Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines For School Design MOE NZ

Ministry of Education
Engineering Strategy Group
Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

Version 1.1 for General Issue, June 2015
Endorsed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
Version 1.1, June 2015
Document History
The table below is a record of the changes that have been made to this document:
Version
Version 1.0
Version 1.1
Date
09/03/2015
29/06/2015
Summary of Changes
First version for general issue
Section 2.6 Masonry Veneer: the policy on the use
of masonry veneer on new buildings has been
amended to reflect a more risk-based approach.
Figures have been added to illustrate the policy.
Section 3.5 Seismic Assessment of Existing
Buildings: treatment of timber-framed school
buildings with heavy roofs (or internal walls
removed) has been clarified.
FOREWORD
The Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design is the first step in the
development of the Ministry of Educations (the Ministry) national guidelines for school
design. It has been prepared by the Ministrys Engineering Strategy Group, and has been
consulted on and endorsed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Background
The Ministry owns one of the largest property portfolios in New Zealand, with more than
30,000 buildings in about 2,100 schools. Engineering design and assessments occur
through various mechanisms nationally via Ministry programmes, regionally through
the Ministrys property managers, and locally through schools Boards of Trustees.
There has been an intensive engineering effort following the Canterbury earthquakes to
better understand the seismic performance of Ministry buildings (in Canterbury and
nationally). Many technical issues and lessons have also emerged from the reviews of
new school designs undertaken by the Ministrys Design Review Panel. Most of these
issues are common to New Zealand buildings generally, and involve new design as well
as the assessment of existing buildings.
Engineering Strategy Group

The Ministrys Engineering Strategy Group was established in 2012 to provide technical
leadership for the structural assessment of existing buildings and design of new buildings,
and is currently comprised of:
Dave Brunsdon
Kestrel Group
John Hare
Holmes Consulting Group
Gordon Ashby
Tonkin & Taylor
John Finnegan
Aurecon
Noel Evans
Opus International Consultants
Bo-Yao Lee

These guidelines set out the Ministrys requirements and expectations for the structural
and geotechnical aspects of the design and assessment of school buildings. The
document is organised in sections to highlight where the Ministrys requirements are in
excess of the New Zealand Building Code, with elaboration on how certain provisions of
the Building Code should be applied to school buildings.
Emphasis is given to the establishment of clear and consistent overall design
philosophies. For matters that are important to the Ministry and occupants of schools,
more specific guideline covering the key engineering design aspects is included, covering
both new school buildings and the assessment and upgrading of existing buildings.
These guidelines form part of the set of documents that designers, along with structural
and geotechnical engineers, should refer to when undertaking work on school buildings.
It is also important that those who lead and co-ordinate design work, such as architects,
project managers and Ministry property personnel, are familiar with the scope and
purpose of this document. It is available from the Ministrys online Property pages.
The requirements set out in this document are mandatory from 1 July 2015. These
guidelines will be further updated in response to both technical developments and
recommendations from the Ministrys Engineering Strategy Group and feedback from
users. We are constantly seeking to improve the usability of our guidelines. If anything
in this document is in your view ambiguous or inaccurate please contact the Ministry
through Property.Help@education.govt.nz. Your feedback will be forwarded to the
Ministrys Engineering and Design team who will follow-up with you and where necessary
incorporate feedback into future amendments.
Rob Giller
Group Manager, Strategy and Policy
Education Infrastructure Service
Contents
Foreword............................................................................................................................... 3
1.
2.
3.
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6
1.1
Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines: Objectives ....................................... 6
1.2
Design Principles ....................................................................................... 6
1.3
Design Standards and Relevant Guidelines ................................................... 6
1.4
Engineering Involvement ........................................................................... 7
Ministry Design Requirements ....................................................................................... 8

2.1
General ................................................................................................... 8
2.2
Project Records......................................................................................... 8
2.3
Load Levels for Seismic Design and Assessment ........................................... 9
2.4
Shallow Foundation Systems .................................................................... 11
2.5
System and Element Ductility ................................................................... 11
2.6
Masonry Veneer ...................................................................................... 12
Engineering Design Guidance...................................................................................... 17

3.1
General ................................................................................................. 17
3.2
Project Documentation ............................................................................ 20
3.3
Geotechnical Considerations ..................................................................... 21
3.4
Structural Considerations for New Buildings ............................................... 23
3.5
Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings ................................................... 25
3.6
Building Alterations and Additions ............................................................. 27
3.7
Non-Structural Systems ........................................................................... 27
Appendix A: Project & Site Constraints Table .................................................................... 30

Appendix B: Building Type and Foundation Matrices ......................................................... 34
Appendix C: Specific Information for the Christchurch Schools Rebuild Programme .......... 39
C1
Geotechnical Considerations ..................................................................... 39
C2
Earthquake Damage Repairs .................................................................... 42

1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines: Objectives
The overall purpose of the Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design is to
provide a basis for engineers and designers to deliver cost-effective educational buildings
that meet the Ministrys expectations for usability, safety, capital and operating cost,
future maintenance obligations and anticipated repairs. The objectives of this document
include (within an engineering context):
To ensure efficient and economic design and construction practice is incorporated

in the design of new school buildings and the assessment, repair and retrofit of
existing school buildings.
To provide guidance on the preferred configuration of school buildings to achieve

more resilient outcomes in future natural disaster events.
To communicate where departures are required from conventional design in order

to satisfy specific performance requirements.
To highlight particular aspects of the historical performance of the Ministrys

school buildings that designers should take into account in both the design of new
school buildings and the repair and adaptation of existing school buildings.
1.2
Design Principles
The principles that guide structural and geotechnical engineering design in schools are as
follows:
To ensure that all occupants are adequately protected from injury in the event of
a significant natural hazard or man-made disaster event1.
To provide a design that achieves a balance between minimising the damage

from a significant natural hazard event and a cost-effective construction solution.
To provide a building that is likely to remain usable after a reasonably foreseeable

natural or man-made disaster, with repairs being able to be carried out within
reasonable timeframes using conventional techniques for smaller but infrequent
events.
In approaching the design of school buildings, designers should recognise the need to
provide resilience. Resilience is a broad term, and can be defined as the ability of a
community to survive, adapt and grow, no matter what the circumstances. In this
sense, a school is a central part of its community so the principle requirement is for
school buildings to be operational after a significant event, even if repairs are required,
and to do so in a manner that makes the best use of available resources.
1.3
Design Standards and Relevant Guidelines
All building work at schools must comply with legislative requirements and the Ministrys
mandatory requirements that may be above and beyond the Building Code
requirements.
In general, designers must consider the full range of events that is covered by the current New
Zealand Building Code. Designers should consider how other site-specific hazards (such as
tsunami or flood) that may be notified under a LIM are best mitigated. The latter category of
hazard should be discussed with the Ministry to determine a jointly agreed risk management
strategy.
1
The Ministrys standards have been developed to reflect the unique nature of school
buildings, their usages and occupants. These include weather-tightness requirements
and guidance on timber framed school buildings (which accounts for approximately 90%
of the Ministrys current school building portfolio).
Some key reports are listed below. These are publically available from the Ministrys
online Property pages:
Ministry of Education, Understanding the Seismic Performance of Timber Framed

School Buildings (Version 2), March 2015.
Ministry of Education, Weather-tightness and Durability Requirements for School

Property, August 2014.
Aurecon, Two-Storey Nelson Blocks Physical Inspections of Existing Buildings

and Effects on Previous Seismic Assessments (Revision 4), January 2015.
Further background material (listed below) is also available that may assist in
understanding aspects of this guidance document. Where any contradictions with
current Ministry policy are noted in these documents, the most current Structural and
Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design takes precedence and should be consulted on
all policy matters.
1.4
Ministry of Education, Guidelines for the Seismic Evaluation of Timber Framed

School Buildings (Version 2), June 2013.
Ministry of Education, Catalogue of Standard School Building Types, August 2013.
Ministry of Education, Report on Structural Testing of a Standard Classroom Block

in Carterton in June 2013, October 2013.
Ministry of Education, Report on Structural Testing of a Standard Classroom Block

in Christchurch in December 2013, February 2014.
D. Brunsdon, J. Finnegan, N. Evans, G. Beattie, D. Carradine, J. Sheppard & B.

