Issuu

Karangahape Station Main Works Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-PLN-800025

Revision: Rev 000 Date: 27 May 2020

Page i

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-PLN-800025 This document is uncontrolled when printed. This document should be printed in colour

Revision Status Revision

Issue Date

Status

Prepared By

Rev A00

16/12/2019

First issue for internal review

George Brink

Rev A01

19/02/2020

Draft for OV review

George Brink

Rev A02

06/04/2020

Issue to Auckland Council for Certification

George Brink

Rev 000

27/05/2020

Certified by Auckland Council

George Brink

Approval Status Name/Title

Prepared by:

George Brink Link Alliance Lead â€“ Groundwater and Settlement

Reviewed by:

Graeme Twose Senior Geotechnical Engineer

Approved by:

Peter Roan Link Alliance Consent Manager

Page ii

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Signature

Date

06/04/2020

pp.

06/04/2020

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Table of contents Abbreviations / Glossary of Terms ................................................................ vi 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 1.1

Overview of CRL Works at Karangahape Station ............................................................. 1

1.2

GSMCP Staging .............................................................................................................. 2

1.3

Purpose of the GSMCP .................................................................................................. 2

1.3.1.

Objectives........................................................................................................................ 2

1.3.2.

Performance Standards during Construction ................................................................. 2

1.4

Consent Requirements .................................................................................................. 2

1.5

Sustainability ................................................................................................................ 7

1.6

GSMCP Authors ............................................................................................................. 7

2. Karangahape Station Main Works ............................................................ 8 3. Existing Environment ............................................................................... 9 3.1

Land Use and Topography ............................................................................................. 9

3.2

Geology ........................................................................................................................ 9

3.3

Hydrogeology................................................................................................................ 9

3.4

Existing Buildings and Structures ................................................................................... 9

3.5

Existing Utilities .......................................................................................................... 10

3.6

Issued Groundwater Take and Diversion Consents ....................................................... 10

4. Overview of Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ........................... 11 4.1

Monitoring and Reporting Requirements ..................................................................... 11

4.2

Notification and GSMCP Certification........................................................................... 15

4.3

Data Collection and Reporting Requirements ............................................................... 15

4.4

Independent Building Assessor Reporting Requirements .............................................. 15

4.5

Roles and Responsibilities ........................................................................................... 15

5. Groundwater Monitoring Plan ............................................................... 17 5.1

General ....................................................................................................................... 17

5.2

Groundwater Monitoring Locations ............................................................................. 17

5.3

Groundwater Monitoring Methodology and Reporting................................................. 17

5.4

Groundwater Trigger Levels ......................................................................................... 17

5.5

Groundwater Mounding .............................................................................................. 18

6. Settlement Monitoring Plan ................................................................... 19 Page iii

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan 6.1

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 19

6.2

Building Condition Surveys .......................................................................................... 19

6.2.1.

Building Condition Surveys and Visual Inspections....................................................... 19

6.2.2.

Pre-Construction Building Condition Surveys ............................................................... 19

6.2.3.

During-Construction Building Condition Surveys .......................................................... 20

6.2.4.

Post-Construction Building Condition Surveys ............................................................. 20

6.3

Monitoring.................................................................................................................. 21

6.3.1.

Ground and Building Monitoring Locations .................................................................. 21

6.3.2.

Prior to Construction..................................................................................................... 21

6.3.3.

During Construction Settlement Monitoring ................................................................ 21

6.3.4.

Post-Construction Settlement Monitoring ................................................................... 21

6.4

Utilities ....................................................................................................................... 21

6.5

Excavation Support Monitoring ................................................................................... 22

6.6

Settlement Trigger Levels ............................................................................................ 22

7. Response, Mitigation and Contingency Plan........................................... 23 7.1

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 23

7.2

Response to Alerts ...................................................................................................... 23

7.2.1.

Groundwater Alerts ...................................................................................................... 23

7.2.2.

Settlement Alerts .......................................................................................................... 23

7.3

Response to Alarms ..................................................................................................... 23

7.4

Response to Building or Utility Damage ....................................................................... 24

7.5

Mitigation of Effects .................................................................................................... 24

8. Monitoring and Contingency Plan Review .............................................. 26

Page iv

8.1

General Review of the GSMCP ..................................................................................... 26

8.2

Review of Monitoring and Contingency Requirements ................................................. 26

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

APPENDIX A: Drawings APPENDIX B: Settlement Contour Map APPENDIX C: Settlement Trigger Levels APPENDIX D: Settlement Monitoring Instrumentation APPENDIX E: Assessment of Settlement Effects APPENDIX F: Groundwater Trigger Levels APPENDIX G: Record of CLG Consultation Outcomes APPENDIX H: Register of Reviewer Comments

Page v

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Abbreviations / Glossary of Terms Term AT ACZ K AEE BCS CBD CEMP CEP CMJ CPEng CRL CSA ECBF EMS GNS GSMCP IBA IS ISCA m RL NAL Senior Qualified Person

Page vi

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Definition Auckland Transport Karangahape Station Construction Zone Assessment of Effects Building Condition Survey Central Business District Construction Environmental Management Plan Construction Execution Plan Central Motorway Junction Chartered Professional Engineer City Rail Link Construction Support Area East Coast Bays Formation Environment & Sustainability Manager Geological and Nuclear Sciences Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan Independent Building Assessor

Infrastructure Sustainability Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia Metres reduced level North Auckland Line A person with a post-graduate degree in environmental science, chemistry, biology, geology (including a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng)) or similar field; or having sufficient technical experience that is at least equivalent; and having at least five yearsâ€™ professional experience.

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Introduction

The City Rail Link (CRL) project comprises the construction, operation and maintenance of a 3.4 km underground passenger railway, running between Britomart Station and the North Auckland Rail Line in the vicinity of Mt Eden Station. The CRL also involves the construction of two new underground stations at Aotea and Karangahape and a redeveloped Mt Eden station (refer to Figure 1-1). The design and construction of the CRL infrastructure between the Aotea and Mt Eden Stations is being delivered by the Link Alliance.

Figure 1-1: CRL route and location

This Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan (GSMCP) has been prepared in relation to construction of the Karangahape Station main works.

1.1 Overview of CRL Works at Karangahape Station The Karangahape Station consists of two entrances, one at Beresford Square / Pitt Street and the other at Mercury Lane, linked together by underground railway platforms within two mined tunnels approximately 32 m below the Karangahape Road ridge. The Station will also comprise equipment rooms, ventilation systems and emergency egress at both Mercury Lane and Beresford Square / Pitt Street. Given the nature and scale of the Karangahape Station construction, works will be undertaken in a staged manner, involving:    Page 1

Early works (demolition, network utility relocation and site establishment work) – to be undertaken from September 2019 through to early 2020; Main construction works (construction of the station and mined tunnels for the rail tracks) – to be undertaken from early 2020 through to late 2023; and Public realm reinstatement – from late 2022 to late-2024.

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

1.2 GSMCP Staging To reflect the staged construction approach for the Karangahape Station, a series of GSMCPs are being prepared. This GSMCP has been prepared in relation to the Karangahape Station main works, which are described in detail in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and summarised in Section 2 of this GSMCP. A separate GSMCP was prepared for the Karangahape Station early works (Document No. CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-PLN-800011), with the accumulative effects accounted for in this GSMCP.

1.3 Purpose of the GSMCP 1.3.1. Objectives The purpose of this GSMCP is to, so far as reasonably practical:  

Prevent damage that may affect the serviceability of structures and services, and Provide appropriate measures to remediate or mitigate any adverse effects (including cumulative effects) as a result of the dewatering and excavation activities involved in the main works.

This GSMCP forms part of the CEMP for the Karangahape Station main works, and addresses the relevant matters specified in the conditions of Water Permits R/REG/2016/1892 and WA T60351066. The GSMCP has been developed in consultation with the Karangahape Community and Business Liaison Group (CLG) (as per Consent Condition 19). Comments received from the CLG have been (where applicable and appropriate) incorporated in the GSMCP, with an explanation provided where any comments have not been incorporated. A record of the consultation outcomes is provided in Appendix G of this GSMCP.

1.3.2. Performance Standards during Construction Consent Conditions 83 and 84 specify the performance standards for construction induced settlement that apply during the works. These are: 

Within the 5 mm settlement contours on the drawings in Appendix 1 (of the Consent), all excavations, dewatering systems, retaining structures and associated works (including backfilling) for the CRL construction must be designed, constructed and maintained so as to avoid any damage that exceeds the Serviceability Limits of buildings, structures and services.



Beyond the 5 mm settlement contours on the drawings in Appendix 1 (of the Consent), the Consent Holder must ensure that the damage to masonry buildings due to the Project works does not exceed the “negligible damage” category extent detailed in Table 1 of the Consent, and has only negligible effects on piled buildings, structures and services.

These performance standards will be achieved through the specific design aspects of the main works, and by the mitigation and contingency measures described in this GSMCP. The estimated effects of settlement arising from the main works are documented in the Assessment of Settlement Effects (ASE) reports, attached as Appendix E to this GSMCP.

1.4 Consent Requirements Table 1-1 outlines the Consent conditions relevant to this GSMCP and where they are addressed in the document. Page 2

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan Table 1-1 Conditions from Water Permits R/REG/2016/1892 and WA T60351066 relevant to the Karangahape Station GSMCP

Consent Condition 83 Performance Standards

84 90

Appointment of IBA

91 92

Pre-dewatering Services Survey

93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Brief Condition Description

Section Addressed in

Within the 5mm settlement contours in Appendix 1 of the Consent, all excavations, dewatering systems, retaining structures and associated works (including backfilling) for the CRL construction must be designed, constructed and maintained to avoid any damage that exceeds the Serviceability limits of buildings, structures and services.

Section 1.3.2

Beyond the 5mm settlement contours on the drawings in Appendix 1, the Consent Holder must ensure that the damage to masonry buildings due to the Project works, including excavations, dewatering systems, retaining structures and associated works (including backfilling), does not exceed the “negligible damage” category extent detailed in Table 1 of the Consent and has only negligible effects on piled buildings, structures and services. The Consent Holder shall ensure that there is no long-term mounding due to damming of groundwater by the proposed rail infrastructure. Prior to the Consent Holder submitting the GSMCP under Condition 97, the Consent Holder shall request that Council engage, at the cost of the Consent Holder, a suitably qualified independent specialist, agreed to by the Consent Holder, to fill the role of Independent Building Assessor (IBA). The Consent Holder shall acknowledge that the IBA can, at the expense of the Consent Holder, engage other independent specialists, but only in consultation with the Consent Holder. The IBA required by Condition 91 shall report to the Manager on building damage matters and how these matters may be addressed by the Consent Holder. Prior to the Commencement of Dewatering, and following the identification of potentially affected Services, the Consent Holder shall, in consultation with the relevant service provider, undertake a condition survey of all such Services. This condition does not apply to any Service where written evidence is provided to the Manager that the owner of that Service has confirmed they do not require a condition survey. The monitoring of any settlement effects on those potentially affected Services shall be in accordance with Conditions 120 and 121. In the event that the Services’ trigger levels in Appendix 2 are breached, the Consent Holder must carry out remedial actions in accordance with Conditions 125 and 128. GSMCP requirements for certification by Auckland Council (timeframes and peer review) Dewatering is not to commence until certification from the Manager is provided. The GSMCP, required by Condition 97, shall include the requirements of the Consent including, but not limited to, the following: a. an “as built” survey plan of all monitoring locations based on approximate positions located on the plans entitled: • A02502731, Figure 39, Rev B dated May 2016 and ET Table 7.1 (Appendix 3); and • The plans referred to in Appendix 1 and any further building-specific monitoring requirements determined from the detailed pre-construction building condition assessment. b. full details (frequency and scope) of groundwater (including construction logs), ground surface, building, retaining wall, building façade, inclinometer monitoring programme and conditions surveys, and frequency and scope of visual inspections required by this consent

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan ("GSMCP")

100

c. a bar chart, such as a Gantt chart, showing the timing and frequency of the condition surveys and monitoring required by this consent relative to the Commencement of Dewatering and the Completion of Dewatering; d. groundwater alert triggers e. details of all alert and alarm triggers (including any necessary horizontal and vertical displacements), the frequency of monitoring and the criteria to cease monitoring for each ground, building and retaining wall deformation marks and inclinometers, extensometers. The alert and alarm triggers shall be an update of the provisional triggers provided on drawings CRL-KRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257003, Rev A01, dated 04/02/2020. f. details of contingency measures to be implemented if alert or alarm triggers are exceeded including a Response Plan. g. identification of any adjacent services susceptible to damage and details of any pre and post construction monitoring or inspection;

101 102 103 Groundwater Monitoring Page 3

104

i. details of monitoring proposed to be undertaken to protect the issued groundwater diversion consents listed in the Consent Conditions against cumulative settlement effects; j. identification of existing basements which could be subject to potential flooding from post-construction groundwater mounding; details of monitoring of long-term groundwater mounding effects; and details of groundwater drain construction to prevent groundwater mounding k. the review of the proposed alarm and alert trigger levels in Appendix 2, approved by the IBA, following the pre-construction building condition surveys (required by Condition 109) that confirms they are set to ensure Serviceability Limits will be not be exceeded and whether the monitoring frequency is adequate, possibly requiring further site investigation work where sensitive structures are identified as part of Condition 112 The GSMCP may be varied, including frequency of monitoring, subject to the certification by Auckland Council, which is contingent on approval by the IBA. The Manager will endeavour to determine whether the change can be certified, in writing, within 10 working days of submission of the change. Once certified, the GSMCP shall be implemented for the periods specified in the conditions of the Consent. The Consent Holder shall advise the Manager, in writing, of the date of the proposed Commencement of Dewatering. The Consent Holder shall install, maintain and replace if necessary, groundwater monitoring boreholes listed in Appendix 3 of this consent and shown on drawing A02502731, Figure 39, Rev B dated May 2016 (Appendix 3) and ET Table 7.1 (Appendix 3) of this consent, for the period required by the conditions of this consent.

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Section 1.3.2

Section 5 Section 4.4

Section 4.4 Section 6.4

Section 6.4 and Table 4-2 Section 7

Section 4.4 Section 4.3 Section 4.3 Section 5 Appendix D

Section 0 Section 5 Section 6 Table 4-2 Section 5 Section 7 Table 4-1 Section 5 Section 7 Section 3.5, Section 6.4, Table 4-2 Section 3.6 Section 5 Section 7 Section 5 Section 1.3 and 8 Section 4

Section 4.2 Section 5

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Consent Condition

Brief Condition Description 105 106 107 108

109

110

Building Inspection

111

112 113 114

115

116 117 119 Page 4

The Consent Holder shall measure and record groundwater levels at the monitoring boreholes specified above and at the frequency specified in Schedule B. These records, reported in reduced level, shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager at monthly intervals. The groundwater alert trigger level criteria is listed in Schedule C for the monitoring boreholes. Where groundwater alert trigger levels are exceeded, as identified from monitoring data obtained pursuant to Condition 105, the Consent Holder shall undertake the actions set out in the certified GSMCP. a. notify the Manager within 2 working days, advising the trigger exceedance, the risk of settlement causing damage to buildings, and details of the actions taken; and b. send a copy of the material notified to Council to the relevant building owner Prior to the commencement of dewatering/excavation, the Consent Holder shall employ an independent Senior Qualified Person to undertake a detailed pre-construction condition survey, of all relevant buildings to confirm their existing condition, subject to the approval of the property owner. The survey shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. any information about the type of foundations; b. existing levels of damage considered to be of an aesthetic or superficial nature; c. existing levels of damage considered to affect the serviceability of the building where visually apparent and without recourse to intrusive or destructive investigation; d. a professional opinion as to whether observed damage may or may not be associated with actual structural damage; e. susceptibility of the building or structure to further movement; f. specific assessment of building damage with reference to the trigger levels identified in Appendix C of the Consent; g. review of proposed alarm and alert trigger levels to confirm they are appropriately set and movement less than trigger levels set will not exacerbate damage, and whether the monitoring frequency and locations of monitoring points are adequate; and h. photographic evidence of (b) and (c). Where the Consent Holder is required to access property (including buildings or structures) owned by a third party to undertake monitoring, surveys or inspections and that access is declined or subject to what the Consent Holder considers to be unreasonable terms, the Consent Holder shall notify the Manager of that circumstance, and provide an alternative monitoring plan which includes the matters stated in Condition 100. Any condition survey undertaken in accordance with Condition 109, or any other condition surveys undertaken by the Consent Holder, shall be undertaken as follows: a. The Senior Qualified Person shall be identified in the CEMP (required by Condition 36); b. Contact owners of those buildings and structures where a condition survey is to be undertaken to confirm the timing and methodology for undertaking a pre-construction condition survey; c. Record all contact, correspondence and communication with owners and this shall be available on request for the Council; d. Provide the building condition survey or structure condition survey report to the relevant property owner and the Council within 15 working days of the survey being undertaken; e. The Consent Holder shall undertake a visual inspection during construction if requested by the building or structure owner where a pre-construction condition survey has been undertaken and monitoring data and observations note any changes from the pre-construction condition survey report. f. Develop a system of monitoring the condition of existing buildings or structures which is commensurate with the type of the existing building or structure and the proximity of the project works in order to assess whether or not construction activities are compromising the structural integrity of the building or structure. Should the pre-construction building condition survey and assessment highlight greater sensitivity of buildings than envisaged by the application, and should this increased sensitivity mean that the Serviceability Limit for the building may be exceeded, then the Consent Holder shall, at its cost, implement additional measures that may include modifications to the design of the retention systems or further geotechnical investigation). The Consent Holder shall carry out a visual inspection of the surrounding ground and external building facades of the listed buildings in Appendix 2 adjacent to the tunnel/trench and station alignment to monitor for any deterioration or movement of any pre-existing cracks at a frequency to be specified in the GSMCP. Keep a record of the time, date and any observations for each inspection. This record is to be maintained and submitted to Auckland Council in accordance with Condition 128. No earlier than six months after Completion of Dewatering and within six months of Completion of Construction, a detailed condition survey all previously surveyed buildings, structures and water, stormwater and wastewater services, shall be prepared by a suitably qualified engineering professional. This condition survey report shall address all matters reviewed in the pre-dewatering condition survey. It shall also identify any new damage (if any) that has occurred since the predewatering condition survey was undertaken and include a determination of the cause of any such damage and steps to repair it as provided for in Condition 125. The requirements of this condition need not be fulfilled for any particular building where the Consent Holder can provide written evidence to the Manager that the current owner of that building has advised they do not require such a condition survey. At the reasonable request of the Manager, the Consent Holder shall, without delay, undertake an additional condition survey of any building within the area defined by the groundwater monitoring, deformation monitoring and modelling undertaken pursuant to the conditions of this consent potentially affected by excavation, for the purpose of checking for damage and follow up with a report of damage to that building. Subject to Condition 125, the requirement for any such condition survey will cease 6 months after the Completion of Construction, unless the requirements of Condition 115 have not been met and subject to a consistent pattern of deformation records having been obtained in this period in which no evidence of adverse effects is apparent. Establishment and maintenance of a settlement monitoring network (ground settlement and building movement monitoring marks) to detect any deformation:

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Section Addressed in

Section 7

Section 6.2

Section 6.2 Table 4-1

Section 7 Section 6

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Consent Condition

Ground Surface and Building Monitoring

Retaining Wall Monitoring

a. The minimum scope of settlement monitoring is shown on Appendix 1 of the Consent b. Subject to the owners’ approval, at least two sets (minimum three pins) of building movement monitoring marks shall be located on each building listed in Appendix 2 of the Consent. c. The final location and number of building movement monitoring marks shall take into account the building type and size, accessibility to survey the marks and risk of damage from ground settlement, as determined by requirements of conditions of this consent, and the effects of differential settlement from the predicted settlement contours on the drawings in Appendix 1 as modified by the detailed design and reflected in the GSMCP.

Table 4-2 Appendix D

The Consent Holder shall survey and record each ground and building movement mark in accordance with Schedule D in the Consent; and records of the baseline monitoring shall be compiled and submitted to the Manager prior to the Commencement of Dewatering.

