JACK PHILL IPS ' BU I LDING 128 MAIN STREET · 2018-03-15 · jack phill ips ' bu i lding 128 main street i' gore seismic assessment report report prepared for; gore dlstr i ct council

JACK PHILL IPS ' BU I LDING

128 MAIN STREET

i' GORE

SEISMIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

REPORT PREPARED FOR;GORE DlSTR i CT COUNCIL.

REPORT PREPARED BY:Peter Stevenson (CPEngSTEVENSON BROWN LTD.

D ISTRI BUT I ON :Gore Disf-rjct- Council:

STEVENSON BROWN LTD; eCOPY

DATE: 1 7 Sept ember 2015

REFERENCE NO: 15066

Revision; A

STEVENSON BROWN LTD

Structural and Fire Engineers

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Detailed Seismic Assessment was carried out for the building owned by Dr Jack Phillips at

128 Main Street, Gore. The purpose of the investigation was to establish whether the existing

building meets the minimum requirements for earthquake strength set out in the NZ Building

Act 2004 and the Gore District Council Earthquake Prone Buildings Policy, and to identify

remedial work that will improve the building s seismic performance.

The seismic performance of the building was assessed in terms o^ percentage of new building

standard (%NBS).

This analysis indicates an overall score for the building of <20%NBS. This is means the building

is Earthquake Prone (i.e. <34%NBS) as defined by the New Zealand earthquake prone building

legislation.

The repair of damaged mortar joints is a minimum level on maintenance and improvement

required to make this assessment valid.

To meet the requirements of the earthquake prone building legislation the building is

required to be improved to a level above 33%NBS. By carrying out the following work the

overall capacity of the building will be increased to 35%NBS (which is above the earthquake-

prone threshold):

• Tie the URM walls into the floor/roofdiaphragm;

• Repair the damaged areas of the 1st floor diaphragm;

• Install a seismic frame to support the Gridline B wall (Figure 4);

• Install a 'wind-beam' to support the URM wall (on Gridline A) at 1st floor diaphragm

level/ adjacent the stair;

• Stabilise the ornament above the SE corner entrance.

To get the capacity of the building above 67%NBS, as recommended by the NZSEE,the

following additional work is required:

• Restrain the parapets by bracing them back to the roof structure;

• Install a steel seismic frame to improve the gridline C wall (Figure 5);

• Install a steel frame to improve the gridline 2 wall (Figure 6);

• Buttress (or demolish) the free-standing URM west boundary wall.

This assessment has not included a detailed analysis of non-structural items that may be

present in the building.

Seismic Assessment-128 Main St, Gore Revision A Page 2 of 15

STEVENSON BROWN LTD


2 CONTENTS

1 Executive Summary..............................................................................................................2

3 Introduction .........................................................................................................................4

4 Basis for the Assessment......................................................................................................4

4.1 Information on Existing Building.................................................................................^

4.2 References............................................................................,...-..................................^

5 General Building Description................................................................................................5

5.1 Building Form & Condition...........................................................................................5

5.2 Material Properties ......................................................................................................8

5.3 Minimum Level of Improvement/Maintenance ..........................................................8

6 DSA Assessment...................................................................................................................9

6.1 General Description (Section 10 Revision AISBE).........................„....„........................9

6.2 Analysis Meô6...........................................................................................................9

6.3 Earthquake Capacity ....................................................................................................9

6.4 Earthquake Demand................-..................................................................................^

6.5 Results of DSA........................................................................................................... 10

6.6 Improvement Options for Building........................................................................... 11

7 Seismic Grades and Relative Risk...................................................................................... 14

8 Seismic Restraint of Non-Structural Items........................................................................ 15

9 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 15

Appendix A-Existing Building Plans & Sections

Appendix B - Photographs of Existing Building

Seismic Assessment -128 Main St, Gore Revision A Page 3 of 15

STEVENSON BROWN LTD


3 INTRODUCTION

A Detailed Seismic Assessment (DSA) of the building at 128 Main Street/ Gore, has been

completed using the NZSEE Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of

Buildings in Earthquakes (2006) Guidelines including Corrigendum No.4.