Lee, Establishing the Resilience of Timber Framed School Buildings in New
Zealand, 2014 NZSEE conference, March 2014.
Engineering Involvement
It is critical that structural and geotechnical engineers are actively involved from the
Master Planning stage2, particularly when buildings are located on poor ground. Poor
ground is any land that cannot be described as good ground as set out in NZS 3604:
2011 Timber-framed buildings. Poor ground may also be identified from hazard zones
(liquefaction, land stability, etc) in Council hazard maps.
Staged reviews at specific design stages are undertaken by the Ministrys Design Review
Panel (DRP), commencing with Master Planning. These reviews require that structural
and geotechnical information is provided at a sufficient level of detail to ensure that the
review can be completed. Further guidance is provided in section 3.2.
On smaller or less complex projects, it is envisaged that concept design may be
combined with the Master Planning stage.
Note that the scope of work for the Master Planning stage is specific to the Ministry. The specific
briefing and deliverables will be defined on a project by project basis and/or by further Ministry
guidance.
2

2.
MINISTRY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
2.1
General
This section defines the mandatory requirements of the Ministry that all projects must
comply with.
Compliance with the New Zealand Building Code (NZBC) is mandatory for all projects,
but it must be noted that the NZBC represents the minimum standard for all applicable
buildings. The Ministry design requirements in general may:
extend the NZBC requirements in cases where the Ministry requires a different
level of performance
clarify the Ministrys preferences in cases where the NZBC provides alternative
compliance paths
provide detail for elements for which the NZBC does not define specific means of
compliance.
If there is a perceived conflict between the NZBC and the Ministry design requirements,
clarification should be sought from the Ministry. Under no circumstances shall the
Ministry design requirements be interpreted to allow a level of performance less than the
minimum requirements of the NZBC.
2.2
Project Records
It is essential that information which is discovered about a project or site is made

available to all who may work on the project. This requires that a record is made that
may be transferred between project personnel and updated as the project proceeds.
The Ministry requires that a Project and Site Constraints table and a Design Features
Report are supplied as part of the deliverables for every project, as explained below.
These should be commenced at the earliest practical opportunity and updated during the
project and on completion. At completion, they shall be submitted to the Ministry as
part of the record for the project.
2.2.1
Project and Site Constraints
As part of the Master Planning process, all available information on actual or potential
project and site constraints (including, as appropriate, possible opportunities) that could
affect the development should be identified, researched and summarised. The Projects
and Site Constraints table in Appendix A provides a framework for this initial stage work.
Note that the Project and Site Constraints table is not restricted to structural and
geotechnical information. The structural and geotechnical engineers may not be solely
responsible for the completeness of the table but are expected to contribute to its
preparation.
2.2.2
Design Features Report
Ensure that a Design Features Report (DFR) is prepared at Concept Design stage (even if
information is high-level at the time of writing) and then continually updated through
the design process. For smaller projects that do not have a distinct Concept Design
stage, the DFR shall be prepared in the Preliminary Design stage. Further guidance is
given in section 3.2 below on the Ministrys requirements for a DFR.

2.3
Load Levels for Seismic Design and Assessment
The Ministry has in place a policy on load levels for seismic design and assessment that
extends the NZ Building Code requirements. The purpose of this is to achieve a
consistent level of performance for buildings in earthquakes, including consideration of
the likelihood of damage in moderate levels of shaking.
This policy has been recently updated (since the last review in 2012), to take into
account observations of actual building performance from the Canterbury earthquakes
and following destructive testing of classroom buildings. The main policy change is to
revert to the NZBC recommendations for building Importance Levels for new buildings.
This differs from the previous policy that required all new school buildings to be designed
to Importance Level 3.
2.3.1
Design of New Buildings
A summary of the policy for new school buildings is as follows:
Seismic Design loads for Serviceability Limit State (SLS) and Ultimate Limit State
(ULS) provisions shall be as stated in the NZBC.
For buildings of more than one storey with concrete suspended floors and for
heavy single-storey buildings (concrete or reinforced masonry walled structures),
designers shall satisfy the SLS2 provisions of the NZBC, for earthquakes with a
return period of 100/250 years (for IL2/IL3 buildings respectively). SLS2
performance criteria shall be generally as defined in clause 2.5.2 of NZS1170.5
for IL4 buildings.
This is reflected in the return periods for calculation of seismic design loads given in the
table below:
Table 1: Return Periods for Seismic Design of School Buildings
Building Use [1]
SLS1
SLS2
ULS
Small (< 30m2) ancillary buildings that

are not usually occupied (IL1)
1 in 25
n/a
1 in 100
Larger ancillary buildings (IL2)
1 in 25
n/a
1 in 500
Offices and classrooms of lightweight

construction, with less than 250
students in block (IL2) [2]
1 in 25
n/a
1 in 500
Offices and classrooms of lightweight

construction, with 250 or more
occupants (IL3)
1 in 25
n/a
1 in 1000
All buildings of more than one

suspended level and single storey
classrooms of heavy construction, with
less than 250 students in block (IL2) [2]
1 in 25
1 in 100 [3]
1 in 500
All buildings of more than one

suspended level and single storey
classrooms of heavy construction, with
250 or more occupants (IL3)
1 in 25
1 in 250 [3]
1 in 1000
Assembly halls, gymnasiums etc. where

students may congregate (IL3)
1 in 25
1 in 250 [3]
1 in 1000
Notes:
1.
Where more than one use type occurs in a single building, the higher use
category prevails in the design of the building.
2.
A block should be considered as either a single structure or a collection of

structures that share common egress paths and/or essential services. For a
section of a building to be regarded as separate for the purposes of
establishing the Importance Level, there must be seismic joints, independent
egress paths and it must have independent essential services, i.e. it could
continue to function without the adjacent structures.
3.
A return period of 1 in 100 or 1 in 250 has been used for this document,
equating approximately to 50% of the ULS loading. For buildings on
potentially liquefiable soil this value should be regarded as indicative, given
that in some cases the trigger point for soil liquefaction within a significant
portion of the soil column may occur at a return period lower than 1 in
100/250 years. When the liquefaction triggering event is shorter than 1 in
100/250 years, designers must consult with the Ministry to determine a
suitable cost-effective foundation solution. The superstructure should be
checked in addition for the 1 in 100/250 year return period earthquake in the
absence of liquefaction.
The performance requirements for the limit states are generally as defined in the
loadings standard NZS1170, including limitations on the available ductility related to the
limit state under consideration. Unless specifically agreed with the Ministry, it is
expected that:
For SLS1, a building should only suffer readily repairable damage that does not
affect the continued use of the building.
For SLS2, a building should be usable after an earthquake, although moderate

repairs may be required. Such repairs should be able to be effected in a planned
manner and any disruption to the normal use of the building can be appropriately
managed. In this design case there should be a very low likelihood of building
collapse. It is expected that repairs in such cases should normally be able to be
scheduled to be implemented over a standard vacation break, although off-site
work, planning and consents may be undertaken outside that period.
Further to the above, tolerable damage for SLS2 includes:
settlement and structural damage within readily repairable limits
reduced mechanical and electrical function, provided that all building warrant of
fitness elements remain operational
minor loss of function of other non-structural elements that do not impact on

safety.
Further guidance is given in section 3.4.1.

2.3.2
Assessment and Strengthening of Existing Buildings
For the assessment and strengthening of existing school buildings, the Importance
Levels policy remains unchanged from December 2012 and is summarised as follows:
10
Table 2: Importance Levels for Assessment and Strengthening of Existing School Buildings
Building Category
Building Use
Assessment
Strengthening
Buildings of Higher Occupancy and/

or Heavy Floor Construction
Classroom buildings >250 persons,
Assembly Halls, Gymnasiums
Buildings of two or more storeys
with suspended concrete floors and/
or heavy roofs
Buildings of Lower Occupancy and