121

Where groundwater drainage is proposed at Karangahape Station, and consolidation settlement risks are identified at Completion of Construction that could cause building damage, the Consent Holder shall prepare a post construction monitoring plan to be approved by the IBA and certified by the Manager. The post construction monitoring plan shall specifically address d) the potential for delayed consolidation settlement effects resulting from long term groundwater drainage; and e) monitoring durations and the process for establishing cessation of monitoring.

Sections 5, 7 and 8

122

For the measurement of vertical and lateral wall movement, the Consent Holder shall install retaining wall deflection pins as near to the top of the wall as practicable, with inclinometers installed either in a retaining pile or immediately behind one and extending to the base of the retaining pile for the monitoring of wall deflection.

Section 6.5

123

Monitoring of the retaining wall pins and inclinometers shall be undertaken and recorded in accordance with Schedule E of the Consent unless otherwise specified and agreed in this GSMCP.

Table 4-2

Contingency

125

Page 5

Section Addressed in

120

124

Reporting

Brief Condition Description

126 127

In the event that monitoring of ground or building settlement, differential settlement, or horizontal movement associated with the construction works identifies movement which exceeds the vertical and horizontal movement triggers detailed in Appendix 2 or any revised trigger levels subject of this consent, then the Consent Holder shall instigate the Response Plan detailed in the GSMCP and undertake the following procedures: a. Notify Auckland Council and the IBA within 24 hours; b & c. If measurements exceed any of the alert values, then a Senior Qualified Person engaged by the Consent Holder or the Consent Holder’s contractor shall reassess the works constructed up to that time to confirm that works’ progress against the design predictions are within expectations, whether additional measures (if any) are required to restrain further increases in movement and that possible ensuing effects will exceed Serviceability Limits. Measures (if any) to be implemented, identified in the Response Plan in the GSMCP or as agreed with the IBA, may include an increase in the frequency of monitoring, or additional support measures. The Senior Qualified Person shall prepare and submit a written report to Auckland Council, within one week of alert level exceedance, which provides analyses of all monitoring data relating to the exceedance of any of the trigger levels and any actions taken. d. If measurements exceed any of the alarm values the Consent Holder shall: i) Follow the process identified in Condition 124(b); ii) Commission and submit a written report, prepared by the Senior Qualified Person engaged in accordance with Condition 124(b) to the Manager, within one week of alarm level exceedance, which provides analyses of all monitoring data, relating to the exceedance of any of the trigger levels and any recommendations for remedial actions, if required, in order to avoid damage that will affect building Serviceability and which may also allow Completion of Construction; and iii) Implement the recommendations of the report. In the instance that the recommendation is to stop work, pursuant to Conditions 124(b) and (d)(ii), the remedial action(s) that have been recommended shall be undertaken before the works recommence. e. In relation to alarm level exceedance, the recommendations of the IBA (refer Condition 92), which may include remedial actions up to and including stopping the works, if that is (in the opinion of the IBA) in the best interests of preventing building serviceability damage, shall be implemented by the Consent Holder (unless the building owner(s) request in writing that the construction works are to be completed in accordance with the report prepared under Condition124 (d)(ii). If any damage to buildings, structures or services is caused wholly or in part by the exercising of this consent, the Consent Holder shall: a. notify the Manager and the asset owner as soon as practical; b. engage a Senior Qualified Person to prepare a report as soon as practical, describing the damage and identifying methods to avoid and mitigate the potential for Serviceability damage and to remedy any damage caused wholly or in part by the exercising of this consent; and provide a copy of the report to the Manager and the asset owner; and c. thereafter promptly undertake (at the entire cost of the Consent Holder) all necessary repairs to fully remedy the damage caused by the exercise of this consent, with timing to be agreed with the asset owners. “Entire cost” includes all design and consenting costs as well as all construction costs. This obligation as a condition of the resource consent shall apply to all Damage that is identified during the latest of the periods listed below: i) Two years after Completion of Dewatering; or ii) One year after groundwater levels have stabilised; and iii) The completion of post construction monitoring required to be carried out under Condition 121; and iv) Six months after any completion of any other works associated with the project which have the potential to cause settlement. Auckland Council shall be advised in writing within ten working days of Completion of Dewatering. Auckland Council shall be advised in writing within ten working days of Completion of Construction.

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Section 7

Section 4

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Consent Condition

Brief Condition Description

128

Review

Page 6

129

All data collected as required by conditions of this consent from Commencement of Dewatering to completion of monitoring are to be compiled, compared with the relevant trigger levels and submitted to the Manager at two monthly intervals, unless otherwise specified in this consent, setting out the previous results, providing an explanation for any trends and providing a construction progress timeline. The conditions of this consent may be reviewed by the Manager pursuant to Section 128 of the Resource Management Act 1991, by the giving of notice pursuant to Section 129 of the Act, within six months after Commencement of Dewatering and subsequently at intervals of not less than one year thereafter in order to vary the monitoring and reporting requirements, and performance standards in order to take account of information, including the results of previous monitoring and changed environmental knowledge, on: a) Ground conditions; b) Aquifer parameters; c) Groundwater levels; and d) Ground surface deformation.

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Section Addressed in

Section 8

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

1.5

Sustainability

The Link Alliance is seeking an Infrastructure Sustainability Council of Australia (ISCA) Infrastructure Sustainability (IS) rating. Further details can be found in the CEMP and Sustainability Rating Management Plan.

1.6 GSMCP Authors This GSMCP has been prepared by a senior qualified person (Geotechnical Professional), George Brink (PhD Engineering Geology). George is an Engineering Geologist with Tonkin and Taylor in Auckland, New Zealand. He has 10 yearsâ€™ experience in the geotechnical characterisation and evaluation of soil and rock mass behaviour, as well as undertaking, managing, and reporting on geotechnical investigations for a number of international public and private sector clients. This GSMCP has been reviewed by a senior qualified person (Geotechnical Professional), Graeme Twose, NZCE (Civil), BE (Civil, Hons). Graeme is a Senior Geotechnical Engineer with Tonkin and Taylor in Auckland, New Zealand. He has over 20 yearsâ€™ experience and has specialised in groundwater and settlement assessments for tunnels and deep excavations - with a particular focus on Auckland geology. His involvement in tunnelling and deep excavation projects spans investigation and feasibility stages, through to construction monitoring and contingency planning.

Page 7

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Karangahape Station Main Works

The Karangahape Station main works are described in detail in the CEMP and summarised in Table 2-1 below (refer also the drawings provided in Appendix A). Table 2-1 Overview of Karangahape Station main works construction activities

Works location General establishment works

Overview of construction activities

Mercury Lane

 Construction of the temporary shaft at Mercury Lane to provide access for tunnel construction. Works will include excavation, piling and construction of the above ground acoustic enclosure surrounding the shaft.  Mining of platform tunnels (likely using a roadheader) from the temporary shaft through to the Beresford Square station box.  Diaphragm wall construction and piling around the perimeter of the Mercury Lane station box.  Construction of the Mercury Lane Station box, involving: top down construction works (ground and B1 – B3 levels) - excavation and floor slab construction; and bottom up construction works (B3 – B7 levels) - rock breaking and excavation, construction of floor slab construction and rail platforms.  Off-site disposal of excavated material from the temporary shaft construction, mining of platform tunnels and station box construction.

Beresford Square

 Diaphragm wall construction and piling around the perimeter of the Beresford Square station box.  Construction of the Beresford Square station box, involving: top down construction works (ground and B1 – B3 levels) - excavation and floor slab construction; and bottom up construction works (B3 – B7 levels) - rock breaking and excavation, construction of floor slab construction and rail platforms.  Off-site disposal of excavated material from the station box construction.

Construction Support Areas

 Continued establishment of Construction Support Areas (CSA) at Beresford Square and Mercury Lane (following on from the establishment works undertaken as part of the early works and authorised by the early works plans). This will include the bentonite plant, water treatment plant and temporary spoil storage areas.  Operation of the Beresford Square and Mercury Lane CSAs.

 Installation of hoardings and temporary traffic management around active construction zones

A separate GSMCP was prepared for the Karangahape Station early works (Document No. CRL-KRDRME-LKA-PLN-800011), with the accumulative effects accounted for in this GSMCP.

Page 8

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Existing Environment

3.1 Land Use and Topography The new Karangahape Station will be located beneath the ridge lines of Karangahape Road and Pitt Street. Above the Station, topographic elevation ranges from approximately 60 to 65 m RL. Topography slopes radially away to lower elevations from the intersection of Karangahape Road and Pitt Street; north-east towards the head of Myers Park (43 m RL) and north through south-east towards the Central Motorway Junction (CMJ) (40 – 50 m RL). The land uses surrounding the new Karangahape Station area are ‘mixed-use’, including small-scale light industrial activities, residential buildings, cafes, restaurants and community facilities.

3.2 Geology The geology within the Karangahape Station main works area is considered to include extensive fill material and Tauranga Group Alluvium which is overlying soils and weathered rock of the East Coast Bays Formation (ECBF). For a detailed description of the ground conditions in this area refer to the ASE in Appendix E of this GSMCP and the Geotechnical Interpretative Report (GIR)1.

3.3 Hydrogeology The hydrogeological conditions of the area are considered to be complex, with a varied regional groundwater levels and isolated perched groundwater. The regional groundwater system is expected to vary between 8 to 10 m b GL and be compartmentalised throughout the Karangahape Station main works area. Above this level, perched groundwater has been measured from 2 to 6 m b GL and are assessed to be laterally discontinuous. The Karangahape Station hydrogeological conditions are described in the ASE attached as Appendix E to this GSMCP and the overall CRL project hydrogeological conditions are described in detail in the PDP Groundwater Technical Report2.

3.4 Existing Buildings and Structures The area surrounding the Karangahape Station construction works is typically characterised as ‘mixed-use’ with low-rise residential, commercial and industrial buildings used for living, entertainment, and retail. Many of these buildings were constructed in the early 20th century and are typically of unreinforced masonry or reinforced concrete construction and are founded on shallow pads and strip footings. Many of the buildings within this area have heritage status and due to the nature of their construction, are more susceptible to surface settlements.

Geotechnical Interpretative Report, Revision C00. Document No. CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-RPT-800006, dated 11 Nov 2019. 2 PDP, (2016). Auckland City Rail Link Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation: Groundwater Technical Report. Prepared for Aurecon on behalf of Auckland Transport, dated May 2016. Page 9

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan Further discussion on buildings which require condition surveys as part of the Karangahape Station main works is included in Section 6.

3.5 Existing Utilities Relocation and / or replacement of utilities will be completed around the Beresford Square and Mercury Lane entrances as part of the station development works. For more information on the existing utilities (i.e. prior to enabling works), refer to the Link Alliance Utilities Tender Design Report3. Requirements of pre and post construction inspections, and during construction monitoring of the ground above the utilities will be carried out as defined in Section 6 of the GSMCP.

3.6 Issued Groundwater Take and Diversion Consents Condition 100 (i) of the Consent requires the GSMCP to include details of the monitoring proposed to be undertaken to protect the issued groundwater diversion consents listed in the condition against cumulative settlement effects. Only one issued groundwater diversion consent is near or within the vicinity of the Karangahape Station main works. This consent relates to 26 Poynton Terrace (Consent No. 43162), and was issued for the development of a new 8 storey apartment complex with a 2 level basement. This development is located approximately 150m away from the Karangahape Station works, and at the extreme of the potential dewatering extent presented in the PDP groundwater models for the Tauranga Alluvium/Residual ECBF4. The existing groundwater take and diversion consent is not therefore expected to be impacted by dewatering effects from the Karangahape Station development, and any drawdown of groundwater levels will be monitored through the groundwater monitoring regime outlined in Section 5 of the GSMCP.

Link Alliance Civil & Utilities Tender Design Report, document no. CRL-SYW-CIV-LKA-RPT-000001. Dated 24 January 2019. 4 PDP technical memorandum “Drawdown Assessment Update: C3: K-Rd Station – Beresford Square / Pitt St Shaft”, dated 15 October 2019. Page 10

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Overview of Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

This section provides an overview of the monitoring and reporting required for the Karangahape Station main works in accordance with the consent conditions.

4.1 Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Monitoring shall be completed and records compiled and submitted to Auckland Council by those responsible during the stages and frequencies outlined in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 hereafter. Refer to the CEMP for timing and duration of the relevant project stages. Table 4-1 Summary of Construction Monitoring Stages

Stage Pre-construction monitoring

During construction monitoring

Post-construction monitoring

Page 11

Description This monitoring phase will provide baseline data against which effects resulting from the construction works can be assessed. The outcomes will form part of the input for the construction phase assessments. ď‚ˇ

Monitoring during the bulk excavation phase will be used to verify the design analyses, by comparing the actual measurements with those estimated. The monitoring data will be used to reassess the building damage classifications at critical locations. ď‚ˇ If these reassessments indicate that the damage classifications have increased significantly then additional analyses, increased monitoring or other actions may be required. Mitigation options, discussed in Section 8 of this GSMCP, may also be required to be implemented. Where specified in the Consent, monitoring will occur until the various stages of works are completed (excavation, dewatering and construction), and shall continue as required until stable measurements are demonstrated, and written approval is provided by Auckland Council.

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan Table 4-2 Summary of Minimum Monitoring Requirements

Monitoring Type

Construction Stage Baseline (Q4 2019 – Q1 2020)

Groundwater Monitoring

Excavation/ dewatering (Q1 2020 – Q4 2022) PostConstruction Dewatering (Q4 2022 – Q2 2023) Baseline (Prior to Q1 2020)

Building Condition Surveys (BCS)

Excavation/ dewatering (Q1 2020 – Q4 2022)

Page 12

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Minimum Measurement Frequency

Measurement Accuracy

Reporting Requirement to Auckland Council, unless otherwise stated

Related Consent Conditions

Relevant GSMCP Sections

104 – 108

Section 5

109 - 117

Section 6.2

Weekly for at least 3 months before commencing dewatering and those boreholes listed in Appendix 3 of the Consent. Monthly for routine monitoring.

Three times a week for all monitoring boreholes until completion of dewatering. Daily, should the groundwater alert trigger level be exceeded.

10mm

Within 2 working days of any alert trigger level exceedances.

Monitoring shall continue until either six months after the completion of dewatering, or until such time following the completion of dewatering that monitoring of settlement and building monitoring marks has ceased under Condition 120. A detailed pre-construction condition survey is to be carried out of all buildings identified in Appendix 2 of the Consent and prior to submission of the GSMCP (subject to approval of the property owner).

Within 15 working days to the relevant property owner and Auckland Council.

A visual inspection will be undertaken during construction if requested by the building or structure owner where a preconstruction condition survey has been undertaken and visual observations or monitoring data indicates changes from the pre-construction condition.

A record is to be maintained of the time, date and any observations for each inspection. This record is to be maintained and submitted to Auckland Council at

Visual inspections of the surrounding ground and external facades of buildings identified in Section 6.2 will be carried out monthly from the commencement of excavation / dewatering or within one week of the completion of works

N/A

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Monitoring Type

Construction Stage

Minimum Measurement Frequency

Measurement Accuracy

for shorter duration activities. This is to monitor any deterioration or further cracking from pre-construction conditions. This can be decreased to quarterly (3 monthly) provided ground movements have stabilized. PostConstruction Dewatering/ excavation (Q4 2022 – Q2 2023) Baseline (Prior to Q1 2020) Ground Surface and Building Monitoring

Each ground settlement and building movement monitoring mark shall be surveyed and recorded at least three times prior to the commencement of excavation / dewatering to establish a baseline elevation. Depending on the stage of construction:

Excavation/ dewatering (Q1 2020 – Q4 2022)

Page 13

A post-construction condition survey shall be carried out no earlier than 6 months after completion of dewatering/excavation and within 6 months of completion of construction for any building that had a pre-construction survey.

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Monthly, at each ground settlement and building monitoring mark,

Daily for two weeks and weekly thereafter for all ground and building settlement markers within 50m of excavations during excavation until such time following the completion of excavation that stable measurements are demonstrated.

Horizontal and vertical accuracy of at least ±2 mm, or as otherwise achieved by precise levelling during baseline phase.

Reporting Requirement to Auckland Council, unless otherwise stated two monthly intervals or upon reasonable request from the Auckland Council Representative.

Related Consent Conditions

Relevant GSMCP Sections

119 - 120

Section 6

To be compiled and submitted to Auckland Council prior to the commencement of excavation. A record is to be maintained of the time, date and any observations for each survey, and submitted to the Council at two monthly intervals.

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Monitoring Type

Construction Stage

Minimum Measurement Frequency

Measurement Accuracy

Reporting Requirement to Auckland Council, unless otherwise stated

Related Consent Conditions

Relevant GSMCP Sections

122 – 123

Section 6.3

PostConstruction Dewatering/ excavation

Monthly for six months, or until stable measurements are demonstrated and written approval is provided by Council for certification.

(Q4 2022 – Q2 2023) To be compiled and submitted to Auckland Council prior to the commencement of excavation.

Baseline (Prior to Q1 2020)

Retaining Wall Monitoring (including inclinometers and Strain Gauges)

Excavation/ dewatering (Q1 2020 – Q4 2022)

PostConstruction Dewatering (Q4 2022 – Q2 2023)

Page 14

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Twice before commencement of dewatering

Pins – Once for every 2 metres depth of excavation, and in any case minimum once weekly. Inclinometer – Once for every 6 metres depth of excavation, and in any case minimum once weekly. To be completed from start of dewatering to one month after completion of excavation. Pins – Minimum of three sets of readings at fortnightly intervals. Inclinometer – Minimum of three sets of readings at monthly intervals. To be completed after completion of excavation to completion of dewatering.

Horizontal and vertical accuracy of at least ±2 mm

A record is to be maintained of the time, date and any observations for each survey, and submitted to the Council at two monthly intervals.

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

4.2 Notification and GSMCP Certification The Link Alliance will advise Auckland Council in writing of the date of the proposed commencement of dewatering. As defined in the Consent, this means ‘the commencement of bulk excavation and / or the commencement of the taking or diversion of groundwater, other than for initial state monitoring purposes’. The GSMCP shall be prepared and submitted by the Consent Holder (CRLL) to the Manager (AC) for certification at least 20 working days prior to the Commencement of Dewatering, together with a statement from the IBA confirming its adequacy. Dewatering / excavation on the site will not commence until certification from AC is provided. Link Alliance shall request Council’s (The Manager) determination as to whether the GSMCP can be certified, in writing within 10 working days of receipt of the GSMCP. Link Alliance shall also advise the Manager in writing within ten working days of Completion of Dewatering and Construction (which is defined in the Consent also).

4.3 Data Collection and Reporting Requirements All data collected will be compiled, compared with the relevant trigger levels (summarised in Section 6.6 and Appendix C) and submitted to Auckland Council at two monthly intervals, unless otherwise specified or requested in the Consent.

4.4 Independent Building Assessor Reporting Requirements The Consent Holder has requested that the Manager engage, at the cost of the Consent Holder, a suitably qualified independent specialist, agreed to by the Consent Holder, to fill the role of IBA. The Manager has appointed Dr. Mark Foo as the IBA. The IBA will report to Auckland Council on building damage matters, and how these matters may be addressed, having regard to the following:    

Site-specific assessments are undertaken to an appropriate level of detail; Monitoring data is collected, interpreted and assessed in regard to limiting effects to avoid Serviceability Damage; Review of alert and alarm limits; and Any matters with the required building condition surveys (BCS), visual inspections, and trigger level exceedance reports in accordance with the response and repairs.

4.5 Roles and Responsibilities The roles and responsibilities relevant to the implementation of this GSMCP are outlined in

Table 4-3 (refer also to the CEMP for additional detail on the wider project team roles and responsibilities).

Page 15

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan Table 4-3 GSMCP roles and responsibilities

Role Consent Holder (CRLL)

Environment and Sustainability Manager

Role Responsibility Requiring Authority, Consent Holder and Project Manager (the Link Alliance) Overall responsibility for project compliance and performance in relation to environment, quality assurance and incident management Inspecting, auditing and checking of environmental management practices and procedures. On-site compliance with consent conditions and other requirements and tracking compliance information. Reporting to CRLL changes to construction techniques or changes in environmental conditions which require alterations to existing consents or new resource consents. Preparing, reviewing and updating the CEMP and relevant sub-plans (including GSMCP). Facilitating and overseeing environmental monitoring, including reporting to CRLL and Auckland Council. Updating and maintaining the environmental portion of the Project Risk Register. Training of all staff including subcontractors.