As with any assessment of an existing building, it is important to bear in mind that the

conclusions reached, can change as new information becomes available. The assessment of

unreinforced masonry buildings is the subject of on-going research and assessment

techniques are constantly being updated and improved. In addition to this, other

information, which was not 'accessible' during the initial assessment may only become

obvious when more of the building fabric is exposed during construction work. So, this report

should be considered a living7 document that can be updated and refined as more

information comes to light and as seismic improvement work on the building proceeds.

4 BASIS FOR THE ASSESSMENT

4.1 INFORMATION ON EXISTING BUILDINGThe information we have used for the DSA includes:

• Visual inspection of the exterior of the building.

• Visual inspection of the interiorofthe building.

• No existing (original) drawings for the building were available for review.

• Drawings of the existing building have been prepared to assist in the analysis. A copy

of these are included in Appendix A.

4.2 REFERENCESThe following references were used for the analysis:

• New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering (June 2006} "Assessment

and improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes"

(AISPBE).

• "Section 10 Revision Seismic assessment of Unreinforced Masonry Bwldings^ issued

aspartofCorrigendum No.4 of the N2SEE^/5P6f (2006) Guidelines. April 2015.

• Building Act (2004), New Zealand Government.

• Gore District Council/ Earthquake-prone Buildings Policy.

• New Zealand Building Code.

• NZS 1170. NZ Loading standard.


STEVENSON BROWN LTD


5 GENERAL BUILDING DESCRIPTION

5.1 BUILDING FORM & CONDITIONThe building is located at 128 Main Street/ Gore. It is generally a two storey, unreinforced

masonry (URM) building with the following features. The existing Ground floor and Upper

floor plan are described in Figure 1 and Figure 2 below.

©—B

Cast if uncolumns supportingcone rate encased

sttil btlfnT (not

confirmed)

Figure 1: Ground Floor Plan (Note: North points up the page parallel to Gridfine 1)

• Building constructed in 1901;

> There does not appear to have been any strengthening done to the building in the

past;

' There have, however, been a number of alterations to the building;

' The most significant (as far as structural performance is concerned) is the addition of

the large shop-front windows along the Main Street elevation (on Gridline 2) and the

south end elevation (on Gridline C);

' The lintels over the large shop-front windows are most likely concrete encased steel

beams. This is to be confirmed during the construction of any seismic improvements;

' Also, existing ground floor walls on Gridline B appear to have been removed and

replaced with a beam (probably concrete encased steel, though this was not

confirmed) and cast iron posts;


STEVENSON BROWN LTD


Alterations that have been done upstairs are not significant as far as the structural

performance is concerned;

Figure 2: Upper Floor Plan (Note: North points up the page parallel to Gridline 1)

• The building has an irregular floor plan, as can be seen in Figures 1 & 2;

• The building is generally constructed with solid clay brick walls. The sidewalls are

triple brick (350mm thick) along Gridlines C & 1, and are double brick (230mm thick)alonggridlinesA& 1;

• The walls are the same thickness all the way up the building, including the parapets;

• Every 4th course is a header course (common bond);

• The lime/sand mortar is considered 'medium-soft' hardness;

• There is some erosion of the mortar joints in the parapet along the top of the west

wall(Gridlinel);

• There is mortar erosion at 1st floor level, in the east end of the north wall (Gridline A);

• There is also mortar erosion at the north end of the east wall parapet (Gridline 2),

where the plaster has become detached;

• The bricks appear to be in reasonable condition and are considered 'medium'

hardness;

• The walls all appear to be plumb;

Seismic Assessment" 128 Main St, Gore Revision A Page 6 of 15

STEVENSON BROWN LTD


All original chimneys appear to have been removed down to top of parapet level;

There are parapets on all sides of the building including on top of the internal brick

wall onGridline B;

The walls do not appear to have any DPC layers constructed within them;

There is an ornament on top of the parapetoverthesoutheastcorner entry door;

There is a free standing (3.7m high) triple brick wall on the west boundary;

There are effectively 2 hipped roofs on the building. One between Gridlines A & B

and one between Gridlines B & C (see Figure 3);

Timber nrliin } boardsover purltns-

Triple brick wall

Double bfich v all

Figure 3: Section through existing building.

