisting system
(predominantly from piles)
nadequate Fixings of Precast Panel Cladding to structure
nadequate bracing of existing ceiling grid
Non-ductile gravity frame detailing
Floor seating issues related to gravity frame dilation
GWRC Wakefield St: Peer Review of Seismic Reporting to Date, Page 5


ConsuIting StructuraI Engineers
94 Dixon Street, PO Box 27-153, Wellington 6141
Telephone (644) 385-0019, E-Mail: dtcwgtn@dunningthornton.co.nz

Damage Mechanisms in order of CriticaIity - dTC Interpretation

(Additional mechanisms identified by DTC shown bold)

nadequate movement provision in stairs*
Vertically over-reinforced nature of the shear walls
Construction risks of poor embedment of reinforcement at the base of
the concrete ("Franki") piIes causing significant drop in theoreticaI
tension capacity
Shear faiIure of stair/Iift shearwaII supporting foundation beam each
end
nadequate tension capacity of existing concrete piles
nadequate connection between shear walls and adjacent floor structure
around stairs
Fragility of Dycore system to take building inter-storey drifts, especially at
seating
VerticaI coupIing of Grid D13 coIumn through the foundation beam to
the adjacent shearwaII, causing verticaI movements that damage Grid
C-D gravity structures.
Off-set columns/transfers in front gravity beam system
Non-ductile nature of 665 mesh floor topping reinforcement
Non-ductile gravity frame detailing
Liquefaction of the Upper 3-4m zone below the building's foundations
Floor seating issues related to gravity frame dilation
High nterstorey drift due to flexible lateral load resisting system
(predominantly from piles)
nadequate Fixings of Precast Panel Cladding to structure
nadequate bracing of existing ceiling grid**
nadequate separation from Carpark

* Serviceability/perception issue, also associated with DBH advisory on stairs.
Lower priority in terms of pure life safety if managed with the appropriate
evacuation plan
**Although this damage can onset at low levels of load the life safety (as opposed
to injury) risks are seen as minimal

GWRC Wakefield St: Peer Review of Seismic Reporting to Date, Page 6


ConsuIting StructuraI Engineers
94 Dixon Street, PO Box 27-153, Wellington 6141
Telephone (644) 385-0019, E-Mail: dtcwgtn@dunningthornton.co.nz

Sensitivity of the performance to Iiquefaction:

Effect ResuIt CriticaIity
Loss of uplift capacity via
pile shaft friction as
materials liquefy
Shear wall rocking at
lower levels of
acceleration. Overturning
risk in large event
Limiting factor for %NBS
at the onset of significant
liquefaction.
Surface settlement due to
ejected material
Cracking through
uplift/settlement of ground
floor slab. Down drag of
non-liquefied soil on piles.
Reduction in slab tying
walls/piles together (lurch
more critical, see below).
Shallow crust therefore
down-drag effects low.
Ground Lurch
unliquefied crust moving
over liquefied material.
Cyclic horizontal
translation of building with
the surface crust. Causes
shearing of the piles
when displacements large
Requires complete
liquefaction, so onset
later than other
liquefaction issues. Pile
shear critical for collapse
risk
Lateral spreading Net unrecoverable
horizontal translation of
the crust toward the
harbour
Effect low relative to
buildings seaward of this.
Lurch likely more critical

Damage comparison

The accelerations felt at the site would be estimated to be 10-20%NBS based
upon interpolation between records (which is not generally applicable as soil
conditions can vary greatly). The shaking contained a large proportion of medium
frequency wave excitations, with few high and fewer low frequency accelerations.
The natural period of the building was on the low frequency-end of this medium
band.

Some movement would be expected, significant enough to crack some
plasterboard partitions and potentially displace some ceiling tiles, especially on
upper floors. Poor faade seals may have torn but the majority would be expected
to be intact. The stairs, with little-no movement tolerances would show some
cracking, but no instability. The shaking levels would be below the yield level of
any critical structural mechanisms.

We believe the above concurs generally with the damage observed, except in the
case of the stairs. We understand a construction detail where reinforcement in a
critical zone has exacerbated a poor/sensitive design, and that immediate
propping was actioned.