not of Heavy Floor Construction
Classroom buildings <250 persons,
Administration Blocks, other
buildings (see Note below)
IL3
IL2
Current code
Current code
IL3
IL2
67% current code
67% current code
Note: Ancillary structures (irrespective of floor area) that are separate from other
buildings and are not usually occupied (i.e. they are minor structures where failure
is not likely to endanger human life), may usually be assumed to be IL1 for the
purposes of assessment and strengthening.
Further guidance is given in section 3.5 below.
2.4
Shallow Foundation Systems
A shallow foundation option must be considered for all sites. This may include
consideration of future re-levelling on sites that have soft/compressible ground and/or
settlement tolerant design and construction. In the event that designers consider a
shallow foundation system unfeasible, the Ministry shall be notified in writing and the
reasons clearly stated, prior to the completion of the foundation design. This must also
be clearly documented in the Design Features Report.
Some school sites are on ground that may be vulnerable to settlement, for example
under long-term loading conditions with underlying compressible soils, or from
infrequent events such as earthquakes. In many cases, deep foundations would be
required if following a conventional approach to minimising settlement, but more costeffective solutions may exist. The Ministry wishes to work with designers to prepare
cost-effective solutions and acknowledges the need to manage risk rather than simply
avoiding it. This may include consideration of shallow foundations with, for example,
potential for relevelling, noting that the majority of Ministry buildings are relatively light
weight single or two-storey buildings.
2.5
System and Element Ductility
The Ministry requires that significant load bearing elements in buildings of more than one
storey are designed to be as robust as practicable, in order to provide a greater measure
of protection against the damaging effects of seismic movement and to provide a greater
level of protection to occupants.
In buildings of more than one storey, all concrete columns (or column elements within
walls constructed of concrete and concrete masonry) shall be detailed for ductility in
11
accordance with the additional provisions of the relevant standards, regardless of the
building system ductility that the designer has elected to use.
In practice, this means that all affected columns and column elements within walls must
be detailed with sufficient closed stirrups and links that the columns are capable of
developing full ductility ( 3). Designers may have elected to design the overall
structure for elastic or nominally elastic actions ( 1.25), but this Ministry requirement
recognises that these displacements may be exceeded under a larger earthquake and
that the additional ductility can be added for nominal increase in cost and may result in
considerable savings for repairs and in a greater likelihood of the building remaining
useable.
2.6
Masonry Veneer
The use of masonry veneer is often favourably considered as it is a highly durable costeffective cladding, but masonry veneer with unsecured fixings or inappropriate design or
construction presents a falling hazard in earthquakes. The Ministry takes account of risks
associated with the use of masonry veneer on its buildings based on the Hazard Factor,
Z, as set out in NZS 1170.5 and the location of the masonry veneer on a particular
building. Good detailing practice must be followed in its installation and fixings.
In high seismicity regions (e.g. indicatively where Z0.3), masonry veneers will likely
start to drive the design of the structure of timber-framed buildings and therefore the
use of veneer should be carefully considered.
For buildings that are not on good ground3 (irrespective of seismicity), the use of
masonry veneer should also be avoided due to the potential for damage resulting from
ground settlement or movement.
Masonry veneer is also not to be used above roof lines, and no unreinforced masonry
chimneys are permitted.
Specific restrictions on the use of masonry veneer are as follows:
In areas of moderate or high seismicity (Z 0.15):
Masonry veneers shall be limited to single storey only, with a maximum height
to the top of the veneer generally of 4.0m and up to 6.5m at gable ends.
Masonry veneer shall not be used in the following locations:

-
above doorways, or above 1.5m for a width of 950mm either side of

doorways; and
above 1.5m adjacent to or facing areas where students may congregate

(i.e. milling areas or permanent seating).
In areas of low seismicity (Z < 0.15):
Masonry veneers can be used on second storeys but must be limited to a

maximum height to the top of the veneer generally of 7.5m and up to 10m at
gable ends.
Masonry veneer shall not be used in the following locations:
Good ground being as described in Table 3 of this document
12
above doorways, or above 3m for a width of 950mm either side of

doorways; and
above 3m adjacent to or facing areas where students may congregate (i.e.

milling areas or permanent seating).
These restrictions are shown indicatively in Figures 1 and 2 following.

The provision of soft landscaping can be used to discourage the congregation of people
adjacent to, or beneath, a masonry veneer wall. To achieve this, soft landscaping should
be provided for a distance away from the veneer face equal to the height of the veneer
above the area concerned, but need not be greater than 3m.
13
Figure 1: Illustrations of the Locations and Restrictions on the Use of Brick Veneer
Moderate or High Seismicity Locations (Z 0.15)
(a) Single Storey Building
(b) Double Storey Building
14
Figure 2: Illustrations of the Locations and Restrictions on the Use of Brick Veneer in Low
Seismicity Locations (Z < 0.15)
(a) Single Storey Building
(b) Double Storey Building
15
Where it is considered appropriate for brick veneer to be used, the NZ Clay Brick & Paver
Manufacturers Association Design Note TB1 May 2012, 2 Storey Clay Brick Veneer
Construction Made Easy4, which has been BRANZ appraised, should be followed for
design and construction specification. The following requirements are to apply in
addition to the above restrictions and requirements of Design Note TB1:
Veneer panels beside windows or doorways (piers) to be no less than 950mm in

width.
Maximum veneer thickness is 90mm, and the weight is not to exceed 180 kg/m 2.
Veneers in excess of 180kg/m2 will require specific design refer NZS
4230:20045.
The veneer cavity is to be a minimum of 40mm in width and a maximum of

60mm. It should be noted that the cavity width is measured from the tie fixing to
the inside face of the veneer. This also means the edge of the foundation and
framing line will need to be built to tighter tolerances than typical construction
practice.
Gable end trusses are not to be used for restraining veneers. All gable ends are to
be framed full height walls with studs at 400mm centres.
Note: External Moisture Acceptable Solution E2/AS16 of the Building Code
Compliance Document requires a rigid air barrier over gable ends opening into
roof cavities, and the 40mm minimum cavity needs to be considered in this
regard. It may be necessary to line the inside of the framing to gable ends.
If the spacing or positioning of a tie is not specified in TB1, then NZS 4229:2013 7
will apply.
For masonry veneer supported by concrete masonry, the spacing of ties in Design
Note TB1 applies, except in what is designated Earthquake Zone 4 in NZS 4229:
2013 (South Island Z >0.4), where specific engineering design will apply.
Further design considerations in the use of masonry veneer are provided in section
3.7.2.
Design Note TB1 May 2012, 2 Storey Clay Brick Veneer Construction Made Easy, NZ Clay
Brick & Paver Manufacturers Association
5
NZS 4230: 2004 Design of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Structures
6
Compliance Document for NZ Building Code Clause E2 External Moisture Acceptable Solution
E2/AS1
7
NZS 4229:2013 - Concrete Masonry Buildings Not Requiring Specific Engineering Design
4
16

3.
ENGINEERING DESIGN GUIDANCE
3.1
General
This section highlights the key engineering design principles that should be considered
from the Master Planning stage.
3.1.1
Foundation Systems
Mixed foundation systems within the same building footprint are not recommended (e.g.
suspended timber floor with slab on grade), unless suitable allowance is considered for
differential movement under, for example, strong earthquake shaking or due to
underlying compressible soils. Such situations may require a specifically designed
structural separation or other movement-tolerant feature to be provided over the full
height of the structure. In general however, the most economical solution is expected to
have a single consistent foundation system.
The Canterbury earthquakes have shown concrete slabs on grade, particularly those with
little or no reinforcement, to be particularly vulnerable to liquefaction or soft soil
movement. This has manifested as differential settlement of the floor, slab cracking,
opening of construction joints, liquefaction ejecta intrusion and damage to underlying
damp proof membranes and in-ground services. This has often resulted in expensive
reinstatement or complete building replacement. Designers are therefore expected to
give particular consideration at the design stage to future performance (and potential
repair strategies) of floor slabs, foundation elements and services, particularly in areas
exposed to elevated seismic loads, in order to deliver cost-efficient structures.
All else being equal, preference is given to shallow foundation systems where possible.
Even on soft/compressible ground, or ground that has some liquefaction potential,
consideration should be given to shallow foundations (possibly with some ground
improvement) rather than defaulting to deep foundations. Some settlement may be
acceptable where the implication of the displacements is adequately addressed and
repair and reinstatement are practical (including suitable consideration of drainage and
services). The Ministry is open to working with designers to evaluate the implications of
settlement and will not accept a deep foundation system, or significant ground
improvement schemes, without evidence that a shallow foundation system was
thoroughly considered (refer to section 2.4 above).
Where possible, retaining walls should be structurally separated from building/foundation
walls.
3.1.2
Building Shapes and Configuration
Regular building shapes of smaller footprint area will generally provide better overall
building and foundation performance under seismic shaking. However, this must be
balanced against the use of larger footprint buildings to increase the ratio of floor area to
cladding area, which is generally more cost-effective. Re-entrant corners and floor plans
that neck between larger areas should be avoided. Regular building shapes also reduce
potential leaky building problems.
Footprint areas are encouraged to be kept as small as possible on ground that is
liquefiable and/or subject to lateral spread. This will minimise the impact of differential
settlement and stretch that has caused significant issues for many larger footprint
buildings in Canterbury that were otherwise relatively undamaged. Notwithstanding this,
17
it is preferable to use single-storey buildings on poor ground and in general, where site
space planning allows.
Lighter-weight building materials should be used where possible to promote the use of
shallow foundation systems and reduce seismic demand.
If large floor plates are unavoidable, movement joints should be installed to control the
effects of long-term shrinkage and expansion; and to control the impact of potential
lateral spread. Example building configurations are presented below in Figure .
Joints should be located in areas where the concentrated movement may be most easily
dealt with but in general, excessive slab panel aspect ratios should be avoided.
Recommended aspect ratios are presented in Figure .
Seismic joints in floor slabs should in all cases be coordinated with structural movement
joints in the superstructure. Dual lateral and vertical support lines may be required in
order to maintain stability in the event of large movements.
It is noted that appropriate detailing for construction joints and shrinkage control may
provide beneficial foundation flexibility and facilitate readily repairable and cost-efficient
structures.
18
Figure 3: Example Building Plan Configurations and Joint Layouts
Seismic joint in slab and

superstructure
E.J.
Shrinkage/expansion
joint in slab only
S.J.
S.J.
S.J.
E.J.
95m
E.J.
25m
S.J.
18m
40m
E.J.
18m
S.J.
70m
E.J.
S.J.
E.J.
S.J.
E.J.
S.J.
120m
Figure 4: Maximum Slab Panel Aspect Ratios
less than 4
Between seismic
joints
Between
shrinkage joints
Less than 2
19