The roofs are clad with corrugated steel, which is supported on sarking boards/ over

timber purlins, which in turn are supported on timber rafters at 450 centres;

The 150x50 ceiling j'oist, at 450 centres/ support the original 200x15 sarked ceiling.

Under this are battens and a more recent plaster board ceiling;

The ceiling joists are pocketed into the URM walls for support. The condition of the

joists, where they pocket into the walls, is uncertain. This was not confirmed because

of access difficulties;

The 1st floor structure consists of 100x19 T&G floor boards (fixed over each joist with

2/60x2.5 diameter nails), supported on 300x50 floor joists at 450 centres;

A large section of the upper floor boards have been lifted (probably for inspection) in

the area beside the wall of the stairway;

There is also some damaged flooring in the north end of the kitchen and the west side

of the toilets;

There is an original 10mm thick T&G ceiling fixed to the underside of the floor joists;

The floor joists are pocketed into the URM walls for support;

The condition of the joist ends, within the pockets is uncertain. This can be confirmed

during the construction of any improvements;

The ground floor will most likely consist of timber Joists, supported on bearers, which

are supported on piles (this was not viewed). There is little sub-floor ventilation so

the ground floor structure may not be in good condition. This will not affect the

seismic performance of the building though and isa general maintenance issue;


STEVENSON B ROWN LTD


• The walls are most likely supported on a stone foundations or weak concrete strip

foundations;

• Apart from a small crack between the end of northern most lintel support and the

brickwork, there are no significant cracks within the building and there is no obvious

signs of foundation settlement;

• There is fine cracking in the plaster work and cornices around the building.

• The ground is most likely to consist of Class D sub-soils as defined in NZS 1170.5

(assessed from a visual inspection of the topography only-a geotechnical

assessment has not been carried out);

• The building is importance level IL2 as defined in NZS 1170.0;

The inertia forces, generated within the building structure during earthquake shaking will be

resisted by the URM walls, both in face loading (out-of-plane) and in-plane loading. In its

existing configuration, the roof and upper floor diaphragms cannot be relied upon to support

the face-loaded walls at these levels.

5.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIESThe following material properties where used for the DSA of the building. These were

assessed using the NZSEE AISPBE Section 10 Revision (April 2015) document.

Table 1: Material Properties

i?,lîiMi

Mortar

Bricks

!>'^;;t'î!l«lt'it'o}'^

Medium/Soft

Medium

"Y'/'JK^

^rof^^.-m1'/?'1

yt'?)(îlfl^

(?lr^j

3

26

l^h^îsi'^/

f'^fa;)»?î??

'^(yB^Jjf'.S^li.

(t^lrNj

12

«<'d(f-;-?W

(^^

0.4

ftj?l|i[bfeiill:

î"ii'fr[il-?:].iT>

; !>!. .

0.45

^wjHy

f'p) •

(|!'Wf1)

18

^ Note that the material properties have not been obtained from site specific tests. Rather they are thelower bound strength properties that would be expected for this type of construction.

5.3 MINIMUM LEVEL OF IMPROVEMENT/MAINTENANCEFor this analysis, a minimum level of building maintenance has been assumed.

It has been assumed that the brick walls will remain intact during earthquake shaking. As

mentioned above, there are areas of the wall (particularly at higher levels) where the mortar

has been unprotected and has eroded. In some of these areas the lime/sand mortar has

leeched away or become very soft as a result of the moisture exposure, which has left the

brick in these areas with little support. Repairing the exterior mortar joints is the minimum

level of maintenance required before this analysis is valid.

The deteriorating mortar joints are to repaired by raking out the very soft mortar with a

finger (or some other soft tool) and tooling in new lime sand mortar. All of the affected

mortar joints (and other unprotected joints) are then to be repointed with a cement based

mortar.

Seismic Assessment -128 Main S{, Gore Revision A Page 8 of 15

STEVENSON BROWN LTD


6 DSA ASSESSMENT

6.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION (SECTION 10 REVISION AISBE)The contents of this section are an extract from the Section 10 Revision Document of the

AISPBE.

When assessing and retrofitting URM buildings/ such as this one, it is important to understand

the potential seismic deficiencies and failure hierarchy of these buildings and their

components.