Instrumentation and Monitoring Manager

Reviewing the data and correlating the monitoring observations with construction activities and design assumptions. Communicating trends and observations to the Project Director, relevant members of the construction team, and CRLL. Responding to Alert and Alarm triggers. Managing contingency measures and responses in the event that an Alarm level is exceeded.

Design Lead â€“ Groundwater and Settlement Effects

Prepare, review and update of GSMCP Additional inputs will be provided on an as-requested basis, with assistance from other Technical Specialists as required.

Independent Building Assessor (IBA)

Reviewing the GSMCP and any reports associated with alarm triggers. As an advocate for local stakeholders, the IBA will also receive and review monitoring data and on behalf of Auckland Council to track progress and building damage and building effects.

Senior Qualified Person

As defined in the GSMCP. Responding to trigger level exceedances and reports of building damage as outlined in Section 7 of the GSMCP.

Page 16

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Groundwater Monitoring Plan

5.1 General This section of the GSMCP presents the methodology for the monitoring of groundwater levels as part of the overall Assessment of Settlement Effects during the Karangahape Station main works.

5.2 Groundwater Monitoring Locations Groundwater levels will be monitored by piezometers at the locations shown on the Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring Plans attached in Appendix D and summarised in Table 5-1 below. The Link Alliance will install and maintain all piezometers within the groundwater monitoring network until monitoring is no longer required. Piezometers that are expected to be destroyed during construction have been replaced to maintain a continuous monitoring record. Table 5-1 List of relevant groundwater piezometers for Karangahape Station main works

BH ID

Screen geology

BH220 (replaces BH316)

Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

BH319

Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

BH274

Residual to Completely Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

BH324

Residual to Completely Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

BH325

Residual to Completely Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

BH1025 (replaces BH218)

Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

BH320

Residual to Completely Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

EB312

Fill/ Tauranga Group Alluvium

BH219A (replaces BH425)

Fill/ Tauranga Group Alluvium

5.3 Groundwater Monitoring Methodology and Reporting The Link Alliance utilises a continuous monitoring system to collect, collate and present groundwater, settlement and building movement data. Baseline monitoring has been carried out at the minimum frequencies and to the minimum accuracies summarised in Table 4-2, and will continue during ensuing construction stages.

5.4 Groundwater Trigger Levels Groundwater trigger levels for each piezometer have been established according to the provisional alert trigger level criteria defined in Condition 107 of the Consent (and summarised in Table 5-2). Table 5-2: Alert Trigger Level Criteria for the Project Alert Trigger Low Level

Criteria 90% of predicted drawdown response in all units

The actions to be undertaken should the trigger levels be exceeded are discussed in Section 7.2 of this GSMCP. As per the Consent conditions no groundwater drawdown alarm trigger levels are required as effects associated with settlement will be monitored and assessed directly. Page 17

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan The alert trigger levels for each piezometer are documented in Table F1, Appendix F.

5.5 Groundwater Mounding No groundwater mounding is expected from the activities forming part of the Karangahape Station Main Works.

Page 18

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Settlement Monitoring Plan

6.1 Introduction The settlement monitoring actions, instrumentation and trigger levels described in this section are based on the outcome of the Assessment of Settlement Effects reports for the Karangahape Station main works (attached as Appendix E to this GSMCP), and in accordance with the relevant conditions of the Consent. This section outlines the building condition and settlement monitoring program the Link Alliance will implement to: 

Verify design assumptions;



Confirm the construction induced surface settlements; and



Provide warning that mitigation is required to minimise or rectify potential adverse effects of settlement on structures.

6.2 Building Condition Surveys 6.2.1. Building Condition Surveys and Visual Inspections Building Condition Surveys (BCS) have been carried out for structures in the Karangahape Station main works area. The GSMCP considers the buildings listed in Appendix 2 of the Consent that coincide with the Karangahape Station main works area, in order to identify and monitor effects on these buildings in accordance with Consent Conditions 109 to 117.

6.2.2. Pre-Construction Building Condition Surveys The buildings for which BCS are required as part of the GSMCP for the Karangahape Station main works are identified in Table 6-1. Table 6-1 Structures near Karangahape Station requiring building condition surveys

Consent ID No. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 52 53 54 55 56 57 Page 19

Address Street No. 47 1 59 78 211-235 16-18 259-281 251-253 61-65 243 214 238 246-254 256 258-264

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Street Name Pitt Street Beresford Square Pitt Street Pitt Street Karangahape Road Beresford Square Karangahape Road Karangahape Road Pitt Street Karangahape Road Karangahape Road Karangahape Road Karangahape Road Karangahape Road Karangahape Road

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Consent ID No. 58 59 60 61 65 121 122 158

Address Street No. 268 270 9 16 1 50-60 70 20

Street Name Karangahape Road Karangahape Road Mercury Lane East Street Cross Street Pitt Street Pitt Street Beresford Square

The findings from the BCS have been reviewed by the Link Alliance structural engineering team and considered in the adopted trigger levels summarised in Table C1, Appendix C of the GSMCP. Where the pre-construction building condition survey and assessment highlight greater sensitivity of buildings than envisaged by the resource consent application, and should this increased sensitivity mean that the Serviceability Limit for the building may be exceeded, the Link Alliance will implement additional measures as discussed in Section 7 of the GSMCP.

6.2.3. During-Construction Building Condition Surveys Visual inspection of ground and buildings adjacent to the main works shall be carried out according to the Consent conditions as follows: 

The Link Alliance will undertake a visual inspection during construction if requested by the building or structure owner where a pre-construction condition survey has been undertaken and monitoring data and observations note any changes from the pre-construction condition survey report; and



The Link Alliance will carry out a visual inspection of the surrounding ground and external building facades of the buildings identified in Section 6.2 to monitor any deterioration or further cracking of any pre-existing cracks. This will be carried out at least monthly from the commencement of any dewatering / excavation until completion of the excavation, or (in the event of shorter duration activities) within 1 week of completion of the works.

Frequencies may be varied to quarterly inspections, provided monitoring results indicate ground movements to have stabilized. A record will be maintained of the time, date and any observations for each inspection. This record will be submitted to Auckland Council.

6.2.4. Post-Construction Building Condition Surveys No earlier than 6 months after the completion of dewatering / excavation and within 6 months of completion of construction, a post-construction BCS will be carried out on buildings where BCS was undertaken prior and during the construction phase, and when the building is unlikely to be further impacted by the settlement effects from future project stages. The survey report will include an assessment of the cause of any damage identified. Additional BCS and reporting up to 6 months’ post-construction may be completed on any building within the area potentially affected by the excavation at the request of Auckland Council.

Page 20

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan The post-construction building surveys may not be required in the event that the building owner agrees that the building survey is not required, and written evidence is provided to Auckland Council.

6.3 Monitoring 6.3.1. Ground and Building Monitoring Locations Ground and building survey monitoring marks have been installed along the areas likely to be affected by the Karangahape Station works, and as shown in the instrumentation and monitoring drawings attached as Appendix D. The location and number of monitoring marks takes into account the building type/size, accessibility and risk of damage from ground settlement. The presented monitoring layout also takes into account the instrumentation layouts for the early works in the Karangahape Station area, as included in the certified GSMCP for these works (Document No. CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-PLN-800011).

6.3.2. Prior to Construction The Link Alliance will survey and record each ground settlement and building movement monitoring mark to the frequency and accuracy summarised in Table 4-2.

6.3.3. During Construction Settlement Monitoring The ongoing frequency of monitoring the survey marks varies depending on the monitoring station position: ď‚ˇ

ď‚ˇ

At each ground settlement and building monitoring mark within 50 m of bulk excavation works, on a daily basis for two weeks during excavation / dewatering and weekly thereafter; and At all other ground settlement and building monitoring mark locations on a monthly basis.

6.3.4. Post-Construction Settlement Monitoring Monitoring of the survey marks will continue monthly for six months, or until stable measurements are demonstrated and written approval is provided by Auckland Council for certification.

6.4 Utilities The majority of the existing network utilities in the Karangahape Station construction area will be relocated or replaced as part of the enabling works phase. The maximum predicted slope due to differential settlement is generally significantly less than 1/200 (normalised ratio of vertical movement over distance), and most utility services are expected to be able to accommodate such ground movement slopes. In those instances where utilities may remain in place/are relocated and installed prior to completion of the main station works the effects of ground movements are expected to be negligible. Pre-construction The Link Alliance has identified the utilities potentially affected by the Karangahape Station main works and have consulted with the relevant utility owners to determine the extent of preconstruction surveys required. Page 21

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan CCTV surveys will be completed on the stormwater and wastewater networks (that are not relocated) in the areas adjacent to the works. No need for other pre-construction surveys was identified, as the early works activities are primarily concerned with relocating the utilities in question. During Construction Settlement Monitoring The monitoring of any settlement effects on adjacent utilities will be carried out utilising the ground settlement markers utilised for ground settlement monitoring as outlined in Section 6.3.1. The trigger levels associated to any ground movements are outline in Table C-2 of Appendix C. Post-Construction Settlement Monitoring A post-construction condition survey will be carried out no earlier than 6 months after completion of dewatering/excavation of the Karangahape Station main works, and within 6 months of completion of construction for any building that had a pre-construction survey. This will serve to confirm that the immediately adjacent utilities identified in the pre-construction survey have not been damaged. The post-completion survey is to be provided in writing to Auckland Council and will include a determination of the cause of damage identified (if any) since the pre-construction survey, and a description of the steps taken to repair any damage.

6.5 Excavation Support Monitoring Inclinometers are planned as shown on the instrumentation and monitoring plans included in Appendix D. Monitoring will be completed according to the frequencies set out in Schedule E of the Consent and summarised in Table 4-2.

6.6 Settlement Trigger Levels The trigger levels for the monitoring outlined above are presented in Appendix C: ď‚ˇ

Table C1: Deformation Limits for building and ground settlement monitoring

ď‚ˇ

Table C2: Deformation Limits for utility settlement monitoring

ď‚ˇ

Table C3: Inclinometer Deformation Limits

The alert and alarm trigger levels have considered the findings of BCS and structural review comments to confirm they are appropriately set (refer to Section 8 for conditions of review of this GSMCP).

Page 22

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Response, Mitigation and Contingency Plan

7.1 Introduction This section presents the triggered action response plan required where exceedances of trigger levels have been identified during monitoring, as outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of this GSMCP.

7.2 Response to Alerts Monitoring data from the C2 works indicate seasonal shrink-swell movements in the order of +5mm to -5mm (measured from an average level over a 12-month monitoring cycle) could be expected. Monitoring readings will consider the available historic data and the time of the year the required baseline readings were recorded.

7.2.1. Groundwater Alerts If the Groundwater Alert Trigger levels (Section 5 of this GSMCP) are exceeded, the following response will occur: 

The Link Alliance will notify Auckland Council within 2 working days, including advice of the trigger exceedance, the risk of settlement causing damage to buildings, and details of the actions taken. As the strategy is to implement mitigation or contingency actions where settlement monitoring indicates an actual effect, no specific mitigation actions are proposed should exceedance of the groundwater trigger levels occur.

7.2.2. Settlement Alerts In the event that settlement exceeds the identified Alert trigger levels during the main works, the following procedures will be undertaken: 

Auckland Council and the IBA will be notified within 24 hours;



A Senior Qualified Person within the Link Alliance shall re-assess the works constructed up to that time to confirm the works progress against design predictions, any additional measures to restrain further increases in movement, the possible ensuing effects will exceed serviceability limits; and



A written report will be prepared by the Senior Qualified Person responsible for overview of the monitoring, and provided to Auckland Council within one week of alert level exceedance. The report will provide analyses of all monitoring data relating to the exceedance of any of the trigger levels and any actions taken.

7.3 Response to Alarms In the event that settlement exceeds the identified Alarm trigger levels during construction works, the following procedures will be undertaken:

Page 23



Follow the process set out in Section 7.2;



Commission and submit a written report, prepared by the Senior Qualified Person within the Link Alliance to the Manager, within one week of alarm level exceedance. This will provide analyses of all monitoring data, relating to the exceedance of any of the trigger levels and | Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan any recommendations for remedial actions, if required, in order to avoid damage that will affect building Serviceability, and which may also allow Completion of Construction; and 

Implement the recommendations.

The IBA may also recommend actions to prevent damage to building serviceability, which may include stopping the works if that is in the best interests of preventing building serviceability damage. These recommended actions will be implemented, unless the building owner(s) request in writing that the construction works are to be completed in accordance with the report prepared by the Senior Qualified Person.

7.4 Response to Building or Utility Damage In the event that damage to buildings, structures and / or services is reported during the completion of construction the Karangahape Station main works, or determined from a BCS or inspection the following will occur:  



The Link Alliance will notify CRLL, Auckland Council and the building / asset owner as soon as practically possible; A Senior Qualified Person engaged by the Link Alliance, is to prepare a report as soon as practical, describing the damage and identifying methods to avoid and mitigate the potential for Serviceability damage and to remedy any damage caused wholly or in part by the exercising of this consent; and provide a copy of the report to the IBA, Manager and the building / asset owner; The reported damage will be compared with the pre-construction building condition survey to determine if the damage is:   



Pre-existing, New, or Pre-existing, but exacerbated.

The construction history in the vicinity of the building will be reviewed, along with the recorded settlement history, to determine if the damage can be reasonably attributed to the construction works; If the damage can be reasonably attributed to the station development works, repairs will be undertaken as soon as practicable unless written approval for this damage is provided from the owners stating alternative arrangements (in accordance with Consent condition 125). The timing and nature of the repairs will depend on the owner’s requirements, stage of construction and degree of damage; and This obligation as a condition of the Consent shall apply to all damage that is identified during the latest of the periods listed below:    

Two years after completion of dewatering; or One year after groundwater levels have stabilised; and The completion of post construction monitoring required to be carried out under Condition 121; and Six months after any completion of any other works associated with the station development that have the potential to cause settlement.

7.5 Mitigation of Effects Page 24

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan In the event that differential settlement or total settlement exceeds the identified Alert or Alarm trigger level during construction works, or ground conditions differ significantly from the design assumptions then the mitigation options include: 

Additional specific structural and geotechnical evaluations;



Strengthen and / or stiffen ground support;



Installation of additional instrumentation; or



Further structural assessment of an affected building.

The most appropriate contingency measure will be implemented to mitigate the actual or anticipated adverse effects of the triggering event.

Page 25

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

Monitoring and Contingency Plan Review

This section outlines how the GSMCP will be reviewed including the mitigation and contingency procedures to make sure they are still applicable to the activities carried out.

8.1 General Review of the GSMCP This GSMCP is a live document that will be reviewed at least annually, or as a result of a material change to the project, including changes to Project designs or construction methods, or to address unforeseen settlement effects arising from construction, or unresolved complaints. Any material changes to this GSMCP must be certified by Auckland Council prior to any on-site activity reliant upon the change commencing. The management review procedure is described in further detail within the Project CEMP.

8.2 Review of Monitoring and Contingency Requirements The Consent allows for variation to the monitoring and reporting requirements, and performance standards (subject to certification by Auckland Council) in order to take account of information, including the results of previous monitoring and changed environmental knowledge, on:    

Ground conditions; Aquifer parameters; Groundwater levels; and Ground surface deformation.

Furthermore, the conditions of Consent allow for specific review and updates to the following: 

Review of the settlement alarm / alert / stop trigger levels: The trigger levels as provided in the Consent and Appendix C of the GSMCP may be revised following the BCS, and an assessment to confirm these are appropriately set and monitoring frequency is adequate.



Instrumentation: The specification of instruments, location and numbers of instruments may be modified as a result of the following:     



Page 26

Additional geotechnical investigation and ground characterisation; Specification of instruments and monitoring tools; Findings of the BCS; Detailed design of the temporary trench support system; or Modelling of the anticipated ground movement and associated settlements adjacent to the planned excavation.

Response: The response plan included in the GSMCP (Section 7) will be implemented in the event that trigger levels are exceeded. The response plan may be updated in order to deal with any adverse effect on the environment arising or potentially arising from the exercise of this consent, and in particular effects on buildings, structures and services.

| Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

APPENDIX A: Drawings

Karangahape Station Main Works

Title Block Ver 1.01

UPPER QUEE N ST

DACRE ST

IAN

AHAPE KARANG

W EST ST

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

UPPER QUEE N ST

E RIV ND NO KIN MC

T SS S CRO

ROAD

K3A K2 K8 CSA 3

K1/K4 K6

GR EY SA VE

T PIT

K3 ST

T LA GA OS

ST EA

BERE S

AD RO

FORD

E AP AH NG RA KA

T PIT

HO PE TO UN

LEGEND NOTES:

CRL DESIGNATION

ALIGNMENT

CSA 2

PROPOSED DRIVEN TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL

K1 K2 K3 K3A K4 K5 K6 K7 K8

MECURY LANE SHAFT MECURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE STATION PLATOFRM TUNNELS STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS EXTENDED MECURY LANE ENTRANCE BUILDING PITT ST SHAFT DELETED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SHAFT MERCURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE

CSA2 CSA3

BERESFORD SQUARE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA MECURY LANE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA

SHAFTS/ CUT AND COVER CSA REMOVED FROM RESOURCE CONSENT Last Saved: 11/10/2019 10:12:10 AM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

ADDED TO RESOURCE CONSENT

For Information Only DRAWING CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS

KARANGAHAPE STATION (ACZ K)

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

As indicated

DESIGNED

100mm

APPROVED

DRAWN

REV

DESCRIPTION

APPROVED

DATE

TITLE:

CHECKED

DATE

Checker

09/26/19

This drawing is confidential and shall only be used for the purpose of this project. The signing of this title block confirms the design and drafting of this project have been prepared and checked in accordance with the Link Alliance quality assurance system to ISO 9001-2000.

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

Approver

Author

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

Designer

REVISIONS Link Alliance has prepared this document for the sole use of the client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other third party should rely on this document without the written consent of Link Alliance. Link Alliance undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document.