3.1.3
Deformation Compatibility
Stiff elements that are not separated from the surrounding structure will almost certainly
govern the seismic response of a building, whether the designer intended this or not.
Designers need to consider this and detail carefully for the implied movement of
structures, including foundation rotation if this is significant. Non-structural elements
that are stiff and/or brittle should be provided with adequate movement allowance.
It is best to avoid locating buildings in positions that cross boundaries between different
soil types, or that have extreme variations in the depth of or to soils that are prone to
settlement. Where this cannot be avoided, give consideration to foundation types that
minimise the impact of these factors. Buildings with significantly different pile lengths or
depths of foundation should be avoided, particularly in areas with elevated seismic
loadings.
3.2
Project Documentation
Good design documentation is critical to the success of construction projects. Design

documentation must be well organised and presented for the Ministrys reviews,
consenting and construction. Documentation should generally follow the stages and
deliverables as described in the NZ Construction Industry Council (NZCIC) design and
documentation guidelines, with the addition of Master Planning, for which the Ministry
will supply its own requirements.
A key component of well-organised engineering documentation is a Design Features
Report (DFR). DFRs are concise summaries authorised by Chartered Professional
Engineers for issue to record the key considerations and design methodologies adopted
to achieve the building owners requirements and compliance with the Building Code
(and any additional requirements that must be communicated to building consenters,
constructors, owners and users). This should provide information under the following
broad headings:
Basic information on the building and foundation
Foundation investigation and design methods and results, including a graphical

representation of the site geotechnical model (see example in Figure 5 below)
Building design methods, load assumptions, load paths and assumed structural
ductility demand
Expected building deformations and design actions/requirements for secondary

elements and non-structural elements (to be designed by others)
Identification of key structural elements for construction monitoring
Expected maintenance requirements during the building life
Anticipated repair or reinstatement strategies and methodologies in the event

that design loads are imposed on the structure.
20
Figure 5: Example Graphical Representation of the Site Geotechnical Model

Figure 1: Example Graphical Representation of the Site Geotechnical Model
Design strategies should be articulated and put in place for the envisaged structural
design. This should be identified at Master Planning stage, at least in narrative and
outline diagrammatic form.
If the site is likely to be poor ground, the Master Planning phase should specifically
address the likely foundation solutions, as an input into the overall cost plan. This
should include consideration of land categorisation within the site to identify areas of
better ground that could provide for more cost-effective construction solutions, as well
as specific foundation aspects such as soil improvement, piles, any unusual foundation
configurations and any key design assumptions or criteria that will influence later design
stages.
An extensive DFR checklist is available from the Structural Engineering Society New
Zealand (SESOC) website (www.sesoc.org.nz, on the members page).
3.3
Geotechnical Considerations
Prudent site planning is required to reduce potential future damage to buildings due to
ground movement. Subject to a detailed assessment of the geotechnical conditions at a
particular site, planners/designers should consider locating buildings on the most stable
areas of the site and less critical elements such as playing fields and car parking on
areas which may be subject to greater land disruption. In particular, buildings should be
located as far as practicably possible from watercourses (existing or infilled, where
known) and potentially unstable slopes.
One of the first elements of this is to establish the broad ground classification of the site,
in accordance with the following table:
21
Table 3: Geotechnical Site Classification

Site
classification
Good ground
Future land performance

expectation
Refer to NZS 3604
Nominal SLS
land
settlement
Nominal ULS
land
settlement
Nominal ULS
lateral
stretch
0-15mm
0-25mm
Generally
not expected
Settlement [1] or
liquefaction damage from
a future large earthquake
is unlikely
Poor ground
Settlement [1] or
liquefaction damage from
a future large earthquake
possible
50mm
100mm
500mm
Poor with
lateral spread
[2]
Settlement [1] or
liquefaction and lateral
spread from a future large
earthquake are likely
>50mm
>100mm
>500mm
Notes:
1.
Settlement refers to ground movement that may result under non-seismic

loading conditions, such as might be expected in compressible or expansive
soils (e.g. peat or reactive clays).
2.
Lateral Spread is the stretching effect that is experienced by some soils during
ground shaking, typically in liquefaction-prone areas, and often accompanied
by settlement. This is often, but not always, alongside watercourses.
In considering the vulnerability of soils to liquefaction and consequent effects, designers

may refer to the Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Residential
Building Guidance8, in particular the foundation technical categories (TC1, TC2, TC3).
Although the Technical Categories are restricted to residential properties in the
Canterbury Earthquake region, the TCs may further inform the assessment of likely site
performance for adjacent school sites. In addition, the TC assessment procedures may
assist in the assessment and ready communication of the general geotechnical nature of
sites outside the Christchurch area.
The geotechnical engineer and structural engineer should work together to develop a
robust foundation solution that matches the ground conditions and is compatible with the
structural form and use of the proposed building. In order to satisfy the design
principles, consideration must be given to shallow foundation systems for all buildings.
It should be noted that the 25mm in 6m differential settlement guidance given in
Appendix B of NZBC B1/VM4 is informative only, and that this may be exceeded if the
structure is specifically designed to manage damage under a greater level of settlement.
Greater levels of movement may be tolerated by the Ministry provided that the impacts
can be managed. This may require firstly that the superstructure can be shown to
receive only minor damage from the predicted movement and then that the building may
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. (2012). Repairing and rebuilding houses
affected by the Canterbury earthquakes. http://www.dbh.govt.nz/guidance-on-repairs-afterearthquake
8
22
be re-levelled/ repaired within reasonable time and cost (say within a standard vacation
period for the on-site implementation work, or otherwise without significant impact on
the operation of the school). Further guidance is given in section 3.4.2 below.
In buildings with large floor-plates, absolute differential settlement limits may be
unnecessarily restrictive, where a focus on utility only may determine that the floor slope
is acceptable. In such cases, designers should consider the potential impact of large
absolute settlements separately, in discussion with the Ministry.
The Ministry will work with designers to determine acceptable performance and
relevelling criteria (i.e. serviceability limit states) for sites where rigid adherence to the
NZBC guidance may otherwise generate an inefficient solution, that is, where the
foundation cost would otherwise be disproportionately high.
3.4
Structural Considerations for New Buildings
All new school buildings shall be designed in accordance with the Building Code, as
extended by these guidelines. This will require structural designers to consider further
matters including those outlined in this section.
3.4.1
Design Loading and Philosophy
Loadings should be generally calculated in accordance with AS/NZS1170, for the

applicable importance levels. The current Importance Level (IL) requirements with
examples of how they relate to Ministry of Education buildings are provided in Table 4
below.
Table 4: Importance Levels for School Buildings
Description
Low consequence for
loss of human life, or
small or moderate
economic, social or
environmental
consequences
Medium consequence
for loss of human life,
or considerable
economic, social or
environmental
consequences
High consequence for
loss of human life, or
very great economic,
social or environmental
consequences
Importance
Level
IL1
IL2
IL3
Building Code
requirement
MoE examples/ clarifications
Structures of floor area