The most hazardous of these deficiencies are inadequately restrained elements located at

height, such as street-fadng facades/ unrestrained parapets/ chimneys/ ornaments and gable

end walls. These are usually the first elements to fail in an earthquake and are a risk to

people in a zone extending well outside the building perimeter.

The next most critical elements are face-ioaded wails and their connections to diaphragms

and return walls. Even though their failure may not lead to the building's catastrophic

collapse, they pose a severe threat to life safety.

When all of the building components are tied together and the out-of-plane failure of the

walls is prevented/ the building will behave more as a complete entity and the in-plane

elements (which are generally stronger) will come into action.

6.2 ANALYSIS METHODThe displacement based design approach, set out in the N2SEE AISPBE (June 2006) Guidelines

(including the Section 10 revision/April 2015), was used for the assessment of this building.

6.3 EARTHQUAKE CAPAcmUsing the failure hierarchy described in section 6.1 the capacity of each element was assessed

and its capacity recorded.

The building was first assessed assuming there is no effective connection between the walls

and the floor/roofdiaphragms. In this case, the overall capacity of the building is governed by

theout-of-plane response of the Tree-standing' perimeter URM walls.

The building capacity was then assessed assuming the walls are effectively tied in to the

diaphragms and the inertia forces can be transferred into the in-plane wall elements.

6.4 EARTHQUAKE DEMANDEarthquake demands were calculated using the parameters outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Design Earthquake Parameters

I te on)

Building importance level:

100%NBS design level earthquake:

Soil type:

/ÎsiFal'lsJ^fl)

IL2

500 year return period

D

rîton^-

NZS 1170.0

NZS 1170.0

N2S 1170.5



Structura! and Fire Engineers

ik^?1

Zone factor 2:

Near fault factor N(T,D):

Return period factor R:

Structural Performance Factor Sp:

Out-of-plane wall response damping:

Diaphragm Response damping:

In-plane-wall rocking response damping:

In-plane-wail shear response damping:

/^Wf'^H'Wn

0.18

1.0

1.0

1.0

5%

15%

15%

15%

liîton^ ' .' •

N2S 1170.5

NZS 1170.5

NZS 1170.5

N2SEE Guidelines

NZSEE Guidelines

NZSEE Guidelines

NZSEE Guidelines

NZSEE Guidelines

6.5 RESULTS OF DSAThe building in its current condition has an estimated capacity of <20%NBS/ which

corresponds to a Grade E building (as defined in Section 7 below). This means that the

existing building is earthquake prone and that strengthening work is required to meet the

requirements of the N2 Building Act 2004 and the GDC Earthquake prone Building Policy.

The roof and 1st floor diaphragm connections are not capable of restraining the face loaded

masonry walls during an earthquake. This leaves the exterior walls of the building with little

or no support at roof level and at 1st floor level; effectively, they will behave as unsupported

cantilevers, which are free to rock outwards away from the building during a shake. Analysis

of this mechanism has shown that the walls rocking in this manner will have less than

20%NBS capacity. The exact level is difficult to quantify because of unknown variables such

as the soil conditions and the 'horizontal-spanning' capacity of the walls (which is the subject

of current research). So, to ensure the building behaves as a unit during shaking the

connections between the diaphragms and the walls need to be improved. This along with

other improvements are described in section 6.6.

The analysis results are summarised in Table 3 below:

Table 3: DSA Results Summary

,„,

1

2

3

4

5

;îîh?iri^hw'di

Perimeter wails without

being tied into the

floor/roof diaphragms.

Roof Diaphragms.

1st Floor Diaphragm.

Parapets of Gridlines 1 & A

(out-of-plane response).

Upper level walls on

Gridlines 1 & A (out-of-plane

response).

w^

<20%NBS3'5

100%NBS2

100%NBS2

55%NBS1

90%NBS1

iûU^-;'^^l'!i'«|;i)frcw^ysifrrGiiî!!ii^?)

^J/?1^! •

Tie the perimeter of the floor/roof

diaphragms into the URM walls.

No additional work required.


Brace top of parapets back to roof

structure.



STEVENSON BROWN LTD


'^m

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

f^THê^s?l*!î!li:

Lower level walls on

Gridlines 1 & A (out-of-plane

response).