SHEET STATUS

MERCURY LANE - PROPOSED LOCATION PLAN - COMPARISON BETWEEN RESOURCE CONSENT AND PROPOSED CHANGES

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

ARC

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

-SKE-Z704010

REVISION

Title Block Ver 1.01

UPPER QUEE N ST

DACRE ST

IAN

AHAPE KARANG

W EST ST

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

UPPER QUEE N ST

E RIV ND NO KIN MC

T SS S CRO

ROAD

K3A K2 K8 CSA 3

K1/K4 GR EY SA VE

T PIT

K3 ST

T LA GA OS

ST EA

BERE S

AD RO

FORD

E AP AH NG RA KA

T PIT

HO PE TO UN

LEGEND NOTES:

CRL DESIGNATION

CSA 2

ALIGNMENT

PROPOSED DRIVEN TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL

K1 K2 K3 K3A K4 K5 K6 K7 K8

CSA2 CSA3

BERESFORD SQUARE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA MECURY LANE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA

SHAFTS/ CUT AND COVER CSA

Last Saved: 11/10/2019 10:12:13 AM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

REMOVED FROM RESOURCE CONSENT

KARANGAHAPE STATION (ACZ K)

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

As indicated

DESIGNED

100mm

SHEET STATUS APPROVED

DRAWN

DESCRIPTION

APPROVED

DATE

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

MERCURY LANE - PROPOSED LOCATION PLAN

Approver

TITLE:

Author REV

DRAWING CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS

PROJECT:

Designer

For Information Only

ADDED TO RESOURCE CONSENT

CHECKED

DATE

Checker

09/27/19

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

ARC

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

-SKE-Z704011

REVISION

Title Block Ver 2.03

N STREET

UPPER QUEE N ST

REET

W EST ST

IAN

AHAPE KARANG

DACRE ST REET

REET

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

UPPER QUEE

E RIV ND NO KIN MC

T SS S CRO

ROAD

REET

K3A K2 K8 CSA 3

K11 K12

GR EY SA VE NU E

T PIT

ET RE

K3 OS R ST T EE

SQUA RE SFOR D BERE HO PE TO UN

LEGEND

AD RO

T EE

ET RE

E AP AH NG RA KA

TR TS

T LA GA

ST EA

K9/K10

PIT

K1/K4

CRL DESIGNATION

ST RE ET

NOTES:

ALIGNMENT

CSA 2

K1 K2 K3 K3A K4

MERCURY LANE SHAFT MERCURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS EXTENDED MERCURY LANE ENTRANCE BUILDING

K7 K8

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SHAFT MERCURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE

K9 K10 K11 K12

BERESFORD SQUARE SHAFT BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING BERESFORD SQUARE CROSS PASSAGE BERESFORD SQUARE SERVICE PASSAGE

CSA2 CSA3

BERESFORD SQUARE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA MERCURY LANE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA

PROPOSED DRIVEN TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL SHAFTS/ CUT AND COVER CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA (CSA)

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:24 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

INDICATIVE AREA OF PROPOSED WORKS SUBJECT TO RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

NOTE: 'BLUE' INDICATES INTERMEDIATE ACZS SUBJECT TO THIS RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

25000

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES

50000 mm

1:1000

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

As indicated

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE - LINK ALLIANCE DESIGN

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100003

REVISION

A00

Title Block Ver 2.03

N STREET

UPPER QUEE N ST

REET

W EST ST

IAN

AHAPE KARANG

DACRE ST REET

REET

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

UPPER QUEE

E RIV ND NO KIN MC

T SS S CRO

ROAD

REET

K3A K2 K8 CSA 3

K11 K12

GR EY SA VE NU E

T PIT

ET RE

K3 R ST T EE

SQUA RE SFOR D BERE HO PE TO UN

AD RO

T EE

ET RE

E AP AH NG RA KA

TR TS

T LA GA

ST EA

K9/K10

PIT

K1/K4

LEGEND CRL DESIGNATION

ST RE ET

CSA 2

NOTES:

ALIGNMENT

PROPOSED DRIVEN TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL SHAFTS/ CUT AND COVER CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA (CSA)

MERCURY LANE SHAFT MERCURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS EXTENDED MERCURY LANE ENTRANCE BUILDING PITT ST SHAFT - DELETED DELETED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SHAFT MERCURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE

K9 K10 K11 K12

BERESFORD SQUARE SHAFT BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING BERESFORD SQUARE CROSS PASSAGE BERESFORD SQUARE SERVICE PASSAGE

CSA2 CSA3

BERESFORD SQUARE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA MERCURY LANE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA

DCR

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REPORT

REMOVED FROM AURECON DCR DESIGN

INDICATIVE AREA OF PROPOSED WORKS SUBJECT TO RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:27 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

K1 K2 K3 K3A K4 K5 K6 K7 K8

ADDED BY LINK ALLIANCE DESIGN

NOTE: 'BLUE' INDICATES INTERMEDIATE ACZS SUBJECT TO THIS RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

25000

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES

50000 mm

1:1000

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

As indicated

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED CP

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE - LINK ALLIANCE DESIGN (COMPARISON WITH AURECON DCR DESIGN FOR INDICATIVE AREA OF PROPOSED WORKS) PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100004

REVISION

A00

Title Block Ver 2.03

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

N 2 - 100007

PITT ST

TUNNEL BELOW

KAR AN

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:28 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

BE SQ RE UA SF RE OR D

GAH APE RO

CANOPY ABOVE

1 - 100006

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES

PROPOSED BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING Scale: 1 : 250

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

1 : 250

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED CP

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING/SHAFT - FLOOR PLAN L0

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100005

REVISION

A00

Title Block Ver 2.03

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

ROOF BSQ 70,693

L0 BSQ ENTRANCE 64,693

B1 BSQ 58,743

B2 BSQ CONCOURSE 53,743

B3 BSQ 48,743

B4 BSQ 43,743

B5 BSQ OTE 38,743 B6 PLATFORM 33,743 MRL B7 UNDER PLATFORM 32,243

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING/SHAFT - SECTION 1

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:30 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

Scale: 1 : 250

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

1 : 250

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING/SHAFT - SECTION 1

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100006

REVISION

A00

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

Title Block Ver 2.03

PITT ST

BERESFORD SQUARE

ROOF BSQ 70,693

L0 BSQ ENTRANCE 64,693

B1 BSQ 58,743

B2 BSQ CONCOURSE 53,743

B3 BSQ 48,743

B4 BSQ 43,743

BERESFORD SQUARE SHAFT BEYOND SHOWN DASHED B5 BSQ OTE 38,743 B6 PLATFORM 33,743 MRL B7 UNDER PLATFORM 32,243

BERESFORD SQUARE - CROSS PASSAGE SECTION 2

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:31 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

Scale: 1 : 250

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

1 : 250

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

BERESFORD SQUARE CROSS PASSAGE - SECTION 2

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100007

REVISION

A00

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

APPENDIX B: Settlement Contours

Karangahape Station Main Works

16 486

488

107

490

492-494

500-504 508

385

89 91

510

419

106

427 429

421

109

108-112

122-130 141

151

150

165 160

174

179 183

185-189

121 60

40-50

4 6 10

15-25 22-28

268

158

256

283-287

61 12

21 19

292-300 3

31 339

335

340 346-350

345

Service Layer Credits: Sourced from the LINZ Data Service and licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 New Zealand licence

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870

CREATOR ID : ANTH

100 Meters

60-66

65 30

28 26

112

110 108

29 70

34 32

104

74 57

39-41

End of Project Extent Tunnels Cross Passages Shaft Locations Demolition Extent Heritage Buildings

Resource Consent Settlement Contours 10mm 5mm

Link Alliance Total Settlement Contour 5mm

10mm 20mm 30mm 40mm 50mm 60mm

Building Damage Classification Negligible

Very Slight Slight

CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT:

C3 Stations and Tunnels - System Wide

ZONE:

TITLE:

DOCUMENT:

94 92

Track Centerline

This sketch is confidential and shall only be used for the purpose of this project

76 62

14-28

334

326

21 2

322-324

327

181 185 183 187

128

312

315-325

21 25

177 179

175

295

333

173

17 19

290

309

CLIENT:

169

60-64

284-286

307

270

267-281

278

258

259-261

16-18

243

249

238

214

246-254

61-65

208

225 229 235

82 84

50 55

200

215

20 7

217 221

122

130

167

159 161-165

184

211

181

203 205 207

170

191

End of Karangahape Station Works

P:\1007807\WorkingMaterial\00 Projectwide\GIS\WorkingData\C3_CRL_SystemWide\ContourOutputs_SystemWide\20200317\LinkAllianceContours_20200317_sm.mxd

167

6 7

157

149 18

150-154

171

146

161

169

120

151-155

1-5

155

133

145 30

136

145

160 127

119 123 121

441

150 111 113 115

411

132

130

104

98 100

415

128

90 92 94

536

409

124 126

76 80

111

401

101

520

407

KEYPLAN

476 478 482 480 484

End of Karangahape Station Works

470

ISO A3 297mm x 420mm

468

Total Settlement Contours and Building Damage Classification - Karangahape Station PROJECT

CRL

ZONE

SYW

DISCIPLINE

GEO

ORGANISATION

LKA

TYPE

SKE

SHEET

110022

REVISION

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

APPENDIX C: Settlement Trigger Levels

Karangahape Station Main Works

Q DESIGNZ LIMITED architects engineers interior designers

Our Ref: S17029-C3-2 3 April 2020 Link Alliance Level 3, 12 Morgan St Newmarket Auckland 1023 Attn: Mr George Brink Dear George, CRL Karangahape Station - Proposed Main Works Trigger Levels for GSMCP IBA Comments

I refer to the above enabling works and your request to confirm the adequacy of the proposed trigger levels described in Appendix C – Table C-1 Summary of Building Survey Condition Survey Results and Adopted Settlement Trigger levels (see enclosed). Based on your explanation provided in your email of 31/3/2020 and our phone conversations that the updated designs resulted in the revised predicted ground movement along the length of the mined tunnel. The revised predictions showed an increase of between 2 and 8 mm of additional settlement compared to that previously considered in the ASE. We understand that the increase in ground settlements however do not materially affect the outcomes of the previously completed assessment of effects; no additional buildings are included in the revised 5mm settlement contour envelope and the damage classifications for all buildings are no worse than that outlined in the Beresford Square Entrance Consent (BUN60351064). Also you have confirmed that the results of the assessment confirmed the building damage classification will remain ‘negligible’ for all buildings within the predicted 5mm settlement contour. Based on the above reasons, I confirm that I have no concern or objection to these proposed trigger levels proposed in Table C-1 attached. I trust the above is satisfactory. Please contact me if you have any queries. Thank you. Yours Faithfully

Dr Mark Foo CPEng, PhD, BE(hons), CMEngNZ, MIEAus, CPEngNER, IntPE CRL C3 IBA

Q Designz Ltd, 10 McColl Street, PO Box 99 889 Newmarket Auckland

Ph: (09) 522 3398 Fax: (09) 523 3148

Table C-1 Buildings - Alert/Alarm Trigger Levels Address

Building Information

Consent ID No. No.

Street

Pitt Street

Beresford Square

Commercial and housing

Unreinforced masonry with timber flooring.

1/1930

0.047

Negligible

1/2570

0.026

Negligible

Pitt Street

Commercial

Pitt Street

Communal nonresidential

Unreinforced masonry

211235

Karangahape Road

Commercial

Unreinforced masonry

482

16-18

259281

251253

61-65

Karangahape Road

Pitt Street

Burland Damage Classification

Commercial

Communal nonresidential

Reinforced concrete frame and unreinforced masonry infill

Commercial

Concrete reinforced frame on Beresford Square side and unreinforced masonry on Karangahape Road side (original building). Concrete floor slabs.

Commercial

Unreinforced masonry.

Unreinforced concrete frame with masonry infill and timber flooring.

Maximum Slope

Maximum Tensile Strain [%}

Concrete block and timber framing with suspended timber and reinforced concrete flooring.

Maximum Settlement [mm]

Construction Form

Heritage (Y/N)

Building Condition Survey (BCS)

Building Use

Mixture of timber and unreinforced concrete walls with concrete and timber flooring.

Beresford Square

Assessment of Effects Results

1/4250

1/3750

1/5600

1/800

1/4250

1/2460

1/1830

0.027

0.024

0.014

0.035

0.022

0.027

0.045

Negligible

Surveyor

Survey Reference

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800035

CRL-MTESURBabbageRPT-800005

Condition1

Fair

Structural Review of BCS Review Memo Reference

Recommendations

KRD-PRSA042

Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans.

Good

KRD-PRSA043

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800018

Good

KRD-PRSA044

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800052

Fair

KRD-PRSA045

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800063

Poor

KRD-PRSA046

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800040

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800024

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800037

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800020

Good

Fair

KRD-PRSA047

KRD-PRSA048

KRD-PRSA049

KRD-PRSA050

Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Crack monitoring and structural inspection to quantify existing defects recommended. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans.

Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans.

Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Crack monitoring recommended. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Crack monitoring recommended.

Final Trigger Levels Vertical Movement Differential Slope [mm] Across Building Alert

Alarm

Alert

Alarm

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Address

Building Information

Consent ID No. No.

522

572

243

214

238

Street

Karangahape Road

246254

Karangahape Road

256

Karangahape Road

258264

Karangahape Road

Building Use

Construction Form

Housing and commercial

Unreinforced masonry with steel bracing alterations and timber flooring.

Commercial

Housing and commercial

Mixture of unreinforced masonry and concrete block walls. Concrete flooring. Reinforced concrete framing with masonry infill on ground floor and timber framing on upper floors.

Communal Residential

Reinforced concrete frame and unreinforced masonry infill

Commercial

Concrete frame with timber flooring.

Commercial

Housing and commercial

Steel framing with masonry and concrete block infill. Reinforced concrete floor slabs. Reinforced concrete frame with masonry infill. Reinforced concrete and timber floor slabs.

268

Karangahape Road

270

Karangahape Road

Commercial

Unreinforced masonry with concrete floor slabs.

Mercury Lane

Communal nonresidential

Unreinforced masonry

Assessment of Effects Results Heritage (Y/N)

Maximum Settlement [mm]

Maximum Slope

1/4330

1/2330

1/2450

>1/10000

1/3000

1/4000

1/1820

Maximum Tensile Strain [%}

0.042

0.033

0.018

0.003

0.034

0.032

0.011

0.015

0.029

Building Condition Survey (BCS) Burland Damage Classification

Negligible

Surveyor

Babbage

Survey Reference

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800007

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800023 CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800048

Condition1

Structural Review of BCS Review Memo Reference

Good

KRD-PRSA052

Good

KRD-PRSA053

Poor

KRD-PRSA054

Recommendations Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans.

Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Crack monitoring recommended. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans.

Final Trigger Levels Vertical Movement Differential Slope [mm] Across Building Alert

Alarm

Alert

Alarm

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800027

Good

KRD-PRSA055

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800049

Good

KRD-PRSA056

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800050

Fair

KRD-PRSA057

Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans.

1 / 1000

1 / 800

KRD-PRSA058

Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans.

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 795

1 / 636

1 / 549

1 / 439

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800042

Fair

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800056

Good

KRD-PRSA059

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800019

Fair

KRD-PRSA060

East Street

Housing

Concrete block walls.

1/6750

0.013

Negligible

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800010

Good

KRD-PRSA061

Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans.

Address

Building Information

Consent ID No. No.

652

121

122

158

50-60

Street

Cross Street

Pitt Street

Beresford Square

Building Use

Commercial

Commercial and housing

Communal nonresidential

Construction Form

Assessment of Effects Results Heritage (Y/N)

Maximum Settlement [mm]

Maximum Slope

Maximum Tensile Strain [%}

Building Condition Survey (BCS) Burland Damage Classification

Reinforced concrete frame with concrete slabs.

Reinforced concrete frame with reinforced concrete floor slabs.

1/5000

0.020

Negligible

1/8000

0.043

Negligible

Reinforced concrete frame with reinforced concrete floor slabs. Reinforced concrete frame with reinforced concrete floor slabs. Mixture of plaster, concrete block, and timber infill.

1/1870

1/5600

0.037

0.030

Negligible

Surveyor

Survey Reference

Condition1

Structural Review of BCS Review Memo Reference

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800000

Fair

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800054

Fair

KRD-PRSA121

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800061

Good

KRD-PRSA122

Babbage

CRL-KTNSURBabbageRPT-800032

Notes: 1: Building condition based on building condition criteria included in Babbageâ€™s pre-construction surveys. Condition Building Condition Category â€“ Category Description Babbage Good 1 Buildings with minor defects Fair 2 Buildings with medium defects Poor 3 Buildings with major defects 2: Proposed trigger levels have been amended from the limits defined in the Resource Consent BUN60351064, Drawing No. CRL-KRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257003-A01, Dated 04-02-2020.

Good

KRD-PRSA065

KRD-PRSA158

Recommendations Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Crack monitoring and structural inspection to quantify existing defects recommended. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Inspection and monitoring to continue as per the Groundwater and Settlement Management and Contingency plans and Noise and Vibration management plans. Crack monitoring recommended.

Final Trigger Levels Vertical Movement Differential Slope [mm] Across Building Alert

Alarm

Alert

Alarm

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Table C-2 Utilities - Alert/Alarm Trigger Levels Trigger Levels [+/-] Alert Alarm

Services

Movement

All services with a diameter greater than 200mm All rigid services with a diameter less than 200mm Non-rigid services with a diameter less than 200mm Identified critical infrastructure

Different vertical ground movement Different vertical ground movement Different vertical ground movement Different vertical ground movement

1 / 200

1 / 160

1 / 200

1 / 160

1 / 75

1 / 60

1 / 200

1 / 160

Table C-3 Inclinometer - Alert/Alarm Trigger Levels ID

Location

KVIW01

Beresford Square

KVIW02

Mercury Lane, Within D-Wall panel (north) Mercury Lane, Within D-Wall panel (west)

KVIW03

Alert (mm)

Horizontal Alarm (mm)

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

APPENDIX D: Settlement Monitoring Instrumentation

Karangahape Station Main Works

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

CZK0

2S13

CZK0 3

S04

CZK0

5S05

POYNTON TERRAC E

CZK0 5

VE SA EY

B112211 BB0011.1 .2

S06

B004455 BB0044.1 .2

B004455 BB0033.1

CZK0

2S12

B004466 BB0077.1

B112211 BB1133.1.2

B112222 BB0077.1

B004400 BB0022.1

121

B112211 BB0033.1 .2

45 B004466 BB0088.1

B112222 BB0055.1

122

T08S

B112211 BB1111.1 .2

B004466 BB0055.1

T08S

B112222 BB0088.1 .2

B112211 BB0044.1

B112222 BB004T4.1 0.2 8S

B112211 BB0066.1

B112211 BB0077.1

T08S 0

B112211 BB0088.1 .2

B112211B

B0099.1.2

B005533 BB0044.1

B005533 BB0011.1 .2

5S03

.2 .3

CZK0

B005544 BB1111.1

B004466 BB0044.1

B004455 BB0011.1

B112211 BB0055.1.2

CZK0 3S03

B004466 BB0066.1

B112222 BB0066.1 .2

CZK0

5S04

B004455 BB0022.1 .2

B004466 BB0011.1 .2

B112211 BB1100.1 .2

B004466 BB0033.1 .2

B005544 BB1122.1

B005533 BB0033.1.2

.2 .3

B112222 BB0022.1 .2

B006655 BB0044.1.2

B1122 T22 0BB 80S007 33.1.2

B005533 BB0022.1.2

B004466 BB0022.1 .2

PITT ST

B005544B B1100.1.3 .2

B005544B B1

133.1.2 .3

CZK0 B004411 BB0011.1 .2

T08S

CROS

B112222 BB0011.1 .2

2S12

B004422 BB0022.1 .2

B006655 BB0055.1.2

B004433 BB1100.1.2

CZK0

B004433 BB1111.1

CZK0

B004499 BB0011.1.2 .3

CZK0 2S10

CZK0

1S09

B004488 BB0011.1.2

B005522 BB0033.1.2 .3

B005500 BB0055.1.2 .3

B004444 BB0066.1

CZK0 1S

B004488 BB0022.1.2 .3

B005566 BB0011.1.2

B004433 BB0044.1.2

T08S

B006600 BB0022.1.2

B005500 BB0022.1.2 .3

T08S 03

B005500 BB0044.1 .2 .3

B004433 BB0033.1

BE B004433 BB0011.1.2

CZK0

155

B004477 BB0033.1.2 .3

1S07

CZK0

2S06

B115555 BB0011.1.2 CZK0 2S05 B115566 BB0011.1.2

B004477 BB0022.1.2 .3

1S06

B005599 BB0011.1.2

KAR

CZK0

B005588 BB0011.1.2

B004488 BB0044.1.2 .3

B005500 BB0044.1.2

AHA

ANG

B004488 BB0033.1.2 .3

CZK0

2S01

B005555 BB0033.1.2 .3

B004477 BB0011.1.2 .3

156

BS STT2200B B0011.1

CZK0 6S09

CZK0

1S07

3S05

B005544 BB0066.1.2 .3 CZK0 1

CZK0

1S08 B006655BB001 1.1

CZK0

3S08

B005544 BB0088.1.2 .3

S06

B005555 BB0022.1.2 .3

B006655B B0022.1.2

CZK0

3S09

CZK0

55 56

CZK0 3S11

Y MERCUR B006600B B005555 B0011.1.2 BB0011.1.2 .3 .3

CZK0

2S04

B006600 BB0022.1.2 .3

CZK0

1S05

CZK0

2S05 B006600 BB0033.1.2

CZK0 2

S06

CZK0

2S07

CZK0 2

S08

3S16

S14

CZK0

3S12

CZK0

3S13

3S10

CZK0

2S03

CZK0

CZK0 3S15

CZK0 3

CZK0 3S07

B005544 C BB0077.1.2 .3 ZK03S06

CZK0 2

CZK0

2S09

CZK0

2S10

CZK0

2S11

CZK0

2S12

CZK0

2S13

CZK0

2S14

CZK0

2S15

LANE

CZK0

6S08

2S16

CZK0 2

S17

CZK0

2S18

CZK0

2S19

CZK0 2

S20

CZK0 2S21

CZK0

1S04

B006600 BB0044.1.2 .3

B005577 BB0011.1.2

B004433 BB0022.1

6S10

B005544 BB0044.1.2 .3

CZK0

S02

B004433 BB0077.1.2

B005555 BB0044.1.2 .3

B005522 BB0022.1.2

B004422 BB0033.1 .2

3S03

S04 B005544BB 0055.1.2 .3

B005500 BB0044.1.2

B004444 BB0055.1.2

CZK0

CZK0 3

B005500 BB0033.1.2 B005 .3 500BB001 B005500BB005 1.1.2 5.2 B0011.1 22BB0011 .3 .3 .1.2 .3

1S09

B005544 BB0099.1.2 .3

3S02 B005544BB00 33.1.2 .3

B004444 BB0044.1 .2

T08S

B004433 BB0055.1.2

B004433 BB0088.1.2

T08S 0

B005544 BB0022.1.2

CZK0

T08S 0

B004433 BB0066.1.2

3S01

B004444 BB0033.1

CZK0

CZK0 2S11 B004444 BB0022.1.2

B004444 BB0011.1 .2

B004433 BB0099.1

B006655B B0033.1.2

B005544 BB1100.1.2 .3

B005544 BB0011.1.2 .3

B004422 BB0011.1 .2

S ST

B112211 BB0022.1

KAR ANG AHA PE R

B112211 BB1122.1 .2

57 58 59

CZK0 1

S03

B006600 BB0055.1.2 .3

CZK0 1S02

2 6 W

B006600 BB0066.1.2 .3

B006600 BB0099.1.2 .3

CZK0 1S01

B006600 BB0077.1.2 .3

2S04 B006600 BB0088.1.2 .3

.2 .3

B006611B B0022.1.2

B006611B B0011.1.2

CZK0 1S05

Last Plotted: 2020-04-06

B115566 BB0022.1.2

BS STT2222B B0011.1.2 .3

B115588 BB0011.1.2

CZK0

1S04 B115588 BB0044.1.2

BS STT2222B B0022.1.2 .3 CZK0

CZK0 1S03

2S03

158

BS STT2222B B0033.1

.2 .3

CZK0 1S02

CZK0

3S02

BS STT2222B B0044.1.2 .3

Last saved by:DIONYSIOS.KOUMOUTSAK ) (2020-04-06 Filename:

LEGEND ST

PROPOSED BUILDING SURVEY MONITORING

CZK0

157

1S01 CZK0 2S

CZK0

5S02

EAST ST

EXISTING PIEZOMETER (VIBRATING WIRE/STANDPIPE)

NOTES

PROPOSED PIEZOMETER PROPOSED DEFLECTION SURVEY MONITORING REFLECTORLESS

PROPOSED RETAINING WALL DEFLECTION SURVEY MONITORING

2. 3.