<30 m2; isolated
structures, fences,
masts, walls, in-ground
swimming pools
Separated ancillary structures

that are not usually occupied
(failure not likely to endanger
human life)
Normal structures and

structures not falling into
other levels
Buildings of lower occupancy

(classrooms and administration
buildings with <250 people),
boiler houses
Structures containing
crowds as a whole
including primary or
secondary school
buildings with capacity
>250 [1]
Assembly halls, gymnasiums,

large classroom buildings [2]
Notes:
1.
Building occupancy numbers should be determined on the basis of possible

future occupancy as well as currently predicted numbers or numbers supplied
by the schools. In general, the occupant numbers determined under the fire
provisions (NZ Building Code, Compliance Document for C1, C2, C3, C4)
should apply.
23
2.
Building areas are approximate only, based on Table 2.2 of Acceptable

solution C/AS1, and are noted here for guidance only.
Design of structures shall meet the New Zealand Building Code. Designers may either
demonstrate compliance through use of the Acceptable Solutions, or by use of
Alternative Solutions, provided that prior Ministry approval should be sought where this
is contemplated.
In addition to the seismic load cases calculated in accordance with the loadings standard,
school buildings of heavy construction and of more than one storey with concrete
suspended floors shall be checked against SLS2 criteria for earthquake shaking with a
return period of 100/250 years. This is over and above the minimum requirements of
the NZ Building Code. Refer to section 2.3 above. In practice, this need not require
consideration of more than one design load case, by designing to SLS2 with reduced
design ductility limits and then meeting the ULS case by increasing the available member
ductility.
Designers are generally expected to follow the recommendations of AS/NZS1170 when
verifying compliance with SLS1 and SLS2 requirements. Under appropriate
circumstances, these criteria may be relaxed with specific approval from the Ministry.
Envisaged circumstances where the recommended criteria of AS/NZS1170 may be
exceeded include lightweight structures on soft or potentially liquefiable ground,
provided that it can be demonstrated that:
3.4.2
the building will remain usable

the building may be relatively easily repaired
the repairs may be implemented over standard holiday periods and/or without
impact on the operation of the school.
a suitable repair methodology has been developed, as discussed in section 3.4.3.
Foundations
Noting the above sections, it is essential that structural engineers and geotechnical
engineers work together to achieve a fully integrated approach to the selection and
design of foundation systems. The nature of the site, the form of the structure and the
materials used need to be compatible in order to achieve the most favourable outcome
of reasonable cost and desired performance.
It should be understood that a component by component approach to cost control may
lead to an undesirable combination of materials, form and configuration if performance
both in-service and under extreme events is not taken into consideration. This is
particularly important on poorer ground.
In considering foundation performance, it is critical that the natural deformation capacity
of the proposed superstructure is taken into account. For sites where earthquake
shaking-induced ground deformation is likely to happen, the increased ductility demand
implied by the possible ground deformation should be added to that which may be
expected from the shaking itself, when considering appropriate detailing.
Building designs that are able to accommodate movement, under either static or
dynamic loading, without structural failure may be deemed acceptable if they are readily
repairable (refer below for guidance). However, designers need to consider the
implication of cycles of deformation and repair, in assessing ductility demand and likely
repair solutions.
24
Further guidance on suitable foundation and structural combinations for different soil
classifications is given in Tables B1 to B3 in Appendix B.
3.4.3
Repairability
In buildings that have been designed to accommodate potential foundation movement,

designers must give suitable consideration to the type and extent of repairs that may be
required following the movement (including building services). In general, for
movement that results from static loads and/or low to moderate levels of shaking,
reinstatement of the building should be able to be completed using conventional repair
methods and over a timeframe (on site) no longer than a normal holiday shut-down
period (notionally, two weeks). The building must be usable in the interim.
Any building repair (including foundation re-levelling) that is anticipated during the
design life of a structure shall be agreed with the Ministry and details included in the
Design Features Report (starting at Concept Design Stage), which should provide a
method statement(s) demonstrating that this is practically achievable and provide an
indication of the extent, duration and cost of anticipated repair work.
3.5
Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings
The Ministry has an ongoing programme to assess the seismic strength of school
buildings across New Zealand. The Ministrys earthquake resilience policy and related
information can be found on its online Property pages.
The Ministrys short term goal is to ensure all buildings are not earthquake-prone, with
any critical vulnerabilities addressed as soon as practicable. The medium term goal is for
all school buildings to be at or above 67% NBS, with the general exception of low-rise
timber framed construction forms which have been assessed to pose significantly less life
safety concern, unless they have one or more of the following features:
heavy roofs
sloping sites (refer below)
previous alterations that have removed walls, resulting in bracing walls greater
than 10m apart without robust diaphragm assessment or retrofit.
The Ministrys policy for importance levels for seismic load assessment of existing
buildings is detailed above in section 2.3.2.
Assessments for school buildings in greater Christchurch have been completed by
engineers using the Detailed Engineering Evaluation (DEE) reporting tool. The results of
DEE assessments are used by schools and the Ministry to help make decisions about
whether buildings need strengthening or structural enhancement.
School buildings around the rest of the country have been prioritised for assessment and
strengthening based on potential life risk considerations. Buildings have been prioritised
as Priority one (the highest priority), Priority two, and Other. The policy is summarised
below:
Priority 1: Unreinforced masonry; and multi-storey buildings of heavy

construction.
Priority 2: Single storey buildings with large open floor areas (e.g. halls and
gyms); and single storey buildings of heavy construction.
25
Other: One and two storey timber and steel framed classroom and administration
buildings; ancillary structures.
The Ministry has concentrated their resources on assessing priority buildings. Technical
briefings and templates for assessing priority buildings were issued in 2014 and updated
in June 2015, to provide guidance on the Ministrys requirements for Initial Seismic
Assessment (ISA) and Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) of school buildings.
Timber-framed classroom buildings with heavy roofs and those located on sloping sites
are to be identified in the normal course of school inspections. These may be subject to
further engineering review, if required by the Ministry.
Timber-framed school buildings with heavy roofs
Most heavy roofs on school buildings were identified and replaced with light material
following the 1998 national structural survey of school buildings. It is intended that
remaining heavy roofs will be mitigated by simple replacement in conjunction with other
scheduled maintenance, repairs and renovation projects.
Timber-framed buildings that were designed from the mid 1980s are expected to have
due allowance made in the structural design for the impact of a heavy roof. It is not
expected that the buildings that utilised NZS4203:1992 in their design will require to
have the existing heavy roof replaced. However if due to durability, maintenance or
workmanship issues a heavy roof needs replacing, then it is expected that a light weight
roof will be utilised.
Timber-framed school buildings on sloping sites
For the purposes of this evaluation, a sloping site is considered to be a slope exceeding 1
in 8, as shown in the diagram below.
Figure 6: Sloping Ground Definition
Natural
Ground
1
8
It is expected that there would have been some original engineering input for school
buildings built on a slope. If there are substantial down slope cross-bracing elements
present or the building is supported by a reinforced concrete or reinforced concrete block
retaining wall that is not showing any signs of movement, then no assessment is
required. If neither of these are present then an engineer should be commissioned to
26
check the adequacy of its subfloor bracing to meet full code wind and 67% current code
earthquake loads.
Timber-framed school buildings with internal walls removed
Unless there is evidence that an engineer was involved and the work was consented
when previous alterations have removed bracing walls, resulting in remaining bracing
walls being greater than 10m apart, an engineer should be commissioned in the next
five years to check the adequacy of the remaining roof/floor diaphragm and bracing
elements. If these prove to be inadequate, the building should be upgraded to meet
Ministry policy requirements.
3.6
Building Alterations and Additions
The following guidance is provided based on established good practice and experience
gained from observations of building performance during the Canterbury earthquakes:
Building additions/alterations - general
Additions/alterations should use the same foundation system as for the existing
building unless suitable consideration is given to the design of movement-tolerant
building elements (e.g. seismic joints).
Extensions to reinforced concrete floor slabs should be dowelled to control vertical

movements and the need to provide for lateral movement at the joint should be
suitably considered.
Careful consideration shall be given to the potential variability in the ground

conditions beneath the old and new parts of the building and movement-tolerant
joints incorporated where differential foundation movement is anticipated.
Building additions/alterations good ground
For additions/alterations to concrete floor slabs and/or ground beams then joins
should be dowelled to control vertical movements with some repairable lateral
extension provided for.
Consider weather-tightness associated with the interface of the old and new
superstructure elements.
Building additions/alterations poor or liquefiable ground
Mixing piled foundations with shallow foundations, for the same building, should
be avoided (even if a seismic gap is provided).
Allowance for movement
Movement joints should be installed as noted in section 3.1.2 above. If the

aggregate floor plate is small enough it may be possible to tie additions to
existing floor slabs, but the impact of differential movement shall be addressed.
If the potential for differential movement is too great, a full separation may be
required and independent vertical and lateral load systems may be needed.
3.7
Non-Structural Systems
3.7.1
General
The performance of non-structural systems (including drainage, water supply,

communications infrastructure, mechanical and electrical plant and equipment, cladding
and secondary structural elements such as ceiling systems and partitions) has in practice
27
been one of the major determining factors in the post-earthquake operability of

buildings, regardless of structural damage. As a significant component of community
resilience, it is important that school buildings remain operational after significant events
such as earthquakes. Therefore, designers should take care to ensure that all elements
of buildings are suitably addressed.
In general the non-structural systems of a school building should meet the same
performance requirements as required of the building as a whole (refer section 3.4.1).
This means that:
After an SLS1 earthquake, all aspects of the building should be fully operational,
needing only readily implemented repairs that do not materially impact on use.
After an SLS2 earthquake, a building should be able to be used as intended, but