The section of Gridline A

waH adjacent the stair, (out-

of-plane response).

Parapets of Gridlines 2 &C

(out-of-plane response).

Upper level walls on

Gridlines 2 & C (out-of-plane

response).

Lower level walls on

Gridlines 2 & C (out-of-plane

response).

Free standing, west

boundary wall (out-of-plane

response).

Gridline B wall (in-plane

response).

Gridline C wall (in-plane

response).

Gridline 2 wall (m-plane

response)

Ornament on the parapet

above the SE corner

entrance.

»^)

100%NBS1

30%NBS1

35%NBS1

100% NBS1

100%NBS1

45%NBS

32% NBS1

40%NBS1

37%NBS1

<33%NBS5

-.\,^M^ÎhlîH^^^Kî[^nrito,;' •••^^m?^ -:Y-^ '':^-: :\


Install a wind-beam' to restrain the

wall at 1st floor level.

Brace top of parapets back to roof

structure.



Buttresses required to increase the

walls rocking capacity.

Note 3.

Install a structural steel earthquake

frame between the ground and upper

floor level. Refer to Figure 4.


frame around the shop-front window.

Refer to Figure 5,


frame around one of the shop-front

windows. Refer to Figure 6.

Core drill down through the top of the

ornament into the parapet and grout

in a stainless steel rod to hold the

ornament in place.

Notes:

1. Assumes the work described in 2 and 3 below is completed,

2. Repair damaged areas of the 1st floor diaphragm.

3. Repair very soft mortar joints and re-point affected areas of the exterior brickwork, as a minimum level

of maintenance. Refer to section 5.3.

4. Target level of strength to be determined by building owner.

5. Level of strength estimated only.

6.6 IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS FOR BUILDINGAfter the minimum level of maintenance work is carried out, as described in section 5.3, the

overall capacity of the building can be increased to 35%NBS (which is above the earthquake-

prone threshold) with improvements outlined in Table 4 below.




Table 4: Improvements required to achieve 35%NBS

lt)i:s!jui

1

2

3

4

5

6

tljij^)({^îi}iei)!iiF:ii^î[hi(-r°li'to)riid.îte'?iiH(^lksl!f§ :"-/v^1^ '^••- . ..'

'Stitch' the perimeter of each floor and roof diaphragm into the URM walls with

steel angle brackets (fixed to the joists) and M12 threaded rod anchors fixedinto the brickwork (the condition of the jojsts, where they are pocketed into the

brickwork, are to be checked at this stage because this is a high risk area for

decay).

Repair the areas of the Ifloordiaphragm that have decayed as a result of

water damage (refer to floor plan in Appendix A).

Reinstate the areas of the 1st floor diaphragm that have been lifted for access

into the floor space (refer to floor plan in Appendix A).

Install an earthquake frame to support the Gridline B wall (see Figure 4).

Support the Gridline A wall (at mid-height)/ adjacent the stair, at 1st floor

diaphragm level, with a 'wind-beam'.

Secure the ornament located atop the SE parapet.

Implementing the improvements outlined in Table 4 takes the building out of the earthquake

prone category and no other work is then required to meet the requirements of the NZ

Building Act 2004 or the GDC Earthquake prone Building Policy.

However/35%NBS is still considered earthquake risk and it may be desirable to improve the

building's seismic resistance further. In fact/the NZSEE recommend that if a building is to be

strengthened then a level of at least 67%NBS should be targeted. To get the overall capacity

of the building over 67%NBS the improvements listed in Table 5 are required. Note that the

target design level is to be decided by the building owner and can be greater than this, e.g.

100%NBS.

Table 5: Improvements required to achieve greater than 67%NBS

i^-ii'i!

1

2

3

4

IStE^)'i^V:)rM?J^;ifî'êil!CQ.iJiî;5l[(1pU^'^'Iifi;/^^|£^

Stabilise the parapets by bracing them back to the roof structure.

Install an earthquake frame to support the Gridline C wall (see Figure 5).

Install an earthquake frame to support the Gridline 2 wall (see Figure 6).

Buttress (or demolish) the free standing URM west boundary wall.

