Earthquake geotechnical

engineering practice
MODULE 1: Overview of the guidelines
 1

Acknowledgements

NZGS/MBIE Editorial Panel Mike Stannard Ministry of Business, Innovation

Prof Misko Cubrinovski University of Canterbury and Employment (MBIE)
(lead author) Nick Traylen Geotech Consulting Ltd,
Dr Kevin McManus McManus Geotech Ltd MBIEs Engineering Advisory Group
(lead author) Rick Wentz Wentz Pacific Ltd
Charlie Price MWH Global, (NZGS Chair) EQC
John Scott Ministry of Business, Innovation Particularly Hugh Cowan, Richard Smith
and Employment (MBIE)
NZGS Management
Dr Gilles Seve Ministry of Business, Innovation Particularly Gavin Alexander, Beca; Kevin Anderson,
and Employment (MBIE) AECOM

Document Status
ISBN 978-0-947497-29-3 (print) While the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
ISBN 978-0-947497-51-4 (online) and the New Zealand Geotechnical Society have taken care
in preparing this document, it is only a guide and, if used,
New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS) and Ministry of does not relieve any person of the obligation to consider
Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) guidelines for any matter to which that information relates, according
Earthquake Geotechnical Practice in New Zealand. to the circumstances of the case. All users should satisfy
Rev 0 themselves as to the applicability of the content and
should not act on the basis of any matter contained in
Issue Date March 2016
this document without considering, and if necessary,
taking appropriate professional advice.
New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS)
c/ Institution of Professional Engineers The document may be updated from time to time and
New Zealand the latest version is available from the Ministrys website
PO Box 12241 at www.building.govt.nz or the New Zealand Geotechnical
Wellington 6013 Societys website at http://www.nzgs.org/publications/
guidelines.htm.
Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE)
Building System Performance Branch
Important Notice
PO Box 1473
Wellington 6140 This document is preliminary and the contents should be
treated as draft guidelines. Submissions by the geotechnical
community to the Society are encouraged, after which a
Disclaimer
further review will be undertaken. The contents may be
This document is published by the Chief Executive of MBIE as subject to further changes, additions, and deletions.
guidance under section 175 of the Building Act 2004 to assist
parties to comply with their obligations under the Building Copyright
Act 2004. The copyright owner authorises reproduction of this work,
in whole or in part, so long as no charge is made for the
It is not mandatory to follow the guidance, but if followed:
supply of copies, and the integrity and attribution of the
i t does not relieve any person of the obligation to contributors and publishers of the document is not interfered
consider any matter to which that information relates with in any way.
according to the circumstances of the particular case;
users should consider taking appropriate professional
advice prior to entering into a construction contract
which incorporates all or parts of this document.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE b
 module 1 contents

Contents
Preface ii 6 Guideline modules 16

6.1 Module 1: Overview of the guidelines 16

1 Introduction 1 6.2 Module 2: Geotechnical investigation
for earthquake engineering 16
1.1 Objective 2
6.3 Module 3: Identification, assessment,
1.2 Intended audience 2 and mitigation of liquefaction hazards 17
1.3 Professional collaboration 3 6.4 Module 4: Earthquake resistant
1.4 General assessment principles 3 foundation design 17
6.5 Module 5: Ground improvement 17
2 Scope 4 6.6 Module 5A: Specification of ground
improvement for residential properties
in the Canterbury region 18
3 Geotechnical considerations 6.7 Module 6: Retaining walls 18
for the built environment 5
7 References 19

4 Earthquake geotechnical hazards 7

Appendix A. Unweighted peak
4.1 Fault rupture 8 ground accelerations and effective
4.2 Ground shaking 8 earthquake magnitudes 20
4.3 Liquefaction and lateral spreading 9
4.4 Landslides and rockfalls 10
Appendix B. New Zealand Building
4.5 Tsunami 10 Regulatory System 27

5 Estimating ground B.1 Overview of the Regulatory System 27

motion parameters 11 B.1.1 Building Act 27
B.1.2 Building Code 27
5.1 Method 1: Risk-based method using
earthquake hazard estimates presented B.2 The Status and Relevance of the MBIE Guidelines
in the NZTA Bridge Manual 12 for Residential Houses in Canterbury 29

5.2 Method 2: Site-specific probabilistic seismic

hazard analysis 14
5.3 Method 3: Site-response analysis 15

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE i
preface 1

Preface
These guidelines for Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Practice in New Zealand were originated
by a working group of the New Zealand Geotechnical Society. The idea for the working group came
from a panel discussion Geotechnical Seismic Design Standards which took place during the NZGS
Biennial Symposium Earthquakes and Urban Development held in Nelson from 1718 February 2006.

The main impetus for the panel discussion was the As a result of the Canterbury earthquakes, the New
replacement of NZS 4203:1992 Standard for General Zealand Government established the Canterbury
Structural Design and Design Loading for Buildings, Earthquakes Royal Commission (CERC) to consider the
by NZS 1170.5:2004 Structural Design Actions Part 5: adequacy of current legal and best practice requirements
Earthquake actions New Zealand. While far from for the design, construction, and maintenance of buildings
complete, NZS 4203 gave some useful guidance in the context of earthquake risk. Seven volumes of
to geotechnical practitioners. However, NZS 1170.5 reports were published with 189 recommendations.
specifically excludes design of soil retaining structures Of these recommendations, 175 sit with MBIE to execute
and civil structures including dams and bunds, the effects with about 20 percent relating to geotechnical issues.
of slope instability, and soil liquefaction.
The CERC reports resulted in a large and critically
Even with the very limited guidance given in NZS 4203, important work programme for MBIE requiring the
there was perceived to be a significant and undesirable development of more formal links with the engineering
variability within earthquake geotechnical engineering community. In 2014 MBIE signed a Memorandum of
practice in New Zealand. Ad hoc attempts were being Understanding with the New Zealand Geotechnical Society
made by individuals and organisations to interpret NZS to better align and create a shared understanding of each
1170.5 for geotechnical design in ways that were perhaps organisations objectives. It was also agreed to jointly
never intended by the authors of that standard. update the existing module on liquefaction assessment
to include latest developments resulting from the
The meeting also strongly endorsed the view that
Canterbury earthquakes and other major earthquakes
guidelines are far more desirable than codes or
worldwide, to accelerate the preparation of the additional
standards in this area. Flexibility in approach was
modules of the Guidelines, and to use the Guidelines as a
considered a key part of geotechnical engineering with
vehicle to implement many of the CERC recommendations.
the technology in this area rapidly advancing.
This document, Module 1, presents an overview of the
Financial support for this early initiative was provided
various modules that make up the Guidelines, see Section 6,
by the Department of Building and Housing (now the
introduces the subject of earthquake geotechnical
Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, MBIE).
engineering, provides context within the building regulatory
The first module of the guidelines (formerly Module 1: framework, and provides guidance for estimating ground
Guideline for the identification, assessment, and motion parameters for geotechnical design.
mitigation of liquefaction hazards) was published in
The science and practice of earthquake geotechnical
July 2010 shortly before the Darfield earthquake of
engineering is far from mature and is advancing at a rapid
September 2010 and was well received and timely,
rate. It is intended that the Guidelines will be updated
considering subsequent events. It proved very useful
periodically to incorporate new advances in the field but
in guiding practice during a period when a very large
these updates will, naturally, lag behind the very latest
number of liquefaction site assessments were carried
advances. It is important that users of this document
out following the Christchurch earthquakes and resulting
familiarise themselves with the latest advances and
widespread liquefaction.
amend the recommendations herein appropriately.
It was always the intention of the Society that additional
modules would be prepared on topics including Charlie Price Mike Stannard
foundations, retaining walls, and landslides. The impetus Chair Chief engineer
for these additional modules gained significant additional New Zealand Ministry of Business
momentum as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes. Geotechnical Society Innovation & Employment

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE ii
 1 introduction

1 Introduction
New Zealand is a high earthquake hazard region
and earthquake considerations are integral to the
design of the built environment in New Zealand.
The effects of earthquake shaking need to always
be considered in geotechnical engineering practice
and frequently are found to govern design.