with repairable damage that may be completed over periods such as the
scheduled vacations.
All non-structural systems, but in particular those which may impact on the continued
use of a school building, must be appropriately detailed in accordance with the relevant
standards or good practice for the required loads and/or movements calculated from
NZS 1170.
3.7.2
Cladding
Heavy and potentially brittle cladding such as bricks or precast concrete shall not be
located where students may congregate or adjacent to access and egress paths, except
at low level. Refer also to section 2.6.
When considering the use of heavy cladding, the architectural and structural engineering
implications should be considered in a holistic fashion. Brick cladding is a robust durable
system that has many advantages for school buildings when considered over the whole
building life, but it may not be suitable for all locations, with consideration of
geotechnical conditions, seismic load and falling hazard.
It should be noted that the additional seismic mass of the cladding system may impose a
considerable penalty on the design of lateral load systems, in cases where the overall
seismic load significantly exceeds the wind load and on soft ground. The impact will vary
according to a number of factors, but is less likely to apply for areas where the seismic
Hazard Factor, Z, is lower than 0.3. If comparing whole-of-life costings for cladding
systems, the added impact of the heavy cladding system should include a factor to allow
for additional foundations and lateral bracing.
3.7.3
Partitions
Partitions shall be protected from damage either by limiting seismic drift of the primary
structure to less than the drift which causes onset of damage for the partitions, or by
providing seismic protection to the partitions (such as sliding head restraints).
3.7.4
Ceiling Systems
In general, ceilings must be laterally secured and designers must consider deformation
compatibility in the detailing of edges and junctions with structural elements; and where
the ceiling may interact with other non-structural elements such as light fittings,
sprinklers and partitions.
28
Suspended ceiling systems, where used, shall be designed in accordance with AS/NZS
2785, for loads in accordance with NZS1170.5.
3.7.5
Building Services
Mechanical and electrical systems (including ICT and security system elements) shall be
secured in accordance with NZS4219. Unless the design of ceiling systems has
specifically considered the additional weight and behaviour of services in the design of
lateral restraint, all suspended services elements shall have independent lateral and
vertical restraint.
Deformation compatibility with other non-structural elements and with primary structure
must be considered in the configuration and design of building services and supporting
elements.
3.7.6
Glazing
Glazing systems shall be designed with sufficient clearance to accommodate the full
lateral displacement implied by the design level wind or earthquake, with allowance for
inelastic drift calculated in accordance with NZS1170.5.
The Ministry recommends safety film be applied to overhead clerestory glazing panels
and glazing above egress ways in existing buildings in higher seismic locations.
3.7.7
Building Services
The potential interaction between buildings (and particularly the building foundation
elements) may impact on building services. This is especially the case where the design,
as agreed with the Ministry, anticipates and allows for significant ground and foundation
movement. In this case the ability of services to tolerate differential movement must be
addressed. Where necessary, potential repair strategies must be developed to cover the
building services, generally as noted in section 3.4.3.
29
APPENDIX A: PROJECT & SITE CONSTRAINTS TABLE

Purpose: for the master plan or design team consultant to outline key physical and
other project constraints, and confirm how these have been, or are to be, addressed.
The completed table should "tell a story" by succinctly communicating what the key site
issues/constraints (and possibly opportunities) are and how these have influenced the
design solution.
The appended table should be progressively filled in as information becomes available.
The headings may be used as prompts for pre-existing information. The table may be
downloaded electronically from the Ministry of Educations online Property pages.
30
Project and Site Constraints Table

Project name:
XX school
Design Stage/ Revision:

Master Planning
Version No. and Date

Version X
yy/mm/dd
Purpose: for the design team to outline (and communicate) key physical and other (eg cultural, financial,
amenity) project constraints/opportunities and confirm how these have been, or are to be, addressed. The
completed table should "tell a story" by succinctly communicating what the key site
issues/constraints/opportunities are and how these have influenced the design solution. It is envisaged that this
information will form the basis for the Design Features Report (or similar) that will ultimately document the
decisions made along the way to arriving at the final built form. Identifying the "magnitude" of the issues (i.e. the
level of potential consequence and/or the risk level) will help to ensure people reviewing and signing-off at
various design stages have confidence that the key site issues have been identified and addressed (or at least, will
be addressed in subsequent development stages).
Commence this section (blue) at Master Plan/Concept
Design and develop through onward design stages
Constraints
Summarise hazard or
event impact (without
treatment)
List title, agency and date
of relevant report(s)
Proposed treatment(s)
or strategies to address
issues/constraints
Briefly list other options
considered that may have been
discarded
(will help demonstrate robustness
of treatment strategy).
Enter N/A if not applicable; outline
any future investigations planned
Geotechnical
Has intrusive testing been undertaken on the site? If
so, what are the findings? Has a geotechnical model
been developed for the site demonstrating the
constraints and opportunities for development?
Could groundwater depth impact on site
development?
Compressible silts or peats or other soil? Timedependent issues such as building additions that
might settle more than pre-existing elements?
Expansive soils?
Liquefiable ground - excessive vertical settlements?

Lateral spreading that could impact on buildings?
Rock fall that could impact on school grounds?
Landslide(s) that could impact on school grounds?
Sloping ground generally
Land erosion e.g. tunnel gullies, slippage, coastal
erosion?
Buried services likely to be impacted by liquefaction?
Any areas of uncontrolled fill on site?
Refer to geotechnical
model demonstrating
opportunities and
constraints. Key points
summarised here.
Groundwater depth (m)
and potential variation.
Depth to top of layer and
layer thickness (m)
Reactivity classification,
potential soil movement,
etc.
SLS and ULS settlements,
for IL2 building (mm)
ULS lateral stretch and/or
spreading (mm)
Due to seismic, rainfall,
vegetation?
Due to seismic, rainfall,
vegetation?
Peak and average slope
Type and extent, diagram?
Type and extent, diagram?
Depth and extent diagram?
31
Other geotechnical/geological issues that could

impact on the development?
List all available reports.
Civil
Are there any water run-off or ponding issues on the
site? Is the site prone to flooding - has there been a
check of existing site ground levels against the
following:
50 yr flood inundation zone impact on the site?
Could be presented on a
plan to show extents of
inundated areas and
constraints/opportunities.
200 yr flood inundation zone impact on the site?

On site stormwater retention/detention? Capacity of
local reticulation network?
Any fill required to be placed on site?
What is the peak flow

capacity of the network
system and how does this
compare with the
estimated flows due to
site development?
Estimated volume of cut
to fill and any imported fill
requirements? Could any
filled areas exacerbate
existing geotechnical
issues, or cause new
issues?
Any retaining structures required?

Sewage disposal - onsite/offsite? Capacity of local
reticulation network?
What is the peak flow

capacity of the network
system and how does this
compare with the
estimated flows due to
site development?
Other civil engineering-related issues that could

impact on the development?
Buildings
Refer to seismic assessment reports (e.g. Initial
Seismic Assessment/ISA, Detailed Seismic
Assessment/DSA, earthquake damage Detailed
Engineering Evaluation/DEE) and any available
weathertightness reports. Summarise key issues
(including areas of significant building damage).
Are there any heritage listed buildings? Note these
and provide commentary.
Any snow loading issues?
Any high wind issues?
Is there any available floor level survey data and are
there any conclusions/findings for future building
design?
Any other building/structural-related issues that
could impact on development?
List all available structural-related reports.
Fire protection - review/ confirm the need for
sprinklers
Masonry veneer - refer MoE Guidelines
32
Weathertightness reviews?
Infrastructure
Refer to any available reports (e.g. earthquake
damage reports) and summarise key issues.
Other infrastructure-related issues that could impact
on the development?
Traffic
Site access issues?
Opportunity for on-site student drop-off?
Separation of staff/visitor traffic and student dropoff?
Proximity of car parking to Administration building?
Potential pedestrian/vehicle conflict areas?
Other traffic-related issues that could impact on
development?
Road noise?
Air traffic noise?
Land contamination
Building demolition has occurred historically at the
site? Are there, or could there be any residual soil
contamination issues? Any history of asbestos use
(e.g. building roofing/cladding materials, pipe
lagging, insulation)?
Does the site, or parts of the site, appear on the
'Hazardous Activities and Industries List' (HAIL)
register, or any other register (such as the 'Listed
Land Use Register' (LLUR) in Canterbury)?
Old landfill areas?
Other contamination-related issues that could
impact on development?
Could there be asbestos

contaminated ground that
might be disturbed during
site development?
Old Underground Storage

Tanks (USTs) on site, or
have any been removed?
If UST removal has
occurred in the past, was
any associated
contaminated soil cleaned
up?
Safety-in-design
Any maintenance aspects that require access at
height?
Any maintenance aspects that require access in
confined space?
Safety issues to operate the building(s)
Adequate passive surveillance across the site
33
APPENDIX B: BUILDING TYPE AND FOUNDATION MATRICES