Note that the repair work mentioned in Tables 4 & 5 are a concept design only. The final

details are to be confirmed during the developed design process, which will be undertaken

when and if the building owner wishes to proceed with improving the building's seismic

resilience.


STEVENSON BROWN LTD


Connect roofdlaphragm to walls

Connect flowdiaphragm to walls

Brace parapets h> roof

Connect roofdjaphrafjffl to walls

Remove existingposfs, shown

dotted Existing concrete encasesteel beam to be confirm

Consh-ucf- new reinforced

concrete foundation for

seismic frame.

Figure 4; Possible improvements including a seismic frame to support the Gridline B wall.

stabilise ornament

Brace parapets to roofx

Veranda shown dotted

Figure 5: Possible improvements including a seismic frame to support the Gridline C wall.


STEVENSON BROWN LTD


stabilise ornament

-Brace parapets to reof

•Install new steelUB Misinic framtwithin shop-ffontwindow.

is^l:

l3S£-.^

[?==5? ~vsM

•Repair damagedmortar worft

Figure 6: Possible improvements including a seismic frame to support the Gridline 2 wall.

7 SEISMIC GRADES AND RELATIVE RISK

Table 4, taken from the N2SEE Guidelines, provides the basis of a proposed grading system

for existing buildings, as one way of interpreting the %NBS building score. It can be seen that

occupants in Earthquake Prone buildings (less than 34%NBS) are exposed to more than 10

times the risk that they would be in a similar new building. For buildings that are potentially

Earthquake Risk (less than 67%NBS), but not Earthquake Prone, the risk is at least 5 times

greater than that of an equivalent new building. Broad descriptions of the life-safety risk can

be assigned to the building grades as shown in Table 4.

A+

ABcD

E

Table 4: Relative

HS>100

80 to 100

67 to 79

34 to 66

20 to 33

<20

earthquake Risk

www t<n[s ;ra pirora >:

<1

1 to 2 times

2 to 5 times

5 to 10 times

10 to 25 times

more than 25 times

|llM.-T*mi*I?TI1

low risk

low risk

low or medium risk

medium risk

high riskvery high risk

The New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (which provides authoritative advice to

the legislation makers, and should be considered to represent the consensus view of New

Zealand structural engineers) classifies a buildings achieving greater than 67%NBS as "Low

Risk", and having "Acceptable (improvement may be desirable)" building structural

performance.


STEVENSON BROWN LTD

Structural and Fife Engineers

8 SEISMIC RESTRAINT OF NON-STRUCTURAL ITEMS

During an earthquake, the safety of people can be put at risk due to non-structural items

falling on them. These items should be adequately seismically restrained, where possible, to

the NZS 4219:2009 "The Seismic Performance of Engineering Systems in Buildings .

A detailed assessment of any such elements is outside the scope of this assessment.

9 CONCLUSION

This Detailed Seismic assessment for the building at 128 Main Street, Gore, indicates an

overall score of <20%NBS, which corresponds to a Grade E building, as defined by the N2SEE

building grading scheme. This is means the building is Earthquake Prone (i.e. <34%NBS) as

defined by the New Zealand earthquake prone building legislation.

The repair of damaged mortar joints is a minimum level on maintenance and improvement

required to make this assessment valid.

The building is to be improved to a levei above 33%NBS to meet the requirements of the

earthquake prone building legislation. By carrying out the following work the overall capacity

of the building will be increased to 35%NBS (which is above the earthquake-prone threshold):

• Tie the URM walls into the floor/roof diaphragms;

• Repair the damaged areas of the 1st floor diaphragm.

• Stabilise the ornament above the SE corner entrance;

• Install a seismic frame to support the Gridline B wall (Figure 4);

• Install a 'wind-beam'adjacent the stair, to support the URM wall (on GridlineA) at 1st

floor diaphragm level.

To get the capacity of the building above 67%NBS as recommended by the NZSEE, the

foliowing additional work is required:

• Restrain the parapets by bracing them back to the roof structure;

• Install a steel seismic frame to improve the gridline C wall (Figure 5);

• Install a steel frame to improve the gridline 2 wall (Figure 6);

• Buttress (or demolish) the free-standing URM west boundary wall.