PROPOSED INCLINOMETER

SOME INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN SOURCED FROM THIRD PARTIES. CO-ORDINATES ARE IN MT EDEN 2000 AND LEVELS ARE TO AUCKLAND L&S 1946 DATUM. LOCATION OF EXISTING SERVICES HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED FROM AUCKLAND COUNCIL GIS AND UTILITIES PLANS AND ARE INDICATIVE. PHYSICAL LOCATION OF AFFECTED SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL AFFECTED SERVICES SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION.

CZK0 2S01 CZK0

5S01

CZK0 3S01

GALATOS

EAST ST

B115588 BB0033.1.2

BS STT2222B B0055.1.2 .3

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT SURVEY MONITORING

B006611B B0033.1.2

B006611B B0044.1.2

B115588 BB0022.1.2

PROPOSED INCLINOMETER IN RETAINING WALL

CREATOR ID : @CRL-SYW-GEO-IM-DRG-100000 70

100mm

SIZE

1:100

---APPROVED

PROJECT:

DRAWN

----

TITLE:

DESCRIPTION

APPROVED

DATE

CHECKED

DATE

----

CITY RAIL LINK PROJECT WIDE

ZONE:

REV

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870

SCALE

DESIGNED

REVISIONS

CLIENT:

INSTRUMENTATION & MONITORING KARANGAHAPE STATION MAIN WORKS PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ORGANISTION

TYPE

SHEET

CRL - SYW - GEO - LKA - SKE - 10041

REVISION

A00

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

APPENDIX E: Assessment of Settlement Effects Reports

Karangahape Station Main Works

MEMO

DATE

6 April 2020

Karangahape Station Planning and Design Teams

FROM

Groundwater and Settlement Team Lead

SUBJECT

Karangahape Station Design – Supplementary Assessment of Settlement Effects

Introduction This memo is supplementary to the Mercury Lane IGA and Beresford Square re-consenting studies (Report No’s. CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-RPT-800005 and CRL-KRG-RME-LKA-RPT-800009) – henceforth the “2019 ASE’s” and the GSMCP for the Karangahape Station early works (Report No. CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-PLN-800011) . It has been prepared to document estimates of ground surface settlement that consider additional excavations that have been added to the works since the issue of those documents, minor changes to the tunnel layouts, and to provide alternative estimates of the contribution of tunneling elements of the settlement to address comments during the OV review process. It confirms that the changes that have arisen since issue of the 2019 ASE’s and the estimates of tunnel induced settlement are immaterial to the predicted effects on surrounding buildings.

Summary Additional excavations are required near existing buildings to relocate a 22kV underground cable. Calculations identify that the contribution to overall settlement of buildings from these excavations is negligible – less than 2mm and resulting in damage classifications for buildings remaining unchanged - and does not necessitate a design, construction planning or construction implementation response. The mined tunnels at the northern end of the station have been extended by approximately 10m. Calculations identify that locally less than 3mm of additional settlement results, which does not necessitate a design, construction planning or construction implementation response. During the review process a difference in opinion over the appropriate tunnel volume loss parameter for calculation of tunneling induced settlement is addressed by adopting the reviewer’s higher value and assessing whether it results in a material effect on the damage classification predicted for the surrounding buildings. Settlement induced by tunneling when estimated in this way increases by up to 8mm overall and by up to 5mm at the location of buildings. Damage classifications assigned to the buildings however remain unchanged for the aggregated settlement including these higher figures, (and the additional settlements arising from design changes). Therefore, the higher volume loss assumption is not material to the predicted outcomes - and does not necessitate a design, construction planning or construction implementation response. The variations in total settlement as a result of these changes have been included in the updated Karangahape Station Total Settlement Contour Plan (CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-SKE-110022, Rev 1) and revised trigger levels in Table C-1, Appendix C of the Karangahape Station Main Works GSMCP.

Link Alliance - Level 3, 12 Morgan Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

New excavations for 22kV cable In addition to other early works activities described in the GSMCP for the Karangahape Station early works, a Vector 22kv underground transmission cable is being relocated around where the Beresford Square entrance will be excavated. Three temporary excavations, the details of which are summarised in Table 1 and presented on Figure 1. Table 1 Summary of temporary excavations

Temporary Excavation Beresford Square Joint Bay

Pitt Street Joint Bay

Pitt Street Oil Pit

Dimensions 13.0 m length 3.5 m width 2.0 m depth 17.0 m length 2.5 m width 2.5 m depth 4.0 m length 2.5 m wide 2.0 m depth

Nearest building

Distance to nearest building

19 Beresford Square (ID 164)

9.5 m

1 Beresford Square (ID 43)

1.0 m

1 Beresford Square (ID 43)

1.0 m

Figure 1 Temporary excavation layout â€“ green rectangles show the extent of the three excavations

The vertical and horizontal ground movement due to the temporary excavations were assessed using the empirical methods outlined in CIRIA (2017)1, and are presented in Figure 2 below.

CIRIA (2017). Guidance on embedded retaining wall design. CIRIA Report C760. Link Alliance - Level 3, 12 Morgan Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

Figure 2 Predicted ground movements for the three temporary excavations

Ground settlement from the excavations adjacent to Building ID 43 and ID 44 (1 Beresford Square and 55-59 Pitt Street) are expected to contribute less than 2 mm of additional settlement at the building face. Ground surface settlements from the Beresford Station excavation and mined tunnels are less than 5 mm in this area. The excavation adjacent to Building ID 164 (15 Beresford Square) is not expected to cause ground movement or settlement effects within the building footprint.

Alternative predictions of tunnel ground settlement Supplementary Information to 2019 ASEâ€™s The 2019 ASEâ€™s (and supporting documents) included the contribution of the tunnel boring machine (TBM) works to the total ground settlement effects at either end of Karangahape Station. Even though the effects of these works were included in the assessments, the details of these works are not discussed. Details relevant to the assessment of TBM induced ground movements are therefore included here for the sake of completeness. TBM induced ground settlement assessment assumptions The TBM tunnels will be sealed in short succession following excavation and placement of rings (allowing for back grouting processes following on from regular lining segment placement)to comply with condition 88 of water permit R/REG/2016/1892, which requires the tunnels to be sealed within one month of excavation. To assess TBM induced ground settlement, a ground loss value of 0.5% and a trough width coefficient value (k) of 0.5 have been adopted for the analyses of greenfield settlement effects from TBM construction. These values are conservatively based on back analyses of surface settlement effects from the Waterview tunnel construction, in west Auckland which is in a similar geological environment, where observed maximum settlement readings showed volume loss between 0.2% and 0.4% and a trough width coefficient k value in the range of 0.3 and 0.7. Updated Tunnel Ground Movements

Link Alliance - Level 3, 12 Morgan Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

Subsequent to completion of the 2019 ASE’s, changes in the tunnel design and updated ground conditions require an update to the i) total predicted ground movements and ii) the effects of the revised ground movements on surrounding structures. These changes include: 

Changes to the geological model and ground conditions following the results of additional investigations;



Revision of the adopted equivalent volume loss parameter for use in mined tunnel construction. A single deconfinement value (50%) was adopted at the time of completing the 2019 ASE’s. This value was converted into an equivalent volume loss of approximately 0.1% for use in the Gaussian model. The equivalent volume loss has since been revised (upwards) to 0.3% value as the tunnel designs are progressed; and



The addition of TBM launch stub tunnels at the northern end of the mined tunnel extents (Figure 3).

Figure 3 Schematic illustration of the mined tunnel layouts, showing position of stub tunnels at the northern end of station (left of figure)

Changes to the predicted total settlement based on the additional stub tunnels includes a localized increase in ground movement above the MC20/MC30 stub tunnels by approximately 3 mm, as well as an increase near the platform tunnel (PT3) south of the Mercury Lane shaft due to a change in the modelled ground conditions. The revised volume loss parameter increases the total predicted ground movements along the length of the mined tunnels by a maximum of 8 mm. The variations in total settlement as a result of these changes have been included in the Karangahape Station Total Settlement Contour Plan (CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-SKE-110022, Rev 1).

Updated Assessment of Effects Following the updates to the total predicted ground movement, the settlement effects were re-assessed for all buildings within the revised 5mm settlement contour by carrying out Stage 2 Risk Assessments. The results of the updated assessments are summarized in Table 2 below.

Link Alliance - Level 3, 12 Morgan Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

The aforementioned changes to the scope and design do not materially affect the conclusions from the previously completed ASEâ€™s. No additional buildings are included in the revised ground settlement envelope, or considered to be affected by the works due to the updates discussed in this memo. The assessed settlement effects (i.e. building damage classifications) are unchanged for all structures compared to that specified in the Beresford Square Entrance Consent (BUN60351064). Revised trigger levels, based on the updated ground movements, are presented in Table C-1, Appendix C of the Karangahape Station Main Works GSMCP.

Link Alliance - Level 3, 12 Morgan Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

Table 2 Summary of Stage 2 Risk Assessments following updates to predicted ground movements â€“ values in [square brackets] are the previous assessment value

Consented Effects1

Building No

Street No.

Assessed Effects

Consent settlement alarm level2 [mm]

Consent differential vertical slope alarm level15

Building damage classification

Maximum estimated settlement [mm]

Maximum estimated differential vertical slope

Maximum tensile strain [%]

Building damage classification

Pitt Street

1/800

Negligible

7 [7]

1/4250

0.027

Negligible

Beresford square

1/800

Negligible

10 [8]

1/3750

0.024

Negligible

55-59

Pitt Street

1/800

Negligible

20 [18]

1/1930

0.047

Negligible

Pitt Street

1/800

Negligible

19 [14]

1/2570

0.026

Negligible

211 â€“ 235

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

19 [14]

1/5600

0.014

Negligible

16-18

Beresford Square

1/800

Negligible

6 [10]

1/800

0.035

Negligible

259-281

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

18 [12]

1/4250

0.022

Negligible

251-253

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

22 [14]

1/2460

0.027

Negligible

61-65

Pitt Street

1/800

Negligible

25 [19]

1/1830

0.044

Negligible

243

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

19 [11]

1/4330

0.042

Negligible

214

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

8 [5]

1/2330

0.033

Negligible

238

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

20 [15]

1/2450

0.018

Negligible

246-254

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

11 [5]

>1/10000

0.003

Negligible

256

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

11 [6]

>1/10000

0.034

Negligible

258-264

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

12 [6]

1/3000

0.032

Negligible

268

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

6 [2]

1/4000

0.011

Negligible

270

Karangahape Road

1/800

Negligible

4 [2]

1/4000

0.015

Negligible

Mercury Lane

1/636

Very slight

22 [20]

1/1820

0.029

Negligible

East Street

1/439

Negligible

6 [6]

1/6750

0.013

Negligible

Cross Street

1/800

Negligible

21 [15]

1/1870

0.037

Negligible

121

50-60

Pitt Street

1/800

Negligible

9 [10]

1/5000

0.020

Negligible

122

Pitt Street

1/800

Negligible

11 [14]

1/8000

0.043

Negligible

158

Beresford Square

1/800

Negligible

7 [6]

1/5600

0.030

Negligible

Address

Consented effects as per Resource Consent BUN60351064, Drawing No. CRL-KRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257003-A01, dated 04-02-2020 Link Alliance - Level 3, 12 Morgan Street, Newmarket, Auckland 1023

Karangahape Station â€“ Mercury Lane Amendments

Assessment of Settlement Effects

CRL-KRG-RME-LKA-RPT-800009

Revision: A00 Date: 22 November 2019

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-RPT-800009

This document is uncontrolled when printed. This document should be printed in colour This transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it or take action in reliance on it. If you have received this fax transm ission in error, please notify us and return it to us as soon as possible.

Review Status Revision

Issue Date

Status

Prepared By

Reviewed By

22/11/2019

First issue

RGC

Clint Every

Approval Status Name/Title Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Approved by:

Signature

Date

Richard Cole Geotechnical Engineer

21 November 2019

George Brink Engineering Geologist

21 November 2019

Clint Every Geotechnical Discipline Lead

21 November2019

Jennifer Carvill Planning Lead - Karangahape Station

21 November2019

Peter Roan Planning Lead

21 November2019

© Link Alliance. All rights reserved. The Link Alliance has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of the Link Alliance. The Link Alliance undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and the Link Alliance’s experience, having regard to assumptions that the Link Alliance can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. The Link Alliance may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been verified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety. Design package report template version 1 (26 July 2019)

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Table of contents 1

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

Project Description...................................................................................... 1 2.1

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 1

2.2

City Rail Link Designations ................................................................................................. 2

2.3

Aotea Station to the North Auckland Line Resource Consents .......................................... 2

2.3.1 2.4

Proposed Mercury Lane amendments ............................................................................... 3

Existing Environment .................................................................................. 4 3.1

Topography ....................................................................................................................... 4

3.2

Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 5

3.3

Geology ............................................................................................................................. 5

3.4

Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................... 5

3.4.1

Perched Groundwater ................................................................................................ 5

3.4.2

Regional Groundwater System ................................................................................... 6

3.5

Existing Buildings and Structures ....................................................................................... 6

3.6

Existing Utilities ................................................................................................................. 6

Settlement Assessment .............................................................................. 7 4.1

Overview of settlement assessment .................................................................................. 7

4.2

Mechanical Settlement Assessment .................................................................................. 7

4.2.1

Tunnel Mechanical Settlement ................................................................................... 7

4.2.2

Temporary construction shaft settlement ................................................................. 10

4.2.3

Mercury Lane Shaft Settlement ................................................................................ 12

4.3

Consolidation Settlement Assessment ............................................................................ 13

4.3.1

Drawdown Assessment Update ................................................................................ 13

4.3.2

Consolidation Settlement Assessment ...................................................................... 14

4.4

Karangahape Station (ACZ K) ...................................................................................... 2

Combination of Settlement Predictions........................................................................... 20

Assessment of Effects ............................................................................... 20 5.1

A2N Resource Consent Trigger Levels .............................................................................. 20

5.2

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 20

5.2.1

Stage 1 - Preliminary Assessment ............................................................................. 20

5.2.2

Stage 2 Assessment .................................................................................................. 21

5.2.3

Stage 3 Assessment .................................................................................................. 22

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

5.3

Buildings Assessed ........................................................................................................... 23

5.4

Assessed Settlements ...................................................................................................... 23

5.5

Expected Building Damage Classification ........................................................................ 24

Settlement Monitoring Plan ..................................................................... 26

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................ 26

APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 27 Appendix A – Proposed design plans .............................................................. 28 Appendix B – Geological Cross Section ........................................................... 29 Appendix C – PDP technical memorandum .................................................... 30 Appendix D – Building Damage Classification Plan ......................................... 31 Appendix E – Xdisp Building Classification Results ......................................... 32

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Abbreviations / glossary of terms Acronym A2N AC ACZ ACZ K CMJ CRL CSA DCR ECBF EER ER ERc ETA EU2 EUs3 EW FME GL NAL PDP Pmax PPFRS TA TA2 TAc TBM TER TTA UER UTA

Meaning Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Auckland Council Active Construction Zone Active Construction Zone â€“ Karangahape Station Central Motorway Junction City Rail Link Construction Support Areas Design and Construction Report East Coast Bays Formation Stiffness modulus of residual to completely weathered East Coast Bays Formation Residual to Completely weathered East Coast Bays Formation Consolidation settlement of the residual to completely weathered East Coast Bays Formation Stiffness modulus Tauranga Group Alluvium Unweathered East Coast Bays Formation Unweathered East Coast Bays Formation, well cemented (Channelised sandstone) Weathered East Coast Bays Formation Feature Manipulation Engine Ground level North Auckland Line Pattle Delamore Partners Maximum depressurisation Polypropylene fibre reinforced shotcrete Tauranga Group Alluvium TG Older Alluvium Consolidation settlement of the Tauranga Group Alluvium Tunnel Boring Machine Thickness of the Residual to Completely weathered East Coast Bays Formation Thickness of the Tauranga Group Alluvium at point of calculation Change in pressure at point of calculation due to dewatering Change in pressure at point of calculation due to dewatering

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Introduction

The Link Alliance is delivering the detailed design and construction of the City Rail Link (CRL) project from the new Aotea Station south to where CRL joins the North Auckland Line (NAL) at Mt Eden. This section of the CRL includes the new underground Karangahape Station. The Aotea to NAL (A2N) resource consents, granted on 17 November 2016, authorise activities associated with the CRL works from Aotea Station to the NAL. The A2N resource consents were supported by the 2016 Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) report 1, the Design and Construction Report’2 (Aurecon DCR) and associated specialist assessments, including an Assessment of Settlement Effects Report3. Those assessments were based on a ‘6 car’ station platform design (referred to in this report as the Aurecon DCR design). Due to anticipated population growth a decision has been made to modify the design to accommodate 9-car trains. As a consequence of this, components of the proposed Karangahape Station near Mercury Lane differ from the design that was authorised by the Aotea Station to North Auckland Line (A2N) resource consent obtained for CRL in 2016. The main amendments include: the addition of a temporary construction shaft; the extension of the two mined tunnels further south; and, an additional cross passage in the vicinity of Mercury Lane. These changes are further described in Section 2.3. This report provides an assessment of the potential settlement effects in the Mercury Lane area, as a result of the proposed Mercury Lane amendments. This assessment has been undertaken to support a report (‘in general accordance assessment’) to confirm to Auckland Council (AC) that the proposed ‘Mercury Lane amendments’, referred to above, are within the scope of the existing A2N resource consent. Amendments to the Aurecon DCR design of Karangahape Station are also proposed to provide for an additional station entrance at Beresford Square. This will be subject to a resource consent application. Accordingly, the settlement effects associated with the Beresford Square amendments will be reported separately. This report considers the latest Karangahape Station design as part of the settlement assessment detailed in Section 4, (including proposed amendments at Beresford Square), however, only the results associated with Mercury Lane (south of Karangahape Road) have been reported.