GUIDANCE ON USE OF THESE TABLES
The purpose of these tables is to provide guidance to designers on the preferred
combinations of structure and foundation type for typical ground. As such, they are
generalised and may not be appropriate for every case. Note that not preferred
systems may provide adequate performance but additional design effort or special
detailing may be required.
For some sites, ground improvement may provide a cost-effective solution to improve
the site so that more conventional and cost-effective solutions may be used. In addition,
the use of easily repairable structural systems may allow further relaxation of settlement
criteria, subject to discussion with the Ministry.
There are three tables, reflecting the different site classification descriptions in
accordance with Table 3: Geotechnical Site Classification. Geotechnical engineers will
need to confirm which classification should be adopted for individual school development
sites on a case-by-case basis, using a combination of experience of the local conditions
and site-specific investigations.
On confirmation of the site classification and selection of the appropriate table, designers
may use the generic description of the building form and preferred structure type to
determine an acceptable foundation type.
Note that Table B3, for soft ground with lateral spread potential, is provided for
completeness. However, it is recommended that unless there is no alternative, school
sites are planned so that new buildings are placed away from areas with lateral spread
potential.
Example 1: A new school hall on a good soil site
Assuming the geotechnical engineer has confirmed likely settlement of less than 40mm
under SLS actions and less than 75mm under ULS actions, the site is good ground and
therefore Table B1 is appropriate.
The structural engineer has a preliminary concept of using steel braced frames for lateral
support. Hence the preferred foundation solutions are Type D or Type E respectively a
slab on grade not integral with the foundations and pads or strip footings (with tie
beams); and a raft foundation or slab with integral pad or strip footings. Piles are not
preferred.
Example 2: A new school hall on poor ground
If the same structure as example 1 was to be founded on soft ground, table B2 is
appropriate and the preferred foundation solutions are Type E, Type F or Type G. Noting
the Ministry preference for shallow foundations, the Type E option would be preferred,
with consultation with the Ministry over the possible extent of movement and with
consideration of possible relevelling in the event of movement.
As an alternative, ground improvement may be considered subject to confirmation of
applicability for the particular site. This may allow reversion to Table B1, according to
the improved conditions.
34
Example 3: A new school hall on poor ground with possible lateral spread
If the same structure as example 1 was to be founded to be placed on soft ground with
potential lateral spread, although this structural form is not preferred, Table B3 may be
used with caution (noting that there is no preferred option for such a site all structural
forms require caution). The only foundation type considered acceptable in this case is a
Type E.
As an alternative, ground improvement may be considered subject to confirmation of
applicability for the particular site. This may allow reversion to either of Table B1 or B2,
according to the improved conditions.
Notes:
1. MBIE foundations types A, B and C are in accordance with Repairing and
rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury earthquakes, December 2012.
2. The SLS and ULS settlement figures are for IL2 structures with a 50 year
design life, i.e. respectively the 25 year and the 500 year return period
shaking.
3. Lateral stretch refers to the total lateral stretch across the building footprint.
35
= preferred
= do not use
np = not preferred, use with caution
Ta b le B1 : B ui l d in g T yp e an d F o un d at io n M a tr ix G oo d G ro u nd
STRUCTURE
np
np
np
np
np
Multi-storey
np
Single storey open

(halls, gyms etc.)
np
np
MBIE Type A
Timber floor with
shallow piles
MBIE Type B
Timber floor with
perimeter footing
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
Frames
1 or 2 storey
cellular
BUILDING
FORM
Load-bearing
walls
Moment
frames
Braced
frames
Ductile
frames (>2)
Low-ductility
frames
STRUCTURAL
STEEL
Ductile walls
(>2)
CONCRETE/MASONRY
Low-ductility
walls
CATEGORY
TIMBER
FOUNDATION
TYPES
MBIE Type C
Slab on grade
Type D
Slab on grade not
integral with
separate pads or
strip footings
Type E
Raft foundation or
slab on grade
integral with pad or
strip footings
Type F
Deep piles under
foundations with
floating floor
Type G
Deep piles under
foundations with
suspended floor
36
= preferred
= do not use
Ta b le B2 : B ui l d in g T yp e an d F o un d at io n M a tr ix So ft G ro u nd
STRUCTURE
np
np
Multi-storey
np
Single storey open

(halls, gyms etc.)
np
MBIE Type A
Timber floor with
shallow piles
MBIE Type B
Timber floor with
perimeter footing
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
Frames
Low-ductility
frames
np
Ductile walls
(>2)
Low-ductility
walls
1 or 2 storey
cellular
BUILDING
FORM
Load-bearing
walls
Moment
frames
STRUCTURAL
STEEL
Braced
frames
CONCRETE/MASONRY
Ductile
frames (>2)
CATEGORY
TIMBER
FOUNDATION
TYPES
MBIE Type C
Slab on grade
Type D
Slab on grade not
integral with
separate pads or
strip footings
Type E
Raft foundation or
slab on grade
strip footings
Type F
Deep piles under
foundations with
floating floor
Type G
Deep piles under
foundations with
suspended floor
37
= preferred
= do not use
Ta b le B 3 : B ui l d in g T yp e a n d F o un d at i on M at r ix So f t Gr o un d w it h
La t e r a l S p re a d
STRUCTURE TIMBER
Type D
Slab on grade not
integral with
separate pads or
strip footings
Type E
Raft foundation or
slab on grade
strip footings
Type F
Deep piles under
foundations with
floating floor
Type G
Deep piles under
foundations with
suspended floor
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
Low-ductility
frames
np
Ductile walls
(>2)
np
Low-ductility
walls
Moment
frames
FOUNDATION
TYPES
MBIE Type A
Timber floor with
shallow piles
MBIE Type B
Timber floor with
perimeter footing
MBIE Type C
Slab on grade
Braced
frames
Single storey open

(halls, gyms etc.)
STRUCTURAL
STEEL
Ductile
frames (>2)
1 or 2 storey
cellular
Multi-storey
Frames
BUILDING
FORM
1
Load-bearing
walls
CATEGORY
CONCRETE/MASONRY
38
APPENDIX C: SPECIFIC INFORMATION FOR THE CHRISTCHURCH

SCHOOLS REBUILD PROGRAMME
C1
Geotechnical Considerations
C1.1
Canterbury Geotechnical Database
Reference to the Canterbury Geotechnical Database (CGD) should be made if and when
developing any future site specific geotechnical investigation scope of work, since there
may be considerable relevant geotechnical data available that would reduce any
investigation requirements for a particular site. Consultants must be prepared to
demonstrate that their site investigation scope is appropriate to the geotechnical hazards
likely to be present at the site. Overly conservative (and costly) investigation scopes are
to be avoided just as much as under cooked investigations. To facilitate this, any future
sub-surface geotechnical investigation data collected by the Ministry should be uploaded
to the CGD, which is a requirement of the conditions of use set out by CERA (the current
owner of the database).
The depth to groundwater beneath a site is important. A reliable and consistent source
for groundwater depths, including potential seasonal influence, is available via the CGD.
Using this source would help promote the consistent adoption of regularly updated
groundwater level information for use in liquefaction analysis in Christchurch. Any site
specific monitoring data should also be taken into consideration, if available.
Other useful information readily available from the CGD that can help develop an
informed view of the site geotechnical conditions include:
C1.2
LiDAR data (topographical data as well as information on likely overall ground

surface settlement following the earthquakes).
Ground cracking observations.
Aerial photographs following the major earthquake events.
Observed liquefaction and lateral spreading land damage.
Flooding hazard and guidance for establishing floor level elevations (this
information is available via the CCC website).
Equivalent Residential Foundation Categorisation
Although school properties are not categorised in terms of the MBIE residential
foundation technical categories, an assessment of the category that would apply to a
school site can usually be obtained by looking at the categorisations applying to the
surrounding residential properties and/or using available geotechnical investigation data
(which may be via the CGD or site specific investigations). This can be very useful to
enable appropriate residential-type foundation systems to be applied to similar type
school buildings i.e. single or two storey timber framed buildings. In general, using the
foundation systems for new buildings as outlined in the MBIE Guidelines, for residentialtype buildings, would be expected to promote economic development.
C1.3
Foundations for Light-weight Structures
Shallow foundations are likely to be appropriate for most relatively light-weight

structures within sites that have TC1, TC2 and TC3 type land characteristics. Depending
on the level of estimated future liquefaction settlement, and providing appropriate
39
consideration is made for potential lateral stretch across a building footprint, then
suitable foundation systems would likely comprise:
TC2 suitable reinforced concrete slabs (appropriately reinforced plain or waffle

slabs)
TC2/TC3 hybrid system (reinforced concrete slab overlying shallow geogrid
reinforced gravel raft)
TC3 suitable Type 1 or Type 2 surface structures (with suspended timber floor)
Typically, such foundation systems could be designed using a geotechnical ultimate

bearing capacity of 200 kPa. This corresponds to an ULS geotechnical bearing pressure
of 100 kPa and an allowable bearing capacity of approximately 70 kPa. Actual design
bearing capacities should be confirmed by site specific investigation using sufficient
existing data or supplemented by at least site specific shallow geotechnical investigations
(e.g. hand augers and Scala penetrometer tests).
It is noted that without ground improvement, light-weight single-storey buildings
founded on the above foundation systems would be more resilient but would still likely
experience liquefaction-related settlement in future moderate to strong earthquake
shaking. However, foundation repairs would be expected to be able to be readily carried
out, in conjunction with relevelling and repair of the superstructure.
To reduce the effects of ground liquefaction, and improve the expected seismic
performance of overlying buildings, then some form of ground improvement would need
to be carried out within liquefaction-susceptible soils. The type of ground improvement
depends on a range of factors including depth to groundwater, soil grain size and desired
building performance criteria (i.e. the level of tolerable settlement). Trials (by EQC) are
currently underway to confirm the expected costs of various ground improvement
schemes that would be suitable for residential-like structures (and these could also be
extended to larger buildings) and the results are expected to be made available in due
course. In conjunction with ground improvement it is expected that residential-like
structures could use TC2-type foundations e.g. reinforced concrete slabs and waffle
slabs. Ground improvement options are described in detail within the MBIE Guidelines,
but the main forms include:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Geogrid reinforced gravel raft