This assessment has not included a detailed analysis of non-structural items that may be

present in the building.




Appendix A - Existing Building Plans

and Sections

Seismic Assessment -128 Ivlain Street Gore Appendix A

Free standingtriple brick wall Double brick wall

to end of lean-t'o

toiletpmber landing>00mm above

G.F.L.

Window over thebricked up originaldoor opening

//////////y///////////////

Timber partitions

Triple brickwalls to streetfacades.

Cast ironcolumns supportingconcrete encasedsteel beam7 (not

confirmed)

Concrete column

to top of freest-anding brick wall

Ground Floor Structure Plart A^ scale 1:100

•\ rSTEVENSON B ROWN LTD

Stfuclural and fiir Engineers

373RgltrayStreeLPOBoi5(XH,DunKrn.

Phone 021481195.Emsl petif@ stmduf

26 Main Street, Gore

y ^

Contract No :

\50GGSheet

5Revision A

'/////////////////////.

©--

Upper Floor Structure Plan A4 scale 1:100

STEVENSON 8 ROWN LTD

Slructur.)! and Fire Engineers

373 Ralliay SlrwtPO Boi SSH. DmMfln.

Ptione 021431135.Emai peE&r@ stnjctures.co^nzstiuctuies.co^nz

26 Mîn Street, GoreContract No :

\50GGSheet :

52R.<3vi5ic>n A

Veranda shown dot-ted

South Elevation A^ scale 1;100

-77TTTTTT7T-''rrI •' •'•'•: •:•:•:'; 1:1; l;';';l.lrES:';l;';l;l;l?^^

Infill panelhas not been

heyed into sides

East Elevation A4 scale 1;100

STEVENSON BROWN LTD

Structural and Firp Engineers

373 Flflitray StreetPOBO);S(»4,Oinriin.

P>lone02HBIt95.Emal (Kli-rtg ilnichjfei.co.iy '<

26 Main Street, GoreContract No : | Sheet :

50GG 54R.evi5!on A

Timber sarhing boardsover purlins-

\125x50 raftersst 450 crs-

Triple brick wall

-200x15 timberboard ceiling

Gib ceiling andbattens under

Double brick wall

100x19 T&6 flooringfixed at joists with

2-60x2.5 nails

-300x50 joists at450 crs pocketedinto waits withconcrete.

Gib ceiling andbattens under

10mm T&G ceidng-Concrete encased

steel beam?7 t.b.c. Concrete encasedsteel beam?? overshop front windows

t.b.c.

Timber floor(not inspected)

Veranda

100x19 TSrG flooring

Section A-A A^ scale 1:100

Triple brick wall

Double brick wall

300x50 floor joistsat 450 centres

Veranda

Section B-B A^ scale 1:100

STEVENSON BROWN LTD


373RaBrayShicLPO ftu &(XM. Omsdin.

Pt™e02i4at1S5.Emai pe!ef@ struchj/es.co nz

25 Main Street, Gore


Slructurril .ind Fire Cnsinecrs

Appendix B - Photographs of Existing

Building

View from south.

South end of west wall. Note eroded

mortar joints at top of wall.

--V----Z

Free standing west boundary wall. Parapet on Main St wall. Note damage to

plaster and mortar joints.

Seismic Assessment-128 Main Street, Gore. Appendix B

STEVENSON BROWN LTD

St r uctnr.11 ,in<l Fire Engineers

View along north wall. Main St Wall. Crack between lintel and

brickwork.

West wall elevation


STEVENSON 8 ROWN LTD

Slructurdl d n d Fire Engineers

1st floor T&G flooring and nails.

1st floor joists pocketed into wall adjacent Damaged flooring. 1st floor, NE comer.

stair.



Strurlurdl ,111 <1 fire Ensincers

Damaged flooring in the toilet area. Damaged floor in the upper floor kitchen

area.

Roof space.



Struciurdl dnd Fire Engineers

Ceiling joists and ceiling sarking under.Rafter to ceiling joist connection.


Documents

JACK PHILL IPS ' BU I LDING 128 MAIN STREET · 2018-03-15 · jack phill ips ' bu i lding 128 main street i' gore seismic assessment report report prepared for; gore dlstr i ct council