Project Description

2.1 Overview The CRL project involves the construction of a 3.4km underground passenger railway, running between Britomart Station and the NAL in the vicinity of Mt Eden station. The CRL also involves the 1

‘Assessment of Environmental Effects, Resource Consent Package 2, Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation’ prepared by Aurecon, dated 13 May 2016, rev 2). 2 ‘Design and Construction Report, Resource Consent Package 2, Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation’ (CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0006, revision 1, 13 May 2016), submitted with the A2N resource consent application. 3 Aurecon, (2016). Auckland City Rail Link (CRL) ‘Assessment of Settlement Effects Report, Resource Consent Package 2, Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation’. Reference No. CRL-SYWRME-000-RPT-0045, Revision 3, 30 June 2016. CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

construction of two new underground stations, Aotea Station and Karangahape Station. The works also include an additional 850m of track modifications within and adjacent to the CRL. The indicative CRL alignment is shown in Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1 Indicative CRL alignment

2.2 City Rail Link Designations There are six designations (reference 2500: 1-6 in the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP)) for the CRL which apply to different surface and strata/sub-strata components of the project. The CRL designations and associated conditions were confirmed by the Environment Court on 10 November 2015. The designations have authorised land use activities associated with the construction and operation of the CRL.

2.3 Aotea Station to the North Auckland Line Resource Consents The Aotea to NAL (A2N) resource consents, granted on 17 November 2016, authorise activities associated with the CRL works from Aotea Station to NAL. This includes water permit (groundwater diversion/discharge) R/REG/2016/1892. The Aotea to NAL section of the CRL project covers the construction of a 2.8 km underground passenger railway, including the future Aotea Station via cut-and-cover means and the tunnels by TBM between Aotea Station and the NAL. It also encompasses the construction of the Karangahape Station (including the excavation of shafts and mined tunnels). The consents also authorise the operation and maintenance of the entire CRL from Britomart Station to the NAL.

2.3.1

Karangahape Station (ACZ K)

The Aurecon DCR design of the Karangahape Station construction area is referred to as Active Construction Zone â€“ Karangahape Station (ACZ K) and, as shown on the Council approved drawings CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

which form part of the A2N resource consents, is divided into six Intermediate ACZs (K1 to K6) as detailed below. It also includes two Construction Support Areas (CSAs) (CSA 2 and CSA 3) (refer Figure 2.2). In general ACZ K involved the construction of two underground mined station platforms, a mined central tunnel and cross adits, the above ground entrance at Mercury Lane, and an emergency exit and ventilation shaft at Pitt Street and Mercury Lane.        

(K1) Mercury Lane Shaft; (K2) Mercury Lane Cross Passage; (K3) Station Platform Tunnels; (K4) Mercury Lane Entrance Building; (K5) Pitt Street Shaft; (K6) Central Concourse Tunnel; (CSA 2) Beresford Square CSA; and (CSA 3) Mercury Lane CSA.

Figure 2.2: Karangape Station and construction area (imaged from A2N resource consent drawings)

2.4 Proposed Mercury Lane amendments The Aurecon DCR design of the CRL accommodated 6-car trains only. Due to anticipated passenger growth a decision has been made to alter the detailed design to accommodate 9-car trains (refer Figure 2.3) and Drawings CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-DGR-SKE-Z704010 and SKE-Z704011 in Appendix A. The main Mercury Lane design amendments required for the operation of 9-car trains include: 

An extension to the platform lengths (K3A). To create this additional platform length, the mined tunnels for the platforms have been extended south of the Mercury Lane entrance;

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects



An additional cross passage (K8) is required to provide a link between the two extended platforms for ventilation purposes at the southern part of the Karangahape Station; and



A temporary access shaft (K7), to a depth of approximately 22 m below ground level (bgl) will be constructed at the southern end of the station platform to facilitate the construction of the mined station platform tunnels. These mined platform tunnels will receive the TBM from Mt Eden and facilitate the launch of the TBM to Aotea. The shaft will consist of either sheet-piles with ring beams or secant piles.

In addition to the above, the Central Concourse Tunnel (K6) that was included in the Aurecon DCR design that supported the A2N resource consent has subsequently been removed and therefore is not included in the detailed design. The works described in Section 2.3 will commence late February 2020 and form part of the main works for Karangahape Station. The Design and Construction Report (DCR), prepared by Aurecon, dated 13 May 2016 (Aurecon DCR) that forms part of the A2N resource consents applies to the proposed Mercury Lane amendments. Section 5.2 of the DCR relates to the construction of Karangahape Station. Additional specific detail of the proposed Mercury Lane amendments is included in the ‘in general accordance assessment’ report, prepared by the Link Alliance (ref: CRL-KRD-RMA-LKA-RPT-800001).

Figure 2.3 Mercury Lane amendments (blue hatching) as well as the deletion of the Central Tunnel (K6) (red hatching)

Existing Environment

3.1 Topography The Karangahape Station will be constructed in a north-south direction under the Karangahape Road ridgeline (refer Figure 2.3). There is a relatively steep gradient rising from the proposed Aotea Station towards Karangahape Station. A valley is located south of Karangahape Road, within which CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

the Central Motorway Junction (CMJ) lies. The Mercury Lane amendments for the new station are proposed in the area between Karangahape Road and the CMJ.

3.2 Land Use Mercury Lane, and the surrounding area is a built up urban environment consisting mainly of mixed use commercial and residential activities. The area consists of character precincts and heritage buildings, with a distinctive built form and streetscape character. The current land use comprises office buildings, residential and visitor accommodation, restaurants and bars, off street parking and venue hire spaces.

3.3 Geology The ground surface within the area surrounding Mercury Plaza to Beresford Square is underlain by a general sequence of fill, alluvium, soils and weathered rocks of the East Coast Bays formation (ECBF), which in turn transition to unweathered units at depth. Geological sections through the Mercury Lane Shaft area presented in Appendix B. Fill is generally 1-2m thick but is up to 4m thick just south of the ridge crest at Karangahape Road and is mostly comprised of pavements with granular sub-grades. Local deposits of Pleistocene age Tauranga Group Alluvium (TA2) infill the heads of paleo-tributary gullies carved within the surface of the underlying ECBF soils and rocks. A lens of alluvium occurs to the south of the Mercury Lane shaft, infilling a paleo-gully dipping to the west. It likely extends beneath adjacent buildings on the south west corner of East Street. A variable thickness of weathered East Coast Bays Formation is mapped in the area with some boreholes encountering up to 10m thickness of East Coast Bay Formation Residual Soil (ER) and weathered East Coast Bays Formation (EW) and other nearby boreholes encountering less than 5m of combined ER and EW. This variability may be attributable to preferential weathering down steeply inclined joints or faults. The weathered East Coast Bays Formation soils and rocks transition into unweathered units generally characterised as either EU2 (cemented) or EUa3 (Channelised Sandstone). The channelised sandstone (EUs3) in the CMJ area is mapped throughout the Karangahape Station area. The level of the base of the channelised sandstone unit approximates to the vertical rail track alignment through this area. The unit is gently folded and faulted. It is typically massive in the drill core, however swarms of joints are identified in boreholes, which may be related to nearby faulting. Above and below the channelised sandstone unit, the ECBF is predominantly characterised as EU2, with sub-horizontal orientation of strata.

3.4 Hydrogeology 3.4.1

Perched Groundwater

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

fluctuates between these maximum and minimum levels in response to rainfall events, particularly in the Beresford Square area. These zones were assessed to be relatively isolated and laterally discontinuous, flowing to local topographic sinks or shallow drainage infrastructure.

3.4.2

Regional Groundwater System

Beneath the perched groundwater zone (at depths varying between approximately 8 to 10 m b GL), seasonally permanent saturation of the fill / alluvium / residual ECBF is assumed to occur, representing the top of the regional groundwater system in this area. This regional hydrogeological regime is relatively complex, with up to four regional groundwater levels conceptualised in the hydrogeological model of the area. These groundwater systems are separated by variable levels of aquifer confinement, with multiple fault boundaries which may act to partially compartmentalise local groundwater flows.

3.5 Existing Buildings and Structures The buildings located near the Mercury Lane CSAs are zoned 'Business - City Centre Zone’. The area is typically characterised as ‘mixed-use’ with low-rise residential, commercial and industrial buildings used for living, entertainment, and retail. Many of these buildings were constructed in the early 20th century and are typically of unreinforced masonry or reinforced concrete construction and are founded on shallow pads and strip footings. Many of the buildings within this area have heritage status and due to the nature of their construction, are more susceptible to surface settlements. Further discussion on buildings which require condition surveys as part of the Karangahape Station main works is included in Section Error! Reference source not found..

3.6 Existing Utilities CRL construction activity at Mercury Lane is located in a mixed-use area with a dense range utility network services. The existing utilities located near the Karangahape Station and their typical construction types are summarised in Table 3-1. Table 3-1 Existing service summary

Utility Wastewater Stormwater Watermains Gas Communications and fibre optics Power

Typical Construction Brick, concrete, asbestos concrete, and vitrified clay Concrete and asbestos concrete Concrete-lined steel, steel and polyethylene Polyethylene, and steel Bundled copper networks and fibre optic cables in PVC and PE ducts. High voltage transmission towers, directly buried cables, and cables in PVC and PE ducts.

The age and condition of these utilities vary greatly, and the condition of each utility is expected to differ significantly. Ongoing consultation has been carried out with the relevant network utility operators as part of the project design to obtain the best possible understanding of the location and condition of each utility. CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Settlement Assessment

4.1 Overview of settlement assessment The construction of the Karangahape Station has the potential to induce surface, subsurface and lateral ground movements with resulting effects on nearby buildings and infrastructure. Generally, there are two displacement mechanisms associated with the works that have the potential to induce ground movement. These are:  

Mechanical settlement from ground movement or deflection of ground due to the construction of the shafts and tunnels. Consolidation settlement of surface soils due to changes in groundwater pressures.

Mechanical settlement is expected to occur within several weeks from the start of construction and is therefore relatively instantaneous. Consolidation settlement occurs relatively slowly over a period of months or years. Each component has been assessed individually and then combined to produce the total settlement caused by the works and their subsequent effects.

4.2 Mechanical Settlement Assessment 4.2.1

Tunnel Mechanical Settlement

4.2.1.1 Assessment Method Mechanical settlements for the tunnels and adits have been assessed using Plaxis 2D (version 2018). Each mined excavation model was set up as plane strain model adopting 15-noded elements.

4.2.1.2 Design Assumptions The assumptions regarding tunnel geometry used in the assessment were based on the cross-section and station layout as per Link Alliance tender design drawings. The mined tunnels will be supported by shotcrete lining (PPFRS – polypropylene fibre reinforced shotcrete) and rock bolts where applicable. The secondary lining has not been considered in the settlement analyses as the effects on the settlement after the application of the temporary lining is considered negligible. The alignments of the CRL tunnels are referred to as CRL down (MC20) and CRL up (MC30). The mined tunnels extend the length of the Karangahape Station. Beyond the station it is proposed to construct the tunnels by TBM. Two mined tunnel cross sections have been analysed:  

Standard mined tunnel section which is based on cross section at Chainage MC30-683-700 (Figure 4.1). Enlarged mined tunnel cross section to allow for the TBM entry and additional height for tunnel ventilation system. This section is based on a cross section at Chainage MC30-683845 (Figure 4.2).

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Figure 4.1 Standard Mined Tunnel Cross Section

Figure 4.2 Enlarged Mined Tunnel Cross Section

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

The geological sections for the tunnels have been developed from the Link Alliance Leapfrog 3D geological model. Geotechnical design parameters have been taken as specified in the Link Alliance Geotechnical Basis of Design (CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-RPT-800000). The settlement analysis was carried out over multiple model stages to capture the induced mechanical settlement. The stages outlined below were followed for settlement assessment of each cross section.   

  

Initial stage – set up of initial stress conditions prior to tunnel excavation - K0 procedure. Application of 20 kPa surcharge at ground level (displacements due to surcharge are reset at beginning of next stage) to reflect general surface development conditions. Excavation of mined platform tunnels – deconfinement kept at 0% to delay induced mechanical settlement. Groundwater is allowed to drawdown due to excavation (displacements caused by drawdown are reset at beginning of next stage). Deconfinement of excavated rock mass – assumed as 50%. Initial 50mm low strength shotcrete lining – deconfinement of rock mass assumed as 40%. Primary shotcrete lining and rock bolting (if applicable) – complete deconfinement of rock mass (100%).

4.2.1.3 Assessment Results Figure 4.3 presents the assessed mechanical settlement cross section profiles (perpendicular to the tunnel alignments) from the mined tunnels. To create a 3 dimensional settlement surface the settlement profile from the standard mined tunnel cross section has been projected along the tunnel centreline northern end of the station to the Mercury Lane Shaft and the settlements from the enlarged mined tunnel from the Mercury Lane Shaft to the southern end of the station. This surface has then been combined with the settlement surfaces that have been developed for the shafts and consolidation settlements (Refer Section 4.4 of this report).

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Figure 4.3 â€“ Assessed mechanical settlements due to the mined tunnels

4.2.2

Temporary construction shaft settlement

4.2.2.1 Assessment Method The mechanical settlement analyses were carried out using Plaxis 2D (version 2018) finite element software. The construction access shaft was analysed as an axisymmetric model adopting 15-noded elements.

4.2.2.2 Design Assumptions The access shaft is proposed to be located to the south of the proposed Mercury Lane Shaft of Karangahape Station, offset approximately 21.5 m from the MC20 alignment. The shaft is expected to remain open for approximately 3 years. The shaft is to be circular, comprising of either secant piles or sheet piles (supported by 3 rows concrete walers) extending to the top of unweathered rock, and rock support (rock bolts and mesh and/or shotcrete lining) below the secant/sheet piles. For the analysis we have assumed sheetpiles as this results in the largest settlements. The shaft is to have a 16.8 m internal diameter in the upper sheet pile section and 15 m diameter in the lower rock cut section in order to accommodate requirement for vertical transport of construction equipment. The geological sections for the temporary construction shaft have been developed from the Link Alliance Leapfrog 3D geological model. Geotechnical design parameters have been taken as specified in Table 9.9.2-1 of the Alliance Geotechnical Baseline Report (CRLL, 2018). For the mechanical settlements assessment the groundwater level of 50m RL has been assumed based on an average seasonal high from nearby boreholes and historical data. Due to model constraints, groundwater drawdown has not been incorporated within the mechanical settlement CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

model. Instead, groundwater was manually stepped down within the excavation as the excavation progressed, while the groundwater level behind the sheet pile wall remained the same throughout. The settlement analysis was carried out over multiple stages to model the induced mechanical settlement. The stages outlined below were followed for the assessment. The model stages have been applied to analyse mechanical settlement only, where groundwater drawdown external to the shaft, has not been modelled.      

Initial stage – K0 procedure. Application of 20 kPa surcharge at ground level (displacements due to surcharge are reset at beginning of next stage). Construction of secant wall embedded one metre into rockhead (42.5 mRL). Excavation to rockhead (43.5 mRL). Rock cut 1 (39.5 mRL) and application of 75 mm shotcrete lining of rock face. Rock cut 2 (35.5 mRL) and application of 75 mm shotcrete lining of rock face. Rock cut 3 (31.0 mRL – final excavation level) and application of 75 mm shotcrete lining of rock face.

4.2.2.3 Assessment Results Figure 4.4 presents the assessed mechanical settlement profile at the ground surface arising from the construction of the temporary shaft. This settlement profile has been projected around the perimeter of the shaft to create a 3 dimensional settlement surface. The surface has then been combined with the settlement surfaces that have been developed for the tunnels, other shafts and consolidation settlements (Refer Section 4.4 of this report).

Figure 4.4 – Assessed mechanical settlements due to the temporary construction shaft

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

4.2.3

Mercury Lane Shaft Settlement

4.2.3.1 Assessment Method The mechanical settlement due to the proposed design of the Mercury Lane Shaft were assessed as a plane strain model using PLAXIS 2D v2018. The soil-structure interaction throughout the staged construction and long term conditions has been considered. Two cross sections have been assessed for the resource consent design, aligned North-South and East-West. Geological conditions are based on the typical location of maximum retained height for each section.

4.2.3.2 Design Assumptions The station shaft comprises top-down construction using diaphragm walls to the competent channelised sandstone (EU3) and open cut in the rock down to the base of the shaft. The construction of the lower walls and floors is then constructed bottom-up. The geological sections for the Mercury Lane shaft have been developed from the Link Alliance Leapfrog 3D geological model. These are typical of the location of maximum ground retention heights. Geotechnical design parameters have been taken as specified in Table 9.9.2-1 of the Alliance Geotechnical Baseline Report (CRLL, 2018). The perched system has been simplified for modelling purposes as a saturated zone commencing from about 3.5m below ground level. For comparison the highest measured groundwater level to date within the boreholes adjacent to the site is about 6.5m below ground level (piezometer installed within the EW unit). The adopted design groundwater pressures have been taken as hydrostatic below the perched groundwater level until the bottom of the upper aquifer (ER unit), and then assumed constant until the corresponding pressure in the regional groundwater table (likely highly conservative). Within the soils, top down construction staging has been modelled. A planned excavation of 100mm below the underside of each floor slab level has been modelled for the purpose of this ground settlement assessment. Within the rock, a planned excavation of 500mm below the underside slab has been modelled. The Mercury Theatre to the north of the Mercury Lane Shaft has perimeter masonry walls that widen at their base to form brick footings. Concrete pad footings support jack studs to the timber flooring. Based on a review of available historical drawings, the footing load has been estimated to be up to about 330 kN/m over a 1.5 m footing width (220 kPa). This load has been included in the PLAXIS model as a surcharge. It has been assumed that the Mercury Theatre structure has no ability to redistribute the footing load through the structure. Further assessment of the settlement beneath the Mercury Theatre will be undertaken as part of detailed design.

4.2.3.3 Assessment Results Figure 4.5 presents the assessed mechanical settlement profile from the Mercury Lane Shaft. This settlement profile has been projected around the perimeter of the shaft to create a 3 dimensional settlement surface. The surface has then been combined with the settlement surfaces that have been developed for the tunnels, other shafts and consolidation settlements (Refer Section 4.4 of this report).

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Due to the assumed 220 kPa bearing pressure beneath the Mercury Theatre footing, the soil beneath the footing has more vertical pressure compared to the soil adjacent to the footing. Consequently, the diaphragm wall movement results in estimated settlements of up to 14 mm occurring beneath the Mercury Theatre footing as is shown in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.5 â€“ Assessed mechanical settlements due to the Mercury Lane shaft

4.3 Consolidation Settlement Assessment Consolidation settlement is caused through the reduction of pore water pressure (and subsequent increase in effective stress) when groundwater drawdown occurs. Consolidation settlement was calculated using the exported Modflow/SeepW results from the updated 2019 drawdown assessment (Section 4.3.1), interpolated around the station footprint and calculated using onedimensional consolidation settlement theory (Section 4.3.2). This is consistent with the general approach for calculating consolidation settlement that was used in the application for the Aotea to NAL Resource Consent4.

4.3.1

Drawdown Assessment Update

Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) was engaged by the Link Alliance to update and extend the existing groundwater drawdown models5 to support the consolidation settlement assessment for the revised Karangahape Station design including the proposed Mercury Lane amendments outlined in Section 2.3. Updates to the previous groundwater drawdown models included: 4

Aurecon, (2016). Auckland City Rail Link (CRL) Assessment of Settlement Effects Report, Resource Consent Package 2, Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation. Reference No. CRL-SYWRME-000-RPT-0045, Revision 3, 30 June 2016. 5 PDP, (2016). Auckland City Rail Link (CRL) Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation: Groundwater Technical Report. Reference No. A02502731R001, dated May 2016. CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects



Assuming a fully saturated system below the phreatic surface as previous, but including a seasonal high and seasonal low water level following a review of the available historic regional groundwater monitoring data. The addition of the seasonal low water level formed the basis to re-interpret the estimated change in groundwater level/pressures within the TA and ER following a long-term drawdown scenario. Ground conditions in the models were updated based on a geological cross-section from the updated Leapfrog 3D model. The geological section, running approximately SoutheastNorthwest through Beresford Square, was selected to consider the greatest possible extent of the compressible TA and ER soils around the revised station footprint. The latest Link Alliance station design, considering the effects from the changes in shaft size and configuration on drawdown when compared to what was authorised under the A2N resource consent, being the Aurecon DCR design.