Insitu or exsitu soil stabilisation to form an enhanced crust
Stone columns and Rammed Aggregate Piers (RAP)
Soil densification (e.g. rapid impact consolidation, timber piles)
Deep soil mixing
Amongst the factors noted above, selection of the optimum ground improvement would
also typically involve:
C1.4
Deep geotechnical site investigation

Availability of working room
Noise and/or vibration sensitive receptors in the vicinity
Foundations for Heavy-weight Structures
In general, larger buildings using heavy weight construction materials, or with

concentrated foundation loads, such as auditoriums, multi-level reinforced concrete
structures and heavily loaded portal frame buildings would generally be expected to be
40
founded on deep piled foundations if on sites that have TC2 and TC3 type land
characteristics. Although deeper piled foundations could be used for relatively lightweight buildings (e.g. single to two storey classrooms) the most cost effective
foundations systems for these types of structures would generally be shallow footings.
In general, deep pile foundations may be suitable if founded within the dense to very
dense sand of the Christchurch Formation or in dense to very dense gravel within the
Riccarton Gravel Formation. The depth below the ground surface to each of these soils
formations varies considerably from site to site, and in some cases, across a particular
site. In many cases there are likely to be liquefaction susceptible layers within the
Christchurch Formation, which would influence pile design parameters. Therefore, the
design of deep piles will need to be based on site-specific deep geotechnical
investigation.
Piles that pass through soil layers that undergo settlement relative to the pile need to
factor in negative skin friction, i.e. downdrag, loads.
Pile design will also need to consider lateral loads and displacements imposed by
earthquake shaking.
In many cases it may be practicable to use lighter weight construction materials for
these larger buildings and then use a geotextile reinforced gravel raft (or possibly
localised compacted gravel pads/trenches) in conjunction with shallow foundations such
as foundation pads, ground beams or reinforced concrete slabs potentially using localised
internal and edge thickenings. If future liquefaction settlements were considered to be
significant, then re-levellable shallow foundations may provide a cost-effective solution.
Other options may include reinforced concrete raft slab or ground improvement.
C1.5
Return Period for Liquefaction Triggering
Although very dependent on site specific conditions, it is noted that, in general,

liquefaction of a significant part of the soil column in central and eastern Christchurch is
often triggered at a ground acceleration of approximately 0.2 to 0.24g, which
corresponds to a return period of about 1 in 150 years to 1 in 200 years. This indicates
that significant earthquake related land disruption is likely to occur at shaking levels well
below the ULS design level (1 in 500 years for an IL2 structure or 1 in 1,000 years for an
IL3 structure).
41
C2
Earthquake Damage Repairs
As approximately 90% of the Ministrys school property portfolio is of timber framed lowrise construction, most buildings responded well during the Canterbury earthquakes.
Earthquake damage can be typically manifest in areas that comprise:
buildings: structural damage (significant effects of settlement, lateral spread,

changed relationship to finished ground levels)
buildings: non-structural damage (interior finishes and external surfaces or nonstructural cladding)
external hardstand & paving (footpaths, roadways & car parking)
underground services (sewer, stormwater and other essential services)
external playing areas (grassed sports fields)
swimming pools (and associated facilities).
Major structural damage to buildings, external hardstand and underground infrastructure

should be remediated.
Medium levels of damage such as moderate building settlement may require remediation
depending on other factors such as visible distress to finishes or cladding, or identified
vulnerabilities to liquefaction or flooding.
Minor and medium levels of damage may be deferred for inclusion in future planned
maintenance. This will enable the school and the Ministry to apply some judgement in
directing available funds towards essential outcomes, such as those associated with
quality teaching and learning areas.
Minor damage could typically include:
hairline cracking to interior room finishes
floor settlement to buildings of less than 50mm and slopes in finished floors that
do not exceed falls of 1 in 200
hairline cracking to external paved surfaces
hairline cracking to underground storm or sewer pipes that does not affect the
immediate serviceability of the service.
Moderate damage could typically include:
cracking to interior room finishes
floor settlement to buildings greater than 50mm but less than 100mm and slopes
in finished floors that exceed falls of 1 in 200
dipping in sewer or storm pipes, prolific cracking, but where the pipes are still
serviceable
liquefaction debris not yet cleaned away due to access restrictions.
Major Structural damage could typically include:
large cracks in interior or exterior finishes
significant cracks in structural elements

42
floor settlement to buildings more than 100mm and slopes in finished floors that
exceed falls of 1 in 200
visible distress signs in finishes, components or cladding
significant effects of lateral spreading
significant effects of differential settlement
settlement in flood plain areas
significant cracking, dipping or lack of gradient impairing serviceability.
43
Published by the New Zealand Ministry of Education, June 2015
St Pauls Square, 45-47 Pipitea Street
PO Box 1666, Thorndon
Wellington 6011, New Zealand.
www.education.govt.nz
Copyright Crown 2015

This publication is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study,
research, criticism or review, or permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced without
the permission of the Ministry of Education, New Zealand.
44

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines For School Design MOE NZ

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines For School Design MOE NZ

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ministry of Education

Engineering Strategy Group

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

Endorsed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

Version 1.1, June 2015

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

Version 1.1, June 2015

Engineering Strategy Group

Holmes Consulting Group

Tonkin & Taylor

Opus International Consultants

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

Version 1.1, June 2015

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

Version 1.1, June 2015

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines: Objectives ....................................... 6

Design Principles ....................................................................................... 6

Design Standards and Relevant Guidelines ................................................... 6

Engineering Involvement ........................................................................... 7

Ministry Design Requirements ....................................................................................... 8

Load Levels for Seismic Design and Assessment ........................................... 9

Shallow Foundation Systems .................................................................... 11

System and Element Ductility ................................................................... 11

Masonry Veneer ...................................................................................... 12

Engineering Design Guidance...................................................................................... 17

Project Documentation ............................................................................ 20

Geotechnical Considerations ..................................................................... 21

Structural Considerations for New Buildings ............................................... 23

Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings ................................................... 25

Building Alterations and Additions ............................................................. 27

Non-Structural Systems ........................................................................... 27

Appendix A: Project & Site Constraints Table .................................................................... 30

Geotechnical Considerations ..................................................................... 39

Earthquake Damage Repairs .................................................................... 42

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines: Objectives

Version 1.1, June 2015

To ensure efficient and economic design and construction practice is incorporated

To provide guidance on the preferred configuration of school buildings to achieve

To communicate where departures are required from conventional design in order

To highlight particular aspects of the historical performance of the Ministrys

To provide a design that achieves a balance between minimising the damage

To provide a building that is likely to remain usable after a reasonably foreseeable

Design Standards and Relevant Guidelines

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

Version 1.1, June 2015

Ministry of Education, Understanding the Seismic Performance of Timber Framed

Ministry of Education, Weather-tightness and Durability Requirements for School

Aurecon, Two-Storey Nelson Blocks Physical Inspections of Existing Buildings

Ministry of Education, Guidelines for the Seismic Evaluation of Timber Framed

Ministry of Education, Catalogue of Standard School Building Types, August 2013.

Ministry of Education, Report on Structural Testing of a Standard Classroom Block

Ministry of Education, Report on Structural Testing of a Standard Classroom Block

D. Brunsdon, J. Finnegan, N. Evans, G. Beattie, D. Carradine, J. Sheppard & B.

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design

MINISTRY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

Version 1.1, June 2015

It is essential that information which is discovered about a project or site is made

Project and Site Constraints

Design Features Report

Structural and Geotechnical Guidelines for School Design