Earthquake geotechnical engineering is a relatively

young discipline of civil engineering that considers
the geotechnical aspects of the wider discipline of
earthquake engineering. Geotechnical conditions are
critical to understanding the intensity and pattern of
damaging ground shaking at a site. Ground failure from
site instability, soil softening especially liquefaction,
and lateral spreading are significant earthquake hazards.
The design of foundations, retaining structures, roads,
and buried infrastructure to resist earthquake shaking
and ground failure requires special consideration.

The high seismic hazard in New Zealand and profound

relevance of earthquake geotechnical engineering
were demonstrated by the Canterbury Earthquake
Sequence. Christchurch and Canterbury were hit hard by
a series of strong earthquakes generated by previously
unmapped faults located in the vicinity or within the
city boundaries. In the period between 4 September
2010 and December 2011, the intense seismic activity
produced the magnitude (Mw) 7.1 Darfield event, the
destructive 22 February 2011 Mw 6.2 earthquake, 12 other
Mw 5 to 6 earthquakes, and over one hundred Mw 4 to 5
earthquakes. The 22 February 2011 earthquake was the
most devastating causing 185 fatalities, the collapse
of two multi-storey buildings, and the need for nearly
total rebuild of the Central Business District.

The geotechnical aspects and impacts of the

earthquakes were of economic and societal significance.
The Canterbury earthquakes triggered widespread
liquefaction in the eastern suburbs of Christchurch,
as well as rock slides, rockfalls and cliff instabilities in
the Port Hills affecting tens of thousands of residential
buildings, and causing extensive damage to the lifelines
and infrastructure over much of the city. About half
of the total economic loss could be attributed to the
geotechnical impacts of the earthquake-induced
liquefaction and rockslides.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 1
introduction 1

Neither are the Guidelines intended to be a primer on

1.1 Objective the subject of earthquake geotechnical engineering
readers are assumed to have a sound background in soil
While there is a substantial and rapidly growing body mechanics, geotechnical engineering, and earthquake
of published research on the subject of earthquake engineering. A thorough foundation for earthquake
geotechnical engineering, most of this information is geotechnical engineering is provided by Kramer (1996)
relatively dispersed in journal articles and conference and users of the Guidelines should be familiar with the
proceedings making it difficult for practising engineers material covered therein.
to keep abreast of developments and what may
The science and practice of earthquake geotechnical
be considered state of practice. There are few
engineering is advancing at a rapid rate. The users of
comprehensive text books or monographs on the
this document should familiarise themselves with recent
subject with some notable exceptions. (Kramer, 1996;
advances and interpret and apply the recommendations
Towhata, 2008).
herein appropriately.
The objective of the Guidelines is to help summarise
current practice in earthquake geotechnical engineering
with a focus on New Zealand conditions, regulatory 1.2 Intended audience
framework, and practice. The Guidelines are not intended
to be a detailed treatise of latest research in earthquake These Guidelines have been prepared, generally, for the
geotechnical engineering, which continues to advance use of qualified, practising geotechnical engineers with
rapidly. Instead, this document is intended to provide a sound background in soil mechanics, geotechnical
sound guidelines to support rational design approaches engineering, and earthquake engineering.
for everyday situations, which are informed by latest
Module 2: Site Investigations, is intended to be used by
research. Complex and unusual situations are not
both qualified, practising geotechnical engineers and
covered. In these cases special or site-specific studies
engineering geologists to guide planning and execution
are considered more appropriate.
of geotechnical investigations.
The main purpose of the Guidelines is to promote
Module 4: Foundations, and Module 6: Retaining Walls,
consistency of approach to everyday engineering
will also be of interest to practising structural engineers
practice in New Zealand and, thus, improve geotechnical-
although it is intended that they should work in close
earthquake aspects of the performance of the built
collaboration with geotechnical engineering professionals
environment.
to develop designs for significant building foundations
These Guidelines are not a book of rules users are and retaining structures.
assumed to be qualified, practicing geotechnical
engineering professionals with sufficient experience
to apply professional judgement in interpreting and
applying the recommendations contained herein.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 2
 1 introduction

1.3 Professional collaboration 1.4 General assessment principles

Geotechnical considerations are crucial to successful Earthquake geotechnical engineering problems
designs for any part of the built environment, especially require adequate treatment in all phases of the
in New Zealands high earthquake hazard environment. assessment procedure, including evaluation of seismic
Successful outcomes require close collaboration among loads, site investigations, hazard identification,
the key professionals (geotechnical engineers, engineering site and soil characterisation, use of appropriate
geologists and structural engineers) to properly consider assessment methodology, analyses, interpretation
the site geology, earthquake hazards, site response, soil and engineering judgement. Consideration of
response, foundation behaviour, structural interactions uncertainties is critically important throughout the
and soil-structure system response. assessment process. The level of detail and particular
features of the assessment procedure should be balanced
A proper understanding of the site geology is essential
across all phases. They also should be appropriate for
and requires collaboration between the geotechnical
the scale of the project, the importance of the facilities
engineer and engineering geologist with inputs from
planned for the site, the level of risk associated with the
the structural engineer to understand the site
hazard and potential consequences of failure in terms of
requirements for the proposed structure and any
loss of life, economic loss, and impacts on communities.
possible site-structure interactions.
Geotechnical professionals increasingly rely on computer
A full consideration of the site response and soil
software to carry out analysis and design including
response to shaking together with a sound understanding
liquefaction assessments, slope stability assessments,
of the structural response including soil-structure
foundation design, and advanced numerical modelling
interaction is essential to make appropriate selections
using finite element and finite difference methods.
of suitable foundation types or ground treatments,
The benefits include increased productivity and, when
requiring close collaboration between the geotechnical
used properly, useful additional insights from parametric
and structural engineers.
studies and rapid prototyping.
Geotechnical and structural engineers may have different
However, users need to have a sound understanding
performance objectives in mind, or simply do not clearly
of the analysis methods being implemented within
understand what each discipline contributes or is able to
each software package including the inherent limitations
contribute to the design process, or what actually matters
and uncertainties of each, otherwise the results may
for design (Oliver et al, 2013).
be misleading and potentially dangerous. The quality
Close collaboration does not mean each professional and reliability of the outputs directly depends on the
preparing a report and sending the other a copy. It means quality of the inputs mainly soil parameters that
sitting down together and sharing each professionals are intrinsically variable and difficult to measure.
perspective of the project and coming to a shared Uncertainties in both input parameters and output results
understanding of all of the issues and interactions should be considered by use of parametric and sensitivity
required for a successful outcome. The result would ideally studies, and by use of multiple analysis methods or
be a joint report outlining the expected performance of models. It remains the professional responsibility of
the site, ground, foundations, and structure including the user to interpret and validate the results based
their critical interactions. on expertise and engineering judgement.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 3
scope 1

2 Scope
The material in this document relates specifically to earthquake hazards and should not be assumed
to have wider applicability. It is intended to provide general guidance for earthquake geotechnical
engineering practice in New Zealand.

The recommendations in this document are intended The recommendations made in this document may
to be applied to every day engineering practice by seem excessive or burdensome for very small projects
qualified and experienced geotechnical engineering such as single unit dwellings. The intention is that
professionals who are expected to also apply sound earthquake hazards (and all geotechnical hazards) should
engineering judgement in adapting the recommendations be properly investigated and assessed at the subdivision
to each particular situation. Complex and unusual stage of development when appropriate expenditures
situations are not covered. In these cases special or can be more easily justified. Simpler investigations
site-specific studies are considered more appropriate and assessments would be then likely be adequate for
and additional guidance sought. individual sites. Professional judgement needs to be
applied in all cases.
Other documents may provide more specific guidelines
or rules for specialist structures, and these should, in More specific guidance has been issued by MBIE for
general, take precedence over this document. the repair and rebuilding of residential dwelling
foundations in the Canterbury earthquake region
Examples include:
(MBIE, 2012) and this should take precedence over these
New Zealand Society on Large Dams Guidelines. However, the MBIE Guidance is specifically
Dam Safety Guidelines for use within the Canterbury earthquake region only
NZ Transport Agency Bridge Manual and it may not be appropriate to use it elsewhere.
Transpower New Zealand Transmission
Structure Foundation Manual.

Where significant discrepancies are identified

among different guidelines and design manuals, it
is the responsibility of the engineer to resolve such
discrepancies as far as practicable.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 4
 considerations for the
1 built environment

3 Geotechnical considerations
for the built environment
Clause B1 of the Building Code expands on the general time-dependent effects such as creep and shrinkage
purpose of the Building Act to ensure safety by including removal of support.
objectives to:
Site-work is required to be carried out so as to provide
safeguard people from injury caused by
stability for construction and to avoid the likelihood of
structural failure
damage to other property. It must achieve this while
safeguard people from loss of amenity caused taking account of:
by structural behaviour
changes in ground water level
protect other property from physical damage
water, weather and vegetation
caused by structural failure.
ground loss and slumping.
Buildings, building elements and site-works are required
to have a low probability of: Geotechnical considerations are clearly an essential
part of the design and construction of any building
rupturing, becoming unstable, losing equilibrium
development. Failing to demonstrate compliance with the
or collapsing during construction, alteration,
above requirements because of geotechnical deficiencies
and throughout their lives
would result in failure to obtain a building consent.
causing loss of amenity through undue
deformation, vibratory response, degradation, or Issue of a building consent would also be dependent on the
other physical characteristics throughout their land generally meeting the stability requirements of the
lives, during construction, alteration, or when Resource Management Act. Section 106 gives a consenting
the building is in use. authority the power to refuse a subdivision consent if
the land is subject to erosion, subsidence, slippage or
Account is required to be taken of various physical inundation. Section 220 refers to similar criteria.
conditions including:
Geotechnical considerations are crucial to successful
earthquake
design of any part of the built environment. There is a
earth pressure strong need to raise awareness of the importance of the
differential movement application of geotechnical skills and knowledge in every

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 5
considerations for the
built environment 1

aspect of building developments. This will involve

the following:
a review of the geological, seismological, and
geotechnical context of the development site
specific investigation and gathering of geotechnical
and related data
development of geotechnical design parameters
appropriate to the building development and
the site
due account of geotechnical considerations in
the design of the building development so that
it meets the requirements of the building code
due consideration of geotechnical factors,
including overall land stability, prior to the issue
of resource and building consents
review of geotechnical conditions and modification
of design details as necessary during construction.

While not explicitly stated, for each of these factors,

due consideration of the effects of earthquakes
(ground shaking, ground deformation and failure,
and fault displacements) must clearly be included in
every geotechnical assessment.

A more detailed overview of the New Zealand building

regulatory system is given in Appendix B.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 6
 1 earthquake hazards

4 Earthquake geotechnical hazards

Earthquakes are sudden ruptures of the
earths crust caused by accumulating stresses
(elastic strain-energy) resulting from internal
processes of the planet. Ruptures propagate
over approximately planar surfaces called faults
releasing large amounts of strain energy.
Energy radiates from the rupture as seismic
waves. These waves are attenuated, refracted,
and reflected as they travel through the earth,
eventually reaching the surface where they
cause ground shaking. Surface waves
(Rayleigh and Love waves) are generated
where body waves (p-waves and s-waves)
interact with the earths surface.

The principal geotechnical hazards associated

with earthquakes are:
1 Fault rupture
2 Ground shaking
3 Liquefaction and lateral spreading
4 Landslides and rockfalls
5 Tsunami.

Each of these hazards is described in more detail below.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 7
earthquake hazards 1

4.1 Fault rupture 4.2 Ground shaking

For shallow earthquakes, the fault rupture may extend Ground shaking is one of the principal seismic hazards
to the ground surface generating scarps and lateral that can cause extensive damage to the built environment
offsets of up to several metres. The extent of surface and failure of engineering systems over large areas.
deformation is dependent on the type of fault and the Earthquake loads and their effects on structures are
depth and nature of surface soils. These deformations directly related to the intensity, frequency content, and
may be very damaging to buried services, roads, dams duration of ground shaking. Similarly, the level of ground
and railways. Light structures may be torn apart if the deformation, damage to earth structures and ground
surface fault rupture dissects the building footprint. failures are closely related to the severity of ground shaking.
For heavier, stronger structures (for example, reinforced
In engineering evaluations, three characteristics of ground
concrete buildings of more than three storeys on thick soil
shaking are typically considered:
deposits), the surface fault rupture may locally deviate
around the building footprint because of the effect of amplitude
the additional soil confining pressure and strength of the frequency content
building foundation relative to the ground beneath it (Bray, duration of significant shaking (ie time over which
2009). Note however that such rupture deviation due to the ground motion has significant amplitudes)
presence of strong and robust structures does not always
These characteristics of the ground motion at a given site
occur, and that faults have ruptured through large dams.
are affected by numerous complex factors such as the
Ground subsidence induced by fault or tectonic movement source-to-site distance, earthquake magnitude, effects
involving relatively large areas may occur during strong of local soil and rock conditions, rupture directivity,
earthquakes. Subsidence is often accompanied by topographic and basin effects, source mechanism, and
inundation and damage to engineering structures over propagation path of seismic waves. There are many
extensive areas, particularly in coastal regions. unknowns and uncertainties associated with these factors
The location of known active faults in New Zealand which in turn result in significant uncertainties regarding
should be obtained from the latest available geological the characteristics of the ground motion and earthquake
mapping for a site. Active fault locations are also loads. Hence, special care should be taken when evaluating
usually shown on the planning maps of Territorial the characteristics of ground shaking including due
Local Authorities. Many active faults are shown in the consideration of the importance of the structure and
GNS active faults database (http://data.gns.cri.nz/af/). particular features of the adopted analysis procedure.
The accuracy of such maps varies and the source data
Information on estimating ground motion parameters
(trenches, geophysics, aerial photographs, etc.) should
for earthquake geotechnical engineering purposes is
be consulted wherever possible.
provided in Section 5 of this Module.
Wherever doubt exists, trenching or other means
(geophysics, CPTs and boreholes) should be used to
establish the location (or locations) of an active fault
trace near to or on a site. It is important to recognise
that there are many unknown faults in addition to
the mapped faults. Such unknown (unmapped) faults
are incorporated through specific considerations and
assumptions in the seismic hazard analysis.

Refer to: Planning for Development of Land on or

Close to Active Faults A guideline to assist resource
management planners in New Zealand, a report
published by the Ministry for the Environment.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 8
 1 earthquake hazards

Clay soils may also suffer some loss of strength during

4.3 Liquefaction and shaking but are not subject to boils and other classic
lateral spreading liquefaction phenomena. However, for weak normally
consolidated and lightly over-consolidated clay soils
The term liquefaction is widely used to describe ground the demand may exceed the undrained shear strength
damage caused by earthquake shaking even though a during shaking leading to accumulating shear strain and
number of different phenomena may cause such damage. damaging ground deformations. If sufficient shear strain
accumulates, sensitive soils may lose significant shear
Liquefaction is associated with significant loss of stiffness
strength leading to slope failures, foundation failures,
and strength in the liquefied soil and consequent large
and settlement of loaded areas. Ground deformations
ground deformation as a result of the development
that arise from cyclic failure may range from relatively
of large excess pore water pressures within the soil.
severe in natural quick clays (sensitivity greater than
Particularly damaging for engineering structures are cyclic
eight) to relatively minor in well-compacted or heavily
ground movements during the period of shaking and
over-consolidated clays (low sensitivity). Studies by
excessive residual deformations such as settlements of
Boulanger and Idriss (2006, 2007), and Bray and Sancio
the ground and lateral spreads.
(2006) provide useful insights. The summary in Idriss and
Ground surface disruption including surface cracking, Boulanger (2008) is helpful in clarifying issues regarding
dislocation, ground distortion, slumping and permanent soil liquefaction and cyclic softening of different soil
deformations, such as large settlements and lateral types during strong ground shaking.
spreads, are commonly observed at liquefied sites.
For intermediate soils, the transition from sand-like
Sand boils, including ejected water and fine particles
to clay-like behaviour depends primarily on the
of liquefied soils, are also typical manifestations of
mineralogy of the fine-grained fraction of the soil
liquefaction at the ground surface. In cases of massive
and the role of the fines in the soil matrix. The fines
sand boils, gravel-size particles and even cobbles can
content of the soil is of lesser importance than its clay
be ejected on the ground surface due to seepage forces
mineralogy as characterised by the soils plasticity index
caused by high excess pore water pressures. Note that
(PI). Engineering judgement based on good quality
sediment (silt, sand, gravel) ejecta are clear evidence
investigations and data interpretation should be used
of soil liquefaction, however they do not always occur
for classifying such soils as liquefiable or non-liquefiable.
at liquefied sites.
Bray and Sancio (2006), Idriss and Boulanger (2008),
In sloping ground and backfills behind retaining structures and other studies provide insights on the liquefaction
in waterfront areas, liquefaction often results in large susceptibility of fine-grained soils such as low plasticity
permanent ground displacements in the down-slope silts and silty sands with high fines contents. If the soils
direction or towards waterways (lateral spreads). In the are classified as sand-like or liquefiable, then triggering
case of very loose soils, liquefaction may affect the overall and consequences of liquefaction should be evaluated
stability of the ground leading to catastrophic flow failures. using procedures discussed in this document and
Dams, embankments and sloping ground near riverbanks Module 3. On the other hand, if the soils are classified
where certain shear strength is required for stability under as clay-like or non-liquefiable, then effects of cyclic
gravity loads are particularly prone to such failures. softening and consequent ground deformation should
be evaluated using separate procedures.

Information on the identification, assessment

and mitigation of liquefaction hazards is provided
in Module 3 of the Guidelines.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 9
earthquake hazards 1

4.4 Landslides and rockfalls 4.5 Tsunami

Landslides are a familiar geotechnical hazard in many Tsunami has not been recognised as a principal
parts of New Zealand. The rate of incidence of landslides geotechnical hazard. However, in the 2011 Great East Japan
is at its highest during or following high rainfall intensity (Tohoku) Earthquake, a tsunami triggered a large number
events, but earthquakes also trigger many landslides, of geotechnical failures of sea walls, breakwaters, river
including very large, dangerous rock slides. Ground dikes and buildings causing tremendous physical damage
accelerations caused by earthquake shaking can and loss of life. In this context, due consideration of
significantly reduce the stability of inclined masses potential tsunami hazard must clearly be included in the
of soil and rock. Even though the acceleration pulses geotechnical evaluation of structures that are exposed
may be of short duration, they may be sufficient to tsunami hazard.
to trigger rockfalls or initiate an incipient failure,
especially where the soil or rock is susceptible to NZGS has no present plans to include assessment or
strain softening or brittle failure. mitigation of tsunami hazard within the Guidelines.

Earthquake-induced landslides usually affect large

areas in the source zone, or even greater areas beyond
the immediate source zone in the case of large
magnitude earthquakes. As demonstrated in the
Canterbury earthquakes, rockfalls, slope instabilities,
and associated hazards are very difficult to deal with,
and are particularly challenging in an urban setting.
This is because they involve large volumes of marginally
stable fractured rocks that are difficult to approach,
stabilise and mitigate in a cost-effective manner.

Geotechnical evaluation of seismic stability of slopes

and rockfalls typically involves assessment of stability
under earthquake loading (triggering issues), permanent
displacements of slides and rockfalls (run-out distance),
and engineering mitigation measures.

Information on the assessment and mitigation of

slope instability and rockfalls may be provided in a
future Module of the Guidelines.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 10
 estimating ground
1 motion parameters

5 Estimating ground
motion parameters
Earthquakes occur on faults with a recurrence
interval that depends on the rate of strain-energy
accumulation. Intervals vary from hundreds
to tens of thousands of years. There is much
uncertainty over the variability of the strain rate
over time, the recurrence interval, the time since
the last rupture, the activity of a fault, and the
location of active faults.

Due to the uncertainty in predicting earthquake events,

a statistical approach is usually adopted to assess the
seismic hazard at any location. The level of hazard varies
significantly across New Zealand with very high levels
near to the Australia/Pacific plate boundary where high
rates of tectonic displacement occur. The seismic hazard
generally decreases with distance from this zone.

For engineering evaluation of liquefaction phenomena and

other problems in earthquake geotechnical engineering,
the amplitude (commonly represented by the largest
value of acceleration recorded during the earthquake,
ie the peak horizontal ground acceleration, amax) and
the duration of ground shaking (related to earthquake
magnitude, Mw) are the key input parameters to most
common design procedures, with no direct consideration
of the frequency (represented by the response spectrum).

As incoming seismic waves travel from relatively

stiff bedrock into much softer soils at a site, they
slow down and the amplitude of shaking increases.
Certain frequencies may be amplified depending on
the stiffness, thickness, density and geometry of the
soil deposit at the site and the amplitude of shaking.
For very strong shaking there may be attenuation
of amax and increased displacement amplitude caused
by yielding of weak soils and filtering of certain
frequencies because of the non-linear, strain-dependent
stiffness and damping of soil.

Fault rupture in large earthquakes may involve surfaces

of many kilometres in extent. Rupture typically initiates
at a point and then propagates along the fault surface
at a velocity similar to that of seismic wave propagation.
When rupture propagates toward a site, the energy
released by the fault rupture can build-up and produce
intense ground motions with distinctive velocity pulses.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 11
estimating ground
motion parameters 1

These forward-directivity near-fault motions have

relatively short durations, but high intensity. Backward- 5.1 Method 1: Risk-based
directivity motions are less intense but longer in duration. method using earthquake
The ground shaking hazard at a site depends on the hazard estimates presented
following parameters: in the NZTA Bridge Manual
amplitude, frequency content and duration
of shaking at bedrock beneath the site The NZTA Bridge Manual (2014) presents unweighted
thickness and properties of soil strata beneath seismic hazard factors (peak ground acceleration
the site and overlying the bedrock, as well as coefficients) and corresponding (effective) earthquake
bedrock properties themselves magnitudes to be used in liquefaction triggering analyses
and assessment of the stability and displacements of
proximity of the site to active faults
slopes and earth retaining structures. These factors
(including near-fault effects)
were derived from results of a probabilistic seismic
three-dimensional relief both of the surface hazard model developed by the Institute of Geological
contours and sub-strata. and Nuclear Sciences (Stirling et. al., 2000, 2002).
The ground motion parameters at a site for problems The hazard model was substantially updated in 2010
in earthquake geotechnical engineering including (Stirling et al, 2011), but at the time of publication of
liquefaction hazard assessment may be evaluated using these guidelines the results from the update study have
one of the following methods: not been incorporated widely into national standards
(including the NZTA Bridge Manual).
1 Method 1: Risk based method using the
earthquake hazard presented in the NZTA The use of seismic hazard factors (Z factors) presented
Bridge Manual [2014] in NZS 1170.5:2004 are no longer recommended because
2 Method 2: Site-specific probabilistic seismic they were derived using a magnitude weighting process
hazard analysis that is incompatible with the latest liquefaction triggering
analyses (eg Boulanger & Idriss, 2014) and with other
3 Method 3: Site-specific response analysis.
geotechnical design issues including site stability analysis,
Method 1 is appropriate for routine engineering design landslide and rockfall analysis, and retaining wall design.
projects. Methods 2 and 3 are preferred for more
For Class D sites in the Canterbury Earthquake Region
significant projects, more complex sites, or other cases
(defined as the jurisdictions of the Christchurch City
where advanced analysis can be justified.
Council, the Selwyn District Council, and the Waimakariri
District Council) values of amax and magnitude to be used
for liquefaction triggering analyses have been prescribed
by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment
(MBIE) based on studies taking into account the short
and medium term increase in seismic hazard for the
Canterbury Region due to the elevated seismicity caused
by the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 12
 estimating ground
1 motion parameters

For all locations excluding the Canterbury Earthquake For locations within the Canterbury Earthquake Region
Region the following procedure from NZTA (2014) is the following procedure is required for the purpose
recommended: of assessing liquefaction hazard:

Peak horizontal ground acceleration (amax) may be Canterbury Earthquake Region

calculated as: The following recommended values of amax and
a =C R fg effective earthquake magnitude, Mw for Class D sites
max 0,1000 1.3
(deep and/or soft soil sites) within the Canterbury
in which:
earthquake region for liquefaction-triggering
C0,1000 = Unweighted peak ground acceleration analysis only are given below. The annual probability
coefficient corresponding to a 1000 year return of exceedance is considered to be the average
period from Figure A.1 (see Appendix A) for Class A, over the next 50 years, considered appropriate
B, (rock) or C (shallow soil) sites or from Figure A.2 for Importance Level 2 buildings.
for Class D or E (soft, deep soil) sites.
SLS amax = 0.13 g, Mw = 7.5
R = r eturn period factor and is given
and amax = 0.19 g, Mw = 6
by NZS 1170.5:2004 Table 3.5
ULS amax = 0.35 g, Mw = 7.5
g = acceleration from gravity
For the SLS, both combinations of amax and Mw
f = site response factor:
must be analysed and the highest calculated total
Class A, B Rock sites f = 1.0 volumetric strain resulting from liquefaction under
Class C Shallow soil f = 1.33 either scenario adopted. The worst case scenario
Class D, E Soft, deep soil f = 1.0 should be considered.
The earthquake effective magnitude is given in For Class D sites outside of Christchurch City and
Figures A.3 to A.7 and depends on the particular still within the Canterbury Earthquake Region,
earthquake return period being considered. especially sites closer to the Southern Alps and
foothills, it is recommended that design amax values
Guidance on selection of appropriate return periods be taken as the greater of these values and those
for a particular facility is given in NZS 1170.0 Table 3.3. from the NZTA Bridge Manual.
Typically, for buildings of normal use (Importance Level 2) These values of amax have been classified as interim
earthquake motions with a return period of 500 years guidance by MBIE. The Ministry has advised that
(R = 1) are used for the ultimate limit state (ULS) and further, more comprehensive guidance may be
25 years (R = 0.25) are used for the serviceability limit given as a result of on-going model refinement.
state (SLS). Note that NZTA values for the effective Reference should be made to the MBIE website for
magnitude are not available for a 25 year return period. the latest updates.
Instead the values for the 50 year return period are
suggested for SLS analysis. The use of the slightly longer
return period values in most circumstances would not
be expected to have a significant impact on the results
of analyses.

Descriptions of the different site soil classes are given in

NZS 1170.5:2004 clauses 3.1.3.2 to 3.1.3.6 and in Table 3.2.
Selection of the appropriate site soil class should be based
on knowledge of the site soil profile to bedrock. Larkin &
Van Houtte (2014) provides further guidance.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 13
estimating ground
motion parameters 1

Note: The ground motion parameters (PGA and Mw) 5.2 Method 2: Site-specific
define the earthquake loading required in liquefaction
assessment and earthquake geotechnical engineering
probabilistic seismic
evaluations. The Canterbury earthquakes have led hazard analysis
to further scrutiny of New Zealand seismic hazard
characterization, and several issues with the seismic Method 2 is preferred to Method 1 for important
hazard presented in NZS 1170.5 and NZTA Bridge structures. Method 2 allows site specific peak ground
Manual have been identified. These include: accelerations and/or spectra to be developed for the
location of interest and for the site subsoil class, rather
1 compatibility issues between the magnitude
than scaling these from the hazard factor. It also allows
weighting factors embedded in the hazard
for updating of the seismic hazard study on which the
evaluation and the magnitude scaling factors
NZTA Bridge Manual [2014] was based.
in the liquefaction evaluation procedures
adopted in this guideline series The justification for performing a Method 2 analysis
2 the use of an effective earthquake magnitude, is based on the reasoning that:
and 1 site-specific analysis will provide more accurate
3 the need for updates in the seismic hazard model. modelling of the earthquake loading, site effects,
and seismic response
Considerations of elevated seismicity due to the
2 de-aggregation of the site specific seismic hazard
Canterbury earthquake sequence and the consequent
will provide essential input for scenario earthquake
MBIE interim guidance for the Canterbury Earthquake
analyses, and also SLS and ULS performance
Region also adds to the complexity of the hazard
evaluations; and
interpretation. Work is in progress to address
these issues and provide improved procedures. 3 site-specific analyses could incorporate new
Meanwhile, the recommended use of NZTA Bridge information and updated modelling of the hazard
Manual ground motion parameters when using using most recent studies and data.
Method 1 is a step forward from the NZS1170.5 Where a site specific seismic hazard analysis has
approach and will provide greater consistency been carried out, multiple scenarios using different
for routine engineering projects in the interim. combinations of amax and effective Mw should be made
Reference should be made to the MBIE and NZGS available for liquefaction triggering assessments.
websites for the latest updates.
Comment: The effect of earthquake magnitude
in assessing the risk of liquefaction triggering has
received increased significance in the latest update
of the simplified procedure [eg Boulanger and Idriss,
2014]. Earthquakes of higher magnitude may trigger
liquefaction at significantly lower values of amax than
lower magnitude events, and hence, the highest value
of amax estimated for the site and corresponding
effective Mw may not represent the critical case.

Method 2 site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard

assessments should only be carried out by an
experienced specialist.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 14
 estimating ground
1 motion parameters

2D and 3D analyses: Useful for sites with

5.3 Method 3: Site-response significant geometry effects where focussing of
analysis incoming seismic waves or superposition effects (such
as at the edge of a basin or topographic features,
Method 3 involves evaluation of site-specific scale for example Kobe 1995, Christchurch 2010 to 2011
(amplification) factors through detailed site-response earthquakes) may occur. The direction of incoming
analyses and hence potentially provides more realistic seismic waves may significantly affect the result
values for site effects than Methods 1 or 2, which both and care in performing these analyses is required.
use generic site-response factors according to the These are highly specialised analyses for which no
site subsoil class. Method 3 is appropriate for more generally accepted guidance is available. Such analyses
significant projects, more complex sites, or other cases require expertise specific to this problem, and could
where more analysis can be justified. be justified for projects of special significance or for
regional micro-zoning studies.
Method 3 entails specific modelling of the soil profile
of the site requiring more geotechnical information Method 3 (site-response analysis) should only be carried
than Methods 1 or 2 including small-strain soil stiffness out by experienced specialists.
(eg from shear wave velocity, Vs, profiles) and non-linear Analyses should carefully address uncertainty in critical
soil stress-strain characteristics for each of the modelled soil parameters by including sensitivity studies across a
soil units. wide range of possible parameter values.
Site-specific analysis can be carried out to varying In the above site-specific analyses, effective stress
levels of complexity: analysis is encouraged to be used in cases where effects
1D analysis: Various software programs are of excess pore pressures are significant and where such
available to perform this analysis but require analysis can be justified.
good judgement and a good knowledge of the
soil properties and profile to bedrock for the result
to be meaningful. Non-linear soil response may be
modelled either through an equivalent-linear analysis
or a fully non-linear analysis. When using non-linear
analysis, particular care should be taken that the
adopted stress-strain model accurately represents
the stress-strain curve of the soil across the entire
range of relevant strains including stiffness, damping
and strength of the soil (ie the shear stress at failure
or large strains should correspond to the dynamic
shear strength of the soil). Note that some widely
available non-linear models have been calibrated at
small to moderate strains only, and they generally
provide poor representation of soil stress-strain
behaviour at strains greater than 0.5 percent or
1.0 percent. The report by Stewart et. al. (2008)
provides some guidance for the application of
non-linear ground response analysis procedures.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 15
guideline modules 1

6 Guideline modules
This section gives a brief description of the
objective and contents of each of the individual
modules. Each module is being prepared by
a separate working group and each is at a
different state of completion.

Refer to either the New Zealand Geotechnical Societys

website www.nzgs.org/publications/guidelines.htm or
to MBIEs website www.building.govt.nz for the latest
edition and current status of each module.

6.1 Module 1: Overview

of the guidelines
Module 1 provides an introduction to the Guidelines
and the subject of earthquake geotechnical engineering.
The objective for the Guidelines is discussed together
with the intended audience. The scope of the Guidelines
as a whole is described together with their status within
the context of the New Zealand regulatory framework.
Procedures for estimating ground motion parameters for
use with problems in earthquake geotechnical engineering
including liquefaction hazard assessment are provided.

6.2 Module 2: Geotechnical

investigation for
earthquake engineering
Sites to be developed as part of the built environment
must be thoroughly investigated to allow identification
and assessment of all geotechnical hazards, including
liquefaction related hazards. Identification of
liquefaction hazard at a site firstly requires a thorough
investigation and sound understanding of the site
geology, recent depositional history and geomorphology.
The level of investigation should be appropriate to the
geomorphology of the site, the scale of the proposed
development, the importance of the facilities planned for
the site, and the level of risk to people and other property
arising from structural failure and loss of amenity.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 16
 1 guideline modules

Module 2 explains the importance of developing a

geotechnical model for a site and describes the 6.4 Module 4: Earthquake
key issues to be considered. Guidance is given on resistant foundation design
planning of geotechnical site investigations. The various
techniques available for sub-surface exploration are Module 4 discusses foundation performance requirements
described in detail and the advantages and disadvantages during earthquakes within the context of the New Zealand
of each discussed. Building Code requirements. The different types of
Guidance is provided on the preparation of geotechnical foundations in common use are described together
reports including appropriate matters to consider in the with a strategy for selecting the most suitable type
geotechnical factual report, geotechnical interpretive based on necessary site requirements for each.
report, geotechnical design report, and geotechnical The particular issues affecting the performance of
construction observation report. shallow foundations during earthquakes are explained
and guidance on suitable design procedures given.
Appropriate densities for site coverage of sub-surface The specific issues affecting the earthquake performance
exploration and sampling is discussed and recommendations of the various types of deep foundations are discussed
made. The appropriate depth for sub-surface exploration together with the advantages and disadvantages of
is also discussed. each type. Guidance on analysis and design requirements
Some common problems encountered with site for deep foundations with earthquake loading is given.
investigation works are discussed.

6.5 Module 5: Ground

6.3 Module 3: Identification, improvement
assessment, and mitigation
Module 5 considers the use of ground improvement
of liquefaction hazards techniques to mitigate the effects of liquefaction,
cyclic softening, and lateral spreading at a site, including
This module introduces the subject of soil liquefaction
the effects of partial loss of soil strength through
and describes the various liquefaction phenomena,
increase in pore water pressure during earthquake
including lateral spreading. Guidance is given on
shaking. Guidance is provided on assessing both the need
identification of liquefaction hazards, including a strategy
for ground improvement and the extent of improvement
for appropriate investigations, soil compositional criteria,
required to achieve satisfactory performance.
and geological criteria. Different methodologies for
assessing the risk of liquefaction triggering are discussed The various mechanisms for ground improvement are
and recommendations made. Detailed guidance is given explained, including densification, reinforcement, drainage,
on the use of the simplified procedure for assessing chemical modification, solidification, replacement, and
risk of liquefaction triggering considered appropriate lowering of water table. The main techniques for ground
for everyday engineering situations, together with an improvement are described and discussed in some
explanation of the limitations of this procedure. detail, including dynamic compaction, deep vibratory
compaction, stone columns, reinforcement piles, lattice
Sources of liquefaction induced ground deformation
structures, vertical drains, and permanent dewatering.
are described and available procedures for assessing
ground deformation are outlined. The residual strength A matrix summarising the advantages and disadvantages
of liquefied soils is discussed together with the effects of each technique is presented to provide guidance in
of liquefaction on structures. An overview of ways and selecting the most appropriate method. The reliability
means to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and lateral and resilience of each technique is discussed and relative
spreading is provided. Numerous references are provided. cost information presented.

A discussion on clay soils and volcanic soils is included. Guidelines for designing ground improvement schemes
are presented for the different techniques, together
with a discussion of construction and verification
considerations.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 17
guideline modules 1

Several case studies of ground improvement The technical specifications are based on a substantial
projects both within New Zealand and overseas are science and research programme to test residential
presented together with information about actual scale ground improvement options and to identity
earthquake performance. affordable and practical ground improvement solutions
to mitigate the effects of liquefaction for residential
properties by the Earthquake Commission, the US
6.6 Module 5A: Specification National Science Foundation, and MBIE.

of ground improvement The guideline was written originally for immediate

for residential properties use with the Canterbury earthquake recovery but
is also considered generally useful for other areas
in the Canterbury region within New Zealand prone to soil liquefaction.

Module 5a provides guidance on what should be The document does not replace the need for site specific
included in a technical specification when designing geotechnical investigations or for the design input from
and constructing ground improvement for liquefaction a suitably experienced geotechnical engineer.
mitigation purposes. Four ground improvement
techniques are covered: Densified crust, stabilised
crust, stone columns, and driven timber piles. 6.7 Module 6: Retaining walls
The guidance is intended to be limited in use to
Module 6 will consider earthquake considerations
small scale ground improvement works as typically
for design of retaining walls.
required for single residential sites (eg 500m2 plan area).
A preliminary and general specification is included
together with specifications for testing, general
earthworks, and technical specifications for the four
ground improvement techniques. Guidance is given on
how to incorporate site specific technical specifications
into a construction contract for the works.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 18
 1 references

7 References
Boulanger R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2014). CPT and SPT based Oliver, S., Hare, J., and Harwood, N. (2013). Soil Structure
Liquefaction triggering Procedures Report No. UCD/ Interaction Starts With Engineers, Proceedings,
CMG14/01, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, NZ Society for Earthquake Engineering Technical
University of California at Davis. Conference 2013.

Boulanger R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2007). Evaluation of Cyclic Standards New Zealand (2004). Structural Design Actions
Softening in Silts and Clays, Journal of Geotechnical and Part 5 Earthquake Actions New Zealand. New Zealand
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133 (6), 641652pp. Standard NZS 1170.5:2004.

Boulanger R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2006). Liquefaction Standards New Zealand (1992). Standard for General
Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays, Journal of Structural Design and Design Loading for Buildings,
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, NZS 4203:1992.
132 (11), 14131426pp.
Stirling, M.W.; McVerry, G.H.; Gerstenberger, M.C.;
Bray, J.D. (2009). Earthquake Surface Fault Rupture Litchfield, N.J.; Van Dissen, R.J.; Berryman, K.R.; Barnes, P.;
Design Considerations, Proc. Sixth Inter. Conf. on Urban Wallace, L.M.; Villamor, P.; Langridge, R.M.; Lamarche, G.;
Earthquake Engineering, Center for Urban EQ Engineering, Nodder, S.; Reyners, M.E.; Bradley, B.; Rhoades, D.A.;
Tokyo Institute of Tech., Tokyo, Japan, Mar 3-4, 3745pp. Smith, W.D.; Nicol, A.; Pettinga, J.; Clark, K.J.; Jacobs, K.
(2012). National seismic hazard model for New Zealand:
Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B. (2006). Assessment of the
2010 update. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained Soils,
America, 102(4): 15141542; doi: 10.1785/0120110170.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 132 (9), 11651177. Stirling, M.W., McVerry, G.H., Berryman, K.R., (2002).
A new seismic hazard model for New Zealand.
Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger R.W. (2008). Soil liquefaction
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 92,
during earthquakes, MNO12, Earthquake Engineering
18781903pp.
Research Institute, 242p.
Stirling, M., McVerry, G., Berryman, K., McGinty, P.,
Larkin, T. and van Loutte, C. (2014). Determination of Site
Villamor, P., Van Dissen, R., Dowrick, D., Cousins, J.,
Period for NZS1170.5:2004, Bulletin of the N.Z. Society for
Sutherland, R. (2000): Probabilistic seismic hazard
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 2840.
assessment of New Zealand: New active fault data,
Kramer, S.L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering, seismicity data, attenuation relationships and methods.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 653 p. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences,
Lower Hutt, 117p.
Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (2012).
Guidance: Repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the Towhata, I. (2008). Geotechncial earthquake engineering,
Canterbury earthquakes. Springer.
New Zealand Transport Agency (2014). Bridge manual
(SP/M/022) Third edition.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 19
appendix a. 1

Appendix A. Unweighted peak ground

accelerations and effective
earthquake magnitudes
(from NZTA Bridge Manual, 3rd Edition, 2014)

Figure A.1: Unweighted peak ground acceleration coefficients,

C0,1000 corresponding to a 1000 year return period
at a subsoil Class A or B rock site or Class C shallow soil site

Note. For Class C sites a scale factor of f=1.33 needs to be

applied to the amax coefficients derived from this figure.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 20
 1 appendix a.

Figure A.2: Unweighted peak ground acceleration coefficients,

C0,1000 corresponding to a 1000 year return period
at a subsoil Class D or E deep or soft soil site

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 21
appendix a. 1

Figure A.3: Effective magnitudes for use with

unweighted peak ground accelerations
(2500 year return period)

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 22
 1 appendix a.

Figure A.4: Effective magnitudes for use with

unweighted peak ground accelerations
(1000 year return period)

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 23
appendix a. 1

Figure A.5: Effective magnitudes for use with

unweighted peak ground accelerations
(500 year return period)

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 24
 1 appendix a.

Figure A.6: Effective magnitudes for use with

unweighted peak ground accelerations
(100 year return period)

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 25
appendix a. 1

Figure A.7: Effective magnitudes for use with

unweighted peak ground accelerations
(50 year return period)

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 26
 1 appendix b.

Appendix B. New Zealand Building

Regulatory System
B.1 Overview of the B.1.1 Building Act
Regulatory System The Building Act principles include:
1 All Building Work needs to comply with the
The regulation and performance of buildings in Building Code, whether or not a Building Consent
New Zealand sits under the following three-part is required (s 17)
framework. 2 Buildings need to be durable (s 4 (c)).
1 The Building Act (2004), which is the legislation 3 The whole-of-life costs of a building (including
that contains the provisions for regulating maintenance) need to be considered (s 4(e))
building work. It sets out the legal requirements
4 The importance of standards of building design
for ensuring all new building designs, repairs,
and construction in achieving compliance with the
alterations, demolition and removal will comply
Building Code (s 4(f))
with the supporting Building Regulations and
the New Zealand Building Code. 5 Other property needs to be protected from
physical damage resulting from the construction,
2 The various building regulations, in particular
use and demolition of a building (s 4(j))
the Building Regulations (1992) which in its
Schedule 1 contains the New Zealand Building Code. 6 Owners, designers, builders and building consent
The Building Code establishes a performance-based authorities each need to be accountable for their
system in that it sets performance standards that role in obtaining consents and approvals, ensuring
all new building work must meet, covering aspects plans and specifications for building work will meet
such as stability, durability, protection from fire, the Building Code (s 4(q))
access, moisture, safety of users, services and 7 The Building Consent Authority must have
facilities, and energy efficiency. reasonable grounds to grant a building consent (s 49)
3 Verification Methods and Acceptable Solutions, 8 Buildings with specified intended lives (s 113)
which are provided for all Building Code Clauses.
These provide one way (but not the only B.1.2 Building Code
way) of complying with the Building Code. The New Zealand Building Code sets out the performance
The performance-based Building Code system criteria to be met for all new building work. The Building
allows Alternative Solutions provided the Code does not prescribe how work should be done but
design can be shown to meet the performance states how completed building work and its parts must
criteria of the Building Code, to the satisfaction perform. The Building Code covers aspects such as
of the Building Consent Authority. stability, protection from fire, access, moisture, safety
of users, services and facilities, and energy efficiency.

Buildings need to comply with all clauses of the Building

Code however Clause B1 (structure) of the Building
Code is often the primary driver of the geotechnical and
structural design aspect of a building. Amongst other
things, B1 states that buildings, building elements
and sitework shall have a low probability of rupturing,
becoming unstable, losing equilibrium or collapsing during
construction or alteration and throughout their lives.
They should also have a low probability of causing loss
of amenity

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 27
appendix b. 1

The following table summarises the normal interpretation of B1:

Table B.1: Building Code Performance Requirements of Clause B1 (Structure)

Performance CRITERIA
Clause B1 Reference Serviceability / Amenity Stability
B1.3.1 low probability of NA Gross deformation of foundations that
instability. Relates to ULS events could lead to collapse to be avoided
eg bearing failure, sliding.
B1.3.2 low probability of loss of Avoid undue deformation of NA
amenity. Relates to SLS events foundations and structure. Building
must be readily usable after the event.
B1.3.3 lists physical conditions NA Includes earthquake, differential movement
likely to affect building stability and adverse effects on buildings such as
temporary loss of geotechnical bearing
capacity due to liquefaction

Of the two sets of loading criteria (ie SLS and ULS) The Building Act provides a number of pathways that
meeting the serviceability requirements of Clause B1 designers may follow to achieve compliance with the
on liquefiable soils can prove the more challenging. Building Code.
The deformation performance and its prediction 1 Acceptable Solutions provide a prescriptive means
are subjective issues lacking the ability to precisely of meeting the Building Code. If followed by the
calculate the effects, particularly when an SLS event designer, the designer must be granted a building
could trigger liquefaction of the soils below the consent as they are deemed to comply with the
foundation that may or may not lead to building Building Code. This is the simplest path.
deformation. Secondly it is easier to calculate that
2 Verification Methods provide a prescriptive design
a building is unlikely to collapse with modest
method, which if followed by the designer will produce
foundation deformation.
a design that is also deemed to comply with the
A critical feature in meeting serviceability Building Code. This path does require more scrutiny
requirements is to demonstrate that the intended than designs that follow an Acceptable Solution
use of the building will be maintained or can be to check that correct assumptions and within the
restored within a short time at reasonable cost. verification method are used and that any calculations
For instance a factory floor that has minor cracking used in the design have been done correctly.
from the effects of liquefaction in an SLS earthquake 3 Alternative Solutions whereby designers demonstrate
event, but the building is otherwise safe and functional to the satisfaction of the building consent authority
could be deemed to meet the serviceability standard. (BCA) that a design solution, not covered directly
However a four storey building that rotates on its with an Acceptable Solution or Verification Method,
foundations just sufficient to render the internal lifts does achieve the performance requirements of
inoperable will likely require closure of the upper two the Building Code. Demonstration may include
floors until repairs can be effected, which may take fundamental engineering design and expert review,
months to achieve. This latter situation could be deemed history of use, or testing of the design or product.
to not meet the Code for Serviceability as the upper If it can be demonstrated to the BCA that the
stories have lost a key means of access that will take performance criteria are achieved, the BCA must
a long time and significant expense to reinstate. also grant a building consent.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 28
 1 appendix b.

Section 49 of the Building Act emphasises that before Development of the MBIE Guidance for house foundation
a building consent can be issued the application must replacement in Canterbury, under s.175 of the Building Act
provide the assessing officer with confidence (on 2004, explicitly recognised that the existing Acceptable
reasonable grounds) that, if built as specified, the Solutions and Verification Methods did not cover
building is likely to comply with the Building Code. foundations on liquefiable soils. Therefore many of the
Reasonable grounds is not defined in the Act but it foundation solutions provided in the MBIE Guidance, have
is usually accepted by BCAs as meaning less than a been developed by MBIE as Alternative Solutions (Section
full technical review of the application. But sufficient 8.2.1 of the MBIE Guidance 2012).
documentation must be provided in the consent
The MBIE Guidance was developed for specific application
application as to create a reasonably held expectation
to residential properties in the Canterbury area and was
by the BCA assessing officer that the Building Code
not intended to be used in other parts of New Zealand.
requirements will be met. The onus is on the applicant
Therefore, while the guidance will serve as a useful
to ensure an adequate level of work has been done
reference for site investigation elsewhere in New Zealand,
to attain the reasonable grounds benchmark.
practitioners, owners and consenting authorities need to be
aware of the possible limitations particularly if commercial
projects are being considered or where the geological
B.2 The Status and Relevance and/or seismic settings are substantially different.
of the MBIE Guidelines
for Residential Houses in
Canterbury
Following the initial earthquake of the Canterbury
Earthquake Sequence in 2010-11, the former Department
of Building and Housing (DBH), now the Ministry of
Building Innovation and Employment (MBIE) recognised
that the existing design standards and Building Code did
not provide adequate guidance on how to comply with
the Building Code when reinstating houses damaged
by the effects of liquefaction. Consequently a guideline
with regular revisions was developed, setting out how to
assess the degree of future liquefaction and providing
suggested foundation options that would suit particular
liquefaction conditions.

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 29
notes 1

Notes

DATE: March 2016VERSION: 0

Module 1: Overview of the guidelines
PAGE 30
MODULE 1: Overview of the guidelines