All other boundary conditions and material parameters were left unchanged and are consistent with the assessment for the A2N resource consent. The updated drawdown assessment results are summarized in the PDP technical memorandum “Drawdown Assessment Update: C3: K-Rd Station – Beresford Square / Pitt St Shaft”, dated 15 October 2019 and attached as Appendix C.

4.3.2

Consolidation Settlement Assessment

For the updated consolidation settlement assessment, depressurisation in the compressible ER and TA units as a result of groundwater drawdown was considered. Key elements of the assessment include: 



Considering the variation in the modelled depressurisation characteristics between the TA and ER units in the PDP assessment, the consolidation settlement assessment differentiates between the different drawdown responses within these two units. Independent depressurisation functions have therefore been adopted for these different units, best fitting the extent of depressurisation captured by (and exported from) the PDP models for each of the TA and ER units. The depressurisation functions have then been assigned for the respective units around the entire station footprint. The assigned depressurisation functions are based on the PDP model outputs which have been completed along a geological section representing the upper bound thicknesses for the TA and ER. The application of these depressurisation functions around other sections of the station development (where the saturated TA and ER units are likely to be thinner) is considered to be appropriately conservative. For the consolidation settlement analyses, the Beresford Square shaft (which will be the subject of a separate resource consent application), Mercury Lane shaft, temporary construction shaft and the mined tunnels have been consolidated into a single combined station footprint, with the ER and TA depressurisation functions determined by PDP groundwater drawdown assessment, applied around the edges of this footprint. In the updated PDP assessment the mined tunnels were found to have comparatively little influence on the extent of depressurisation.

4.3.2.1 Settlement Estimation for ER The lateral extent of drawdown in the ER around the station footprint was determined using a combined approach considering: CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

ď‚ˇ ď‚ˇ ď‚ˇ

The distribution and extent of the steady-state long-term drawdown contours surrounding the original station footprint as provided in the PDP 2016 technical report. Change in head of water with increasing distance from the station edge along the analysed geological section in the PDP 2019 technical memorandum. Theoretical drawdown profiles proposed in the Ciria C750 guideline.

Following this approach, drawdown (and subsequent depressurisation) in the ER from the edge of the new station excavation footprint was determined using the function expressed in Figure 4-6 below. The lateral extent of drawdown effects was considered up to 150 m from the edge of the station based on the long-term dewatering model prediction in the PDP 2019 technical memorandum.

Normalised change in pressure Head with Normalised Distance (within ER) Normalised Distance from Shaft, đ?‘Ľ (actual distance/150m) 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Normalised Î”Pressure Head Y [f(đ?‘Ľ)]

0 0.1

Y(đ?‘Ľ) = 0.6818đ?‘Ľ2 - 1.6909đ?‘Ľ + 1

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Î” Head vs Distance

0.9 1

Figure 4-6 Depressurisation in ER with distance from station excavation (normalized)

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

A maximum depressurisation of Δ 2.4m was calculated at the base of the ER over the exported intervals of model data. However, in order to better represent the depressurisation over the entire ER profile (not just the base, which would over-estimate depressurisation throughout the rest of the profile), the Δ pressure head measured at various elevations throughout the ER profile was averaged (from top to base of ER) for each of the exported 10m intervals. Depressurisation in the ER with distance from the station outline was calculated using the function in Figure 4-5 above. Based on the average Δ pressure head calculated either sides of the shaft in the PDP model, Pmax values of Δ 1.5m for the areas to the north, east and south of the station and Pmax of Δ 0.8m to the west were adopted (Figure 4-7).

Change in pressure Head with Distance (within ER) Distance from Shaft (m) 0

100

120

140

160

-0.2 0

ΔPressure Head (m)

0.2 0.4

Δ Head vs Distance in ER (North, South, East)

0.6

Δ Head vs Distance in ER (West)

0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Figure 4-7 Depressurisation in ER with distance from station excavation

Consolidation settlement of the ER due to depressurisation was then calculated for the area surrounding the station, using the function below: ERc = TER x UER/EER ERc = Consolidation settlement of the ER TER = Thickness of the ER at point of calculation UER = Change in pressure at point of calculation due to dewatering (Figure 4-6) EER = Stiffness modulus ER (20 MPa)6

Link Alliance, (2019). Geotechnical Interpretative Report, C3 Design Report. Reference No. CRL-SYW-GEOLKA-RPT-800006, Revision C00, dated September 2019. CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

4.3.2.2 Settlement Estimation for TA The depressurisation in the TA around the station footprint was determined using the change in head and extent of drawdown in the TA to the east of the Beresford Square shaft (with the TA being absent to the west along the analysed section), as shown in Figure 7 of the PDP technical memorandum. The lateral extent of drawdown effects was considered up to 150 m from the edge of the station based on the long-term dewatering model prediction in the PDP 2019 technical memorandum. Following this approach, the extent of drawdown (and subsequent depressurisation) in the TA and from the edge of the new station excavation footprint was determined using the function expressed in Figure 4-8 below.

Normalised change in pressure Head with Normalised Distance (within TA) Normalised Distance from Shaft, đ?‘Ľ (actual distance/150m) 0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

Normalised Î”Pressure Head Y [f(đ?‘Ľ)]

-0.20

0.00

Y(đ?‘Ľ) = 3.9375đ?‘Ľ4 - 6.4157đ?‘Ľ3 + 2.1237đ?‘Ľ2 - 0.6721đ?‘Ľ + 1

0.20

0.40

0.60 Î” Head vs Distance 0.80

1.00 Figure 4-8 Depressurisation in TA with distance from station excavation (normalized)

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

0.90

1.00

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Field evidence indicates that TA saturated thickness east of the shaft is likely to be limited to less than 1.5 m when compared against lowest seasonal groundwater levels and interpreted geology. Due the limited saturated thickness of the TA, it is expected that maximum depressurisation/ drawdown will be limited to Î” 1.5 m magnitude and at the base of the TA. In order to better represent the depressurisation over the total TA profile thickness (not just the base, which would over-estimate depressurisation and predicted consolidation settlement throughout the rest of the profile), an averaged maximum depressurisation value of 50% of the value at the base of the TA was assigned. This assumes hydrostatic depressurisation over the saturated TA thickness (Figure 4-9).

Change in pressure Head with Distance (within TA) Distance from Shaft (m) 0

100

120

140

0.00 0.10

y = 7E-09x4 - 2E-06x3 + 9E-05x2 - 0.004x + 0.8018

Î”Pressure Head (m)

0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80

0.90 Figure 4-9 Depressurisation in TA with distance from station excavation

Settlement due to consolidation of the TA due to depressurisation was then calculated for the area surrounding the station using the function: TAc = TTA x UTA/ETA TAc = Consolidation settlement of the TA TTA = Thickness of the TA at point of calculation UTA = Change in pressure at point of calculation due to dewatering ETA = Stiffness modulus TA (15 MPa)7

Link Alliance, (2019). Geotechnical Interpretative Report, C3 Design Report. Reference No. CRL-SYW-GEOLKA-RPT-800006, Revision C00, dated September 2019. CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

160

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

4.3.2.3 Total Consolidation Settlement Estimation To calculate consolidation induced settlements around the station footprint area, the groundwater depressurisation profiles were combined with the 3-D ground layer model (exported from the Leapfrog 3-D model) and the GIR soil stiffness parameter values, and then spatially interpolated using ArcGIS software and FME (Feature Manipulation Engine) to generate consolidation induced settlement contours. Total consolidation settlement at any given point is obtained as the sum of the consolidation settlements derived for the compressible ER and TA units through the methodology described above. The distribution of consolidation settlement around the revised station footprint is included in Figure 4-10 below.

Figure 4-10 Consolidation settlement contours CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

4.4 Combination of Settlement Predictions The assessed mechanical settlements from the three shafts, the tunnels, adits, and the consolidation settlement have been using combined using GIS software to determine the total settlement across the site. The settlement from each of the individual settlements surfaces was determined on a grid of point at 1m centres across the site. These settlements where added to create a combined settlement surface. Appendix D presents the contour plan showing the combined total settlement surface.

Assessment of Effects

5.1 A2N Resource Consent Trigger Levels The A2N Consent Drawing CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640-4.0 Presents Trigger levels (Alarm and Alert) for vertical limits and differential vertical slope for individual buildings effected by the proposed works. This drawings includes the following definitions: 

  

The slope "across building" shall be measured from the point of maximum vertical movement at the face of the building to the shorter distance of the point at which vertical movement is zero or to the rear of the building and the corresponding vertical movement at this location. Vertical movement is taken as the maximum measured at the face of the building. Alert level = 80% of reference design prediction. Alarm level=100% of design prediction.

5.2 Methodology A building structures tolerance to total and differential settlement is unique and depends upon the building materials, its foundation system (shallow or piled), the quality of construction, and the existing condition of the structure. To assess the effects of settlement on buildings near the Karangahape Station, the method outlined in Burland (1997)8 has been adopted. This approach remains the most commonly used and recommended method to assess settlement effects. It was the approach used for the assessment of settlement effects for the existing CRL Britomart to Wyndham and A2N resource consents, and has been used widely in similar Auckland projects including the Waterview Connection. The method outlined in Burland (1997) assesses the effects on nearby buildings using a staged process. Buildings are eliminated based on their level of risk, with the staging process separated into a Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3 assessment. Each stage is discussed in detail below.

5.2.1

Stage 1 - Preliminary Assessment

The Stage 1 assessment involves carrying out screening assessments on nearby buildings to identify building which have negligible damage potential. To assess buildings with negligible risk, Burland

. Burland, J. B. (1997). Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling and excavation. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Ishihara(ed), 3, 1189-1201. CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

(1997) recommends the criteria defined in Rankin (1988)9 which includes buildings experiencing settlement less than 10 mm and maximum differential settlement of 1:500. These limits are considered by Burland to provide a conservative basis for identifying buildings requiring further study. In this assessment, Stage 1 was skipped and Stage 2 assessments have been completed for all building within the 5 mm settlement contour.

5.2.2

Stage 2 Assessment

The second stage of assessment has been carried out for buildings which are within the 5 mm settlement contour or have a maximum differential settlement greater than 1:500 and are south of Karangahape Road. Buildings north of Karangahape Road will be considered as part of a separate assessment for the Beresford Square Shaft. This assessment was carried out using the Oasys software XDISP, a three-dimensional software, which assesses the response of infrastructure to excavation induced settlement. The Stage 2 assessment recommended in Burland (1997) follows the work of Burland and Wroth (1974)10 and Boscardin and Cording (1989) 11. The assessment relates to the concept that the tensile strain acting on a building due to settlement, can be directly related to its degree of damage. The assessment evaluates the maximum tensile strain on the building due to fibre strain (bending), diagonal strain (shear) diagonal strain (shear) and horizontal strain, which is compared to the limiting values and categories of of damage included in Table 5-1 and

Table 5-2. The method assumes each building acts as a simply supported beam with no interaction between the ground and foundations (greenfield conditions), even though all buildings will inherently have some degree of resistance against bending imposed by the ground. As a result, the effects estimated in Table 5-1 can generally be considered conservative. Table 5-1 Building damage assessment criteria

Building damage classification after Burland (1995) and Mair et al (1996) Category of damage

Description of Degree of Damage

0 1 2 3 4

Negligible Very Slight Slight Moderate Severe

Limiting Tensile Strain (%) < 0.05 0.05 – 0.075 0.075 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.3 > 0.3

Approximate equivalent ground settlement and slopes after CIRIA (1996). Max slope of ground

Max settlement of building (mm)

< 1/500 1/500 – 1/200 1/200 – 1/50 1/200 – 1/50

< 10 10 – 50 50 - 75 > 75

Rankin, W. J. (1988). Ground movements resulting from urban tunnelling, predictions and effects. Engineering Geology of Underground Movement, Geological Society, Engineering Geology Special Publication No. 5, 79-92. 10 Burland, J. B., & Wroth, C. P. (1974). Settlements of buildings and associated damage. In Conference on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge. 11 Boscardin, M. D., & Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(1), 1-21. CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Very Severe

> 1/50

> 75

Table 5-2 Building damage classification

Category of damage

Normal degree of severity

Description of typical damage [(building damage classification after Burland (1995), and Mair et al (1996)]

Negligible

Hairline cracks.

Very Slight

Slight

Moderate

Severe

Very Severe

General category after Burland (1995)

Fine cracks easily treated during normal redecoration. Perhaps isolated slight fracture in building. Cracks in exterior visible upon close inspection. Typical crack widths are up to 1 mm. Cracks easily filled. Redecoration probably required. Several slight fractures inside building. Exterior cracks visible, some repainting may be required for weather tightness. Doors and windows may stick slightly.

Aesthetic Damage

Typical crack widths are up to 5 mm. Cracks may require cutting out and patching. Recurrent cracks can be masked by suitable linings. Brick pointing and possible replacement of a small amount of exterior brickwork may be required. Doors and windows sticking. Utility services may be interrupted. Weather tightness often impaired. Typical crack widths are 5 to 15 mm or several greater than 3 mm. Extensive repair involving removal and replacement of walls especially over doors and windows required. Window and door frames distorted. Floor slopes noticeably. Walls lean or bulge noticeably. Some loss of bearing in beams. Utility services disrupted. Typical crack widths are 15 to 25 mm but are also dependent on the number of cracks. Major repair required involving partial or complete reconstruction. Beams lose bearing; walls lean badly and require shoring. Windows broken by distortion. Danger of instability.

Serviceability Damage

Stability Damage

Typical crack widths are greater than 25 mm but are also dependent on the number of cracks. 5.2.3

Stage 3 Assessment

Burland (1997) recommends a more detailed assessment is carried out for buildings that, as a result of the Stage 2 assessment, are classified as being at risk of â€˜moderateâ€™ damage level or greater. CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Various attempts have been made to factor this into the analysis of building damage, most notably by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997). The process involves reducing the horizontal and vertical movements on a building by accounting for the stiffness and presence of foundations, thus reducing the predicated strain on the building. All buildings have been classified below a â€˜moderateâ€™ damage level. No Stage 3 damage assessments have been undertaken, but will be considered for some buildings (e.g. The Mercury Theatre) during detailed design.

5.3 Buildings Assessed A total of 10 buildings have been identified for the Stage 2 assessment as they were within the 5 mm settlement contour settlement contour line outlined in Section Error! Reference source not found. and south of Karangahape Road. These buildings are summarised in Table 5-3 Buildings within the 5mm settlement contour Building No

Street No.

Address

Construction form Reinforced Concrete Frame and Unreinforced masonry infill Reinforced Concrete Frame and Unreinforced masonry infill Reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced concrete infill

Height [m]

Basement

Poisson ratio

E/G

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Shallow

0.3

12.5

214

Karangahape Road

238

Karangahape Road

246-254

Karangahape Road

256

Karangahape Road

Masonry

Shallow

0.3

2.6

258-264

Karangahape Road

Masonry

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Reinforced concrete frame Unreinforced masonry building Unreinforced masonry building

268

Karangahape Road

270

Karangahape Road

Mercury Lane

East Street

Steel frame building

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Cross Street

Reinforced concrete frame

Shallow

0.3

12.5

below. The Building numbers in Table 5-3 are the same numbers on A2N Resource Consent Drawing CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640-4.0. Table 5-3 Buildings within the 5mm settlement contour Building No

Street No.

Address

214

Karangahape Road

238

Karangahape Road

246-254

Karangahape Road

256

Karangahape Road

Construction form Reinforced Concrete Frame and Unreinforced masonry infill Reinforced Concrete Frame and Unreinforced masonry infill Reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced concrete infill Masonry

Height [m]

Basement

Poisson ratio

E/G 12

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Shallow

0.3

2.6

E/G values of 12.5 for framed building and 2.6 for masonry have been used based on recommendations in Mair, Taylor and Burland (1996). CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

258-264

Karangahape Road

Masonry Reinforced concrete frame Unreinforced masonry building Unreinforced masonry building

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Shallow

0.3

2.6

268

Karangahape Road

270

Karangahape Road

Mercury Lane

East Street

Steel frame building

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Cross Street

Reinforced concrete frame

Shallow

0.3

12.5

5.4 Assessed Settlements Vertical movements and differential vertical slope across each of the above buildings have been determined based on the assessed ground settlements. The settlements (vertical movement and differential vertical slope) for all 10 buildings are less than the Alarm Levels on Drawing CRL-SYWRME-000-DRG-2640-4.0. Table 5.4 below compares the Aurecon DCR design effects and associated building damage classifications (which formed the basis for the A2N consents) with the effects and building damage classifications that have now been assessed for the Mercury Lane amendments.

5.5 Expected Building Damage Classification All of the assessed buildings have been classified as being in the â€œNegligibleâ€? damage category on the basis of estimated the basis of estimated ground movements, which corresponds to aesthetic damage only as per

Table 5-2. Error! Reference source not found. provides a summary of the building classification of each assessed building near the construction. Appendix D presents assessed building damage classifications. Output from the Xdisp software building damage assessments results are presented in Appendix E.

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Table 5-4 Summary of building classification due to excavation induced displacement Aurecon DCR design effects Consent settlement alarm level13 [mm]

Mercury Lane Amendment assessed effects Maximum Maximum Maximum Building estimated estimated tensile strain damage settlement slope level [%] classification [mm]

Building No

Street No.

Address

214

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.009

Negligible

1/7000

0.012

Negligible

238

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.005

Negligible

1/6600

0.009

Negligible

246254

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.005

Negligible

1/87500

0.003

Negligible

256

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.007

Negligible

1/15000

0.007

Negligible

258264

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.002

Negligible

1/4000

0.015

Negligible

268

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.002

Negligible

1/10000

0.003

Negligible

270

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.008

Negligible

1/20000

0.004

Negligible

Mercury Lane

1/636

0.047

Very slight

1/1800

0.021

Negligible

East Street

1/439

0.050

Negligible

1/6500

0.014

Negligible

Cross Street

1/800

0.025

Negligible

1/4670

0.004

Negligible

Maximum Building Consent slope Tensile Strain14 damage 14 alarm level [mm] classification15

From Drawing CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640-4.0 Auckland City Rail Link, Aotea to NAL, Trigger Levels Table and Notes, Sheet 1 of 2. From Table 5.1 Aurecon, (2016). Auckland City Rail Link (CRL) Assessment of Settlement Effects Report, Resource Consent Package 2, Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation. Reference No. CRL-SYW-RME-000-RPT-0045, Revision 3, 30 June 2016 14

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Settlement Monitoring Plan

The proposed Mercury Lane amendments will be managed in accordance with the ‘Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan’ (GSMCP) required as a condition of the A2N resource consent.

Summary and Conclusions

A ground settlement assessment has been completed for the Link Alliance’s proposed design for Karangahape Station, which includes the main station shaft, the temporary construction shaft and tunnels in the Mercury Lane area. The assessed 5mm settlement contours for the proposed design are within the 5mm contours specified in the relevant A2N resource consent (Water Permit (groundwater diversion/discharge) R/REG/2016/1892). The assessed building settlements (vertical settlement and differential slopes across buildings) are all less than the A2N resource consent alarm levels for all of the buildings within the 5mm settlement contour line. The effect on buildings located near the permeant Mercury Lane Shaft and the temporary construction shaft have been assessed using the internationally accepted method introduced by Burland (1997). The method determines the maximum strain of a building and compares the values against a series of criteria to assess the likely effect on the structure. The assessments classified damage potential for all of the buildings within the 5mm contour and south of Karangahape Road to be “Negligible”.

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

APPENDICES

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix A â€“ Proposed design plans

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Title Block Ver 2.03

N STREET

UPPER QUEE N ST

REET

W EST ST

IAN

AHAPE KARANG

DACRE ST REET

REET

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

UPPER QUEE

E RIV ND NO KIN MC

T SS S CRO

ROAD

REET

K3A K2 K8 CSA 3

K1/K4 K6

GR EY SA VE NU E

T PIT

MERCURY LANE AMENDMENTS

ET RE

K3 ET RE

T LA GA R ST

ST EA

T EE

TR TS

BERE

AD RO

SFOR D

SQUA RE

E AP AH NG RA KA

PIT

T EE

HO PE TO UN

ST RE ET

LEGEND NOTES:

CRL DESIGNATION ALIGNMENT

CSA 2

PROPOSED DRIVEN TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL

K1 K2 K3 K3A K4 K5 K6 K7 K8

MECURY LANE SHAFT MECURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS EXTENDED MECURY LANE ENTRANCE BUILDING PITT ST SHAFT DELETED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SHAFT MERCURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE

CSA2 CSA3

BERESFORD SQUARE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA MECURY LANE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA

DCR

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REPORT

SHAFTS/ CUT AND COVER CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA (CSA) REMOVED FROM AURECON DCR DESIGN Last Saved: 21/11/2019 4:42:42 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

ADDED BY LINK ALLIANCE DESIGN

KARANGAHAPE STATION (ACZ K) 0

25000

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES

50000 mm

1:1000

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

As indicated

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

SHEET STATUS APPROVED CP

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

CP APPROVED

21/11/2019 DATE

CHECKED

DATE

21/11/19

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

MERCURY LANE AMENDMENTS - LOCATION PLAN - COMPARISON BETWEEN AURECON DCR DESIGN AND LINK ALLIANCE DESIGN

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100001

REVISION

A00

Title Block Ver 2.03

N STREET

UPPER QUEE N ST

REET

W EST ST

IAN

AHAPE KARANG

DACRE ST REET

REET

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

UPPER QUEE

E RIV ND NO KIN MC

T SS S CRO

ROAD

REET

K3A K2 K8 CSA 3

K1/K4 GR EY SA VE NU E

T PIT

MERCURY LANE AMENDMENTS

ET RE

K3 ET RE

T LA GA R ST

ST EA

T EE

T TS

BERE

AD RO

SFOR D

SQUA RE

E AP AH NG RA KA

PIT

ET RE

HO PE TO UN

LEGEND CRL DESIGNATION

ST RE ET

CSA 2

NOTES: K1 K2 K3 K3A K4 K5

MECURY LANE SHAFT MECURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS EXTENDED MECURY LANE ENTRANCE BUILDING PITT ST SHAFT

K7 K8

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SHAFT MERCURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE

CSA2 CSA3

BERESFORD SQUARE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA MECURY LANE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA

DCR

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REPORT

ALIGNMENT

PROPOSED DRIVEN TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL SHAFTS/ CUT AND COVER

Last Saved: 21/11/2019 4:42:51 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA (CSA)

KARANGAHAPE STATION (ACZ K) 0

25000

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES

50000 mm

1:1000

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

As indicated

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

SHEET STATUS APPROVED CP

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

CP APPROVED

21/11/2019 DATE

CHECKED

DATE

21/11/19

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

MERCURY LANE AMENDMENTS - LOCATION PLAN - LINK ALLIANCE DESIGN

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100002

REVISION

A00

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix B â€“ Geological Cross Section

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

CRL-KAR-XSec-MercuryLane-A1

5 6

12 18

50mRL

68 300

6 8

429

60mRL

CRL5-BH511 5m

CRL2-BH278 27m

CRL5-BH510 17m

60mRL

CRL4-BH451 9m

CRL4-CPT468 3m

CRL2-BH277 18m

CRL4-SDMT 2m

70mRL

CRL4-CPT469 19m

70mRL

CRL3B-EB312

50mRL

2 50

68 405

333

40mRL

16.7 MPa

30mRL

20mRL

10mRL

20m

40m

60m

80m

100m

120m

140m

160m

180m

Legend CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-030200-B .: ER

.: TA

.: EU

LINK: F

.: EW

.: MBL

.: MBU LOOKING EAST

Location

Existing Building Outlines Building extent

A: 399485, 802450 B: 399547, 802281

NOTES: 1. THE GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION OF GROUND CONDITIONS AT THIS SITE IS BASED ON OBSERVATIONS AND THE RESULTS OF TESTING AT DISCRETE LOCATIONS, AND THE CONTINUITY OF GROUND COULD VARY FROM THOSE PRESENTED ON THE DRAWING. 2. THIS INFORMATION CANNOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCUREMENT OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 3. GEOLOGICAL MODEL DISPLAYED IS CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-030200-B 4. DESIGNS DISPLAYED ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY, REFER TO REVIT MODEL FOR UPDATED DESIGNS 5. BUILDING OUTLINES SOURCED FRO LINZ DATA SERVICE, LICENCE: CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION 4.0. 6. BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ACTUAL HEIGHTS

Responsible dept. Technical reference

Creator

Legal owner

Document type

Document status

Title

Identification number

KRD

Scale: 1:500

CRLL

Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

50m

N. Kirkeby

Approved by

SECTION

CRL-KAR-XSec-MercuryLaneA1

DRAFT

Rev. Date of issue

2.0 05/08/2019

Sheet

12 18

25 300

6 8

429

471

300

50mRL

31 68

7.12 MPa

250

405

1350

176

333

267

40mRL

60mRL

CRL3B-EB312 24m

257

CRL2-BH278 27m

4 13

50mRL

CRL5-BH510 17m

CRL4-BH451 9m

CRL4-CPT468 3m

CRL2-BH277 18m

60mRL

CRL4-SDMT 2m

70mRL

CRL4-CPT469 19m

CRL3B-BH320 18m

CRL1A-MB3A 29m

70mRL

CRL1A-MB3B 27m

CRL-KAR-XSec-MercuryLane-A2

333

40mRL

136

263 350

15.96 MPa

130 600

16.79 MPa

429

3.01 MPa

30mRL

20mRL

10mRL

20m

40m

60m

80m

100m

120m

140m

160m

180m

Legend CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-030200-B .: ER

.: TA

.: EU

LINK: F

.: EW

.: MBL

.: MBU LOOKING EAST

Location

Existing Building Outlines Building extent

A: 399505, 802446 B: 399566, 802277

Responsible dept. Technical reference

Creator

Legal owner

Document type

Document status

Title

Identification number

KRD

Scale: 1:500

CRLL

Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

50m

N. Kirkeby

Approved by

SECTION

CRL-KAR-XSec-MercuryLaneA2

DRAFT

Rev. Date of issue

1.0 05/08/2019

Sheet

CRL-KAR-XSec-MercuryLane-B1

70mRL

5 2

12 18

50mRL

14 25 50

CRL5-BH509 15m

CRL2-BH277 18m CRL2-BH278 27m

CRL5-BH510 17m

CRL4-BH451 9m

60mRL

CRL4-CPT468 3m

CRL4-SDMT 2m

70mRL

60mRL

3 5 3

6 8

300

429

50mRL

9 12 21 43

405

333

40mRL

CRL3B-BH320 29m

40mRL

30mRL

20mRL

10mRL

20m

40m

60m

80m

100m

120m

140m

160m

180m

Legend CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-030200-B .: ER

.: TA

.: EU

LINK: F

.: EW

.: MBL

.: MBU LOOKING NORTH

Location

Existing Building Outlines Building extent

A: 399444, 802317 B: 399613, 802378

Responsible dept. Technical reference

Creator

Legal owner

Document type

Document status

Title

Identification number

KRD

Scale: 1:500

CRLL

Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

50m

N. Kirkeby

Approved by

SECTION

CRL-KAR-XSec-MercuryLaneB1

DRAFT

Rev. Date of issue

1.0 05/08/2019

Sheet

CRL-KAR-XSec-MercuryLane-B2

CRL2-BH278 27m

5 6

12 18

3.2 3.1 MPa 3.8 MPa 1.16 MPa

14 25 50

60mRL

3 5 3

25 68

6 8

300

429

CRL3B-BH320 24m

50mRL

CRL5-BH509 10m

70mRL

CRL5-BH510 17m

CRL2-BH277 18m CRL4-CPT469 19m

CRL4-BH451 9m

60mRL

CRL4-CPT468 3m

CRL4-SDMT 2m

CRL3B-BH317 5m

70mRL

40mRL

50mRL

9 12 21 43

405

333

40mRL

30mRL

20mRL

10mRL

20m

40m

60m

80m

100m

120m

140m

160m

180m

Legend CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-030200-B .: ER

LINK: F

.: EU

.: MBL

.: EW

.: MBU

LOOKING NORTH

Location

Existing Building Outlines Building extent

A: 399425, 802364 B: 399605, 802360

Responsible dept. Technical reference

Creator

Legal owner

Document type

Document status

Title

Identification number

KRD

Scale: 1:500

CRLL

Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

50m

N. Kirkeby

Approved by

SECTION

CRL-KAR-XSec-MercuryLaneB2

DRAFT

Rev. Date of issue

1.0 05/08/2019

Sheet

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix C â€“ PDP technical memorandum

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix D â€“ Building Damage Classification Plan

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm Last saved by: JABR(2019-11-07) Last Plotted: 2019-11-07 Filename: AECOM_DS10_AU\Documents\60604837-CRL C3-Alliance Detail Design\DesignJV\ZZ C57 TOC Development\C5D C5 Works TOC Development\900 CAD-GIS\01_WIP\20-SHEET\200 Geotechnical\CRL-NAL-GEO-LKA-DRG-101001.dwg

BUILDING DAMAGE ASSESSMENT FOR BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE TO BE REPORTED SEPARATELY

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SHAFT

122

CANADA ST

MERCURY LN PITT ST 55 50

MERCURY LANE SHAFT

SOUTHERN MTWY

HA F

AR ES

60 58

QU SF OR DS

59 63

KARA

A NGAH

158

PE RD

OR D

Building Assessment ID Building to be demolished Shatf Locations Heritage Buildings

LINZ Building Outlines TUNNEL

2016 A2N RESOURCE CONSENT TOTAL SETTLEMENT CONTOURS

2019 LINK ALLIANCE TOTAL SETTLEMENT CONTOURS

5mm

10mm

45mm

15mm

50mm

20mm

55mm

SE L

BUILDING ASSESSMENT

40mm

25mm

Negligible VerySlight Slight Moderate

30mm

OU OA H

EAS

35mm

REVISIONS

SAM

CREATOR ID : CRL_NAL_200_00_LKA_DRG_101001

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870 10

100mm

SCALE

SIZE

AS SHOWN

STAGE-A

DESIGNED

NOT APPROVED

DRAWN

Matthew Fleet

PROJECT:

For IGA Submission

2019-10-05 DESCRIPTION

APPROVED

DATE

CHECKED

KARANGAHAPE STATION - MERCURY SHAFT AMENDMENTS

DATE

TOTAL SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION

2019-09-17

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

ZONE:

TITLE: REV

T TH S

12.5

T ST

SOU

LEGEND 0

CLIENT:

jabr

CROSS ST

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ORGANISTION

TYPE

SHEET

CRL - SYW - GEO - LKA - SKE - 702420

REVISION

Mercury Lane Amendments - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix E â€“ Xdisp Building Classification Results

CRL-SYW-CST-ATMWP-REQ-001249

Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square Entrance

Assessment of Settlement Effects

CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-RPT-800005 Revision: 002 Date: 04 February 2020

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-RPT-800005This document is uncontrolled when printed. This document should be printed in colour This transmission is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it or take action in reliance on it. If you have received this fax transm ission in error, please notify us and return it to us as soon as possible.

Review Status Revision

Issue Date

Status

Prepared By

Reviewed By

000

19/12/2019

First issue

RGC

CPE

001

23/01/2020

Revised to address AC reviewer comments

RGC

CPE

002

04/02/2020

Final Issue

RGC

CPE

Approval Status Name/Title Prepared by:

Reviewed by:

Date

Richard Cole Geotechnical Engineer

04 February 2020

George Brink Engineering Geologist

04 February 2020

Clint Every Geotechnical Discipline Lead

04 February 2020

Jennifer Carvill Planning Lead - Karangahape Station Approved by:

Signature

Peter Roan Planning Manager

04 February 2020

© Link Alliance. All rights reserved. The Link Alliance has prepared this document for the sole use of the Client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other party should rely on this document without the prior written consent of the Link Alliance. The Link Alliance undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This document has been prepared based on the Client’s description of its requirements and the Link Alliance’s experience, having regard to assumptions that the Link Alliance can reasonably be expected to make in accordance with sound professional principles. The Link Alliance may also have relied upon information provided by the Client and other third parties to prepare this document, some of which may not have been ver ified. Subject to the above conditions, this document may be transmitted, reproduced or disseminated only in its entirety. Design package report template version 1 (26 July 2019)

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Table of contents 1

Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

City Rail Link Project Overview ................................................................... 1

2.1

City Rail Link Designations ................................................................................................. 2

2.2

Aotea Station to the North Auckland Line Resource Consents .......................................... 2

2.2.1

Overview .................................................................................................................... 2

2.2.2

Karangahape Station (ACZ K) ...................................................................................... 2

2.2.3

Mercury Lane amendments ........................................................................................ 3

Proposed Beresford Square Entrance ......................................................... 4 3.1

Overview ........................................................................................................................... 4

3.2

Beresford Square Shaft (K9) .............................................................................................. 5

3.3

Beresford Square Entrance buildings (K10)........................................................................ 5

3.4

Beresford Square Cross Passage (K11) and Service Passage (K12) ..................................... 5

Receiving Environment ............................................................................... 6 4.1

Aotea to North Auckland Line Resource Consents............................................................. 6

4.2

Topography ....................................................................................................................... 7

4.3

Land Use ............................................................................................................................ 7

4.4

Geology ............................................................................................................................. 7

4.5

Hydrogeology .................................................................................................................... 8

4.5.1

Perched Groundwater ................................................................................................ 8

4.5.2

Regional Groundwater System ................................................................................... 8

4.6

Existing Buildings and Structures ....................................................................................... 8

4.7

Existing Utilities ................................................................................................................. 8

Settlement Assessment .............................................................................. 9 5.1

Overview of settlement assessment .................................................................................. 9

5.2

Mechanical Settlement and Horizontal Ground Movement Assessment........................... 9

5.2.1

Tunnel Ground Movements ........................................................................................ 9

5.2.2

Temporary construction shaft ground movement ..................................................... 11

5.2.3

Mercury Lane Shaft Mechanical Ground Movements................................................ 13

5.2.4

Beresford Square Shaft Mechanical Ground Movements .......................................... 14

5.2.5

Validation of Finite Element (PLAXIS) Analysis .......................................................... 16

5.3

Enabling Works Mechanical Ground Movements ............................................................ 17

5.3.1

Assessment method ................................................................................................. 17

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

5.3.2

Design Assumptions ................................................................................................. 17

5.3.3

Assessment Results .................................................................................................. 18

5.4

5.4.1

Drawdown Assessment Update ................................................................................ 20

5.4.2

Consolidation Settlement Assessment ...................................................................... 21

5.5

Consolidation Settlement Assessment ............................................................................ 20

Combination of Settlement Predictions........................................................................... 27

Assessment of Effects ............................................................................... 27 6.1

A2N Resource Consent Trigger Levels .............................................................................. 27

6.2

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 27

6.2.1

Stage 1 - Preliminary Assessment ............................................................................. 27

6.2.2

Stage 2 Assessment .................................................................................................. 28

6.2.3

Stage 3 Assessment .................................................................................................. 29

6.3

Buildings Assessed ........................................................................................................... 30

6.4

Assessed ground movement............................................................................................ 31

6.5

Building Damage Classification and Assessment of Effects Conclusion ............................ 32

Monitoring and Mitigation – Proposed Conditions .................................. 34

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................ 34

APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 36 Appendix A – Proposed Beresford Square Entrance Design Plans .................. 37 Appendix B – A2N Consent Drawings ............................................................. 38 Appendix C – Regional Geology and Geological Cross Section ....................... 39 Appendix D – Typical Mined Tunnel Cross Sections ........................................ 40 Appendix E – PDP technical memorandum ..................................................... 41 Appendix F – Building Damage Classification Plans ........................................ 42 Appendix G – Xdisp Building Classification Results ......................................... 43

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Abbreviations / glossary of terms Acronym A2N AC ACZ ACZ K CMJ CRL CSA DCR ECBF EER ER ERc ETA EU2 EUs3 EW FME GL NAL PDP Pmax PPFRS TA TA2 TAc TBM TER TTA UER UTA

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Introduction

The Link Alliance is delivering the detailed design and construction of the section of the City Rail Link (CRL) project between the new Aotea Station and where it joins existing railway line (the North Auckland Railway Line or NAL) at Mt Eden. This section of CRL includes the Karangahape Station which is authorised under the existing CRL Designation 2500-4 and the CRL Aotea Station to NAL regional resource consents (referred to throughout this report as the “A2N resource consents”). Due to an increase in the estimated patronage capacity requirements, a decision has been made to expand the size of the Karangahape Station to accommodate 9-car train operations and this requires a second station entrance to be built at Beresford Square (changing from a 6-car train platform reference design). As part of the study undertaken in 2018, regarding the implications of 9-car trains1, it was concluded that for 9-car operations, the increase in potential patronage necessitated the need to construct a second station entrance at Beresford Square to meet the design patronage demand. An entrance at Beresford Square is provided for by the CRL designation, but the A2N resource consents only provided for an entrance at Mercury Lane. In addition to the Beresford Square entrance, which is the subject of this report, there are other design amendments required to cater for 9-car trains, and these are referred to as the ‘Mercury Lane amendments’. The Mercury Lane amendments are discussed in Section 2.2.3 of this report, and are taken into account when assessing the effects of the proposed Beresford Square entrance works. This report provides an assessment of the actual and potential ground settlement effects of the construction of the proposed Beresford Square entrance. This assessment has been undertaken to support a resource consent application to authorise the proposed Beresford Square entrance. When undertaking this assessment, effects (including cumulative effects) have been considered in the context of the ‘receiving environment’, which includes the activities and effects authorised under the CRL Designation 2500-4 and the A2N resource consents (including the Mercury Lane amendments that form part of the Link Alliance design of the Karangahape Station2).

City Rail Link Project Overview

The CRL project involves the construction, operation and maintenance of a 3.4km underground passenger railway, running between Britomart Station and the NAL in the vicinity of Mt Eden station. The CRL also involves the construction of two new underground stations, Aotea Station and Karangahape Station, and the redevelopment of Mt Eden Station. The indicative CRL alignment is shown in Figure 2.1 below.

Technical Study, Implications of 9-Car Train Operations on CRL Infrastructure, prepared by Aurecon, dated 28 September 2018, Rev 4 (CRL-SYW-ENG-000-RPT-0011). 2 Karangahape Station – Mercury Lane Amendments, In General Accordance Assessment, prepared by the Link Alliance, dated November 2019 (ref: CRL-KRD-RME-LKA-RPT-800001) Page 1

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Figure 2.1 Indicative CRL alignment

2.1 City Rail Link Designations There are six designations (reference 2500: 1-6 in the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in Part (AUP)) for the CRL, which apply to different surface and strata/sub-strata components of the project. The CRL designations and associated conditions were confirmed by the Environment Court on 10 November 2015. The designations (together with subsequent alterations) authorise land use activities associated with the construction and operation of the CRL. Designation 2500-4 makes provision for Karangahape Station, including a second station entrance at Beresford Square.

2.2 Aotea Station to the North Auckland Line Resource Consents 2.2.1

Overview

The A2N resource consents, granted on 17 November 2016, authorise activities associated with the CRL works from Aotea Station to the NAL. The Aotea to NAL section of the CRL project comprises the construction of a 2.8 km underground passenger railway, including the future Aotea Station via cut-and-cover means and the tunnels by TBM between Aotea Station and the NAL. It also encompasses the construction of the Karangahape Station (including the excavation of shafts and mined tunnels). The A2N resource consents also authorise the operation and maintenance of the entire CRL from Britomart Station to the NAL.

2.2.2

Karangahape Station (ACZ K)

The Karangahape Station construction area (as described in the application for the A2N resource consents) is referred to as Active Construction Zone â€“ Karangahape Station (ACZ K) and is divided into six Intermediate ACZs (K1 to K6). It also includes two Construction Support Areas (CSAs) (CSA 2 and CSA 3). The Karangahape Station ACZs and CSAs are described below, and are shown in (Figure Page 2

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

2.2. In general, for the purposes of the A2N resource consent application, ACZ K involved the construction of two underground mined station platforms, a mined central concourse tunnel and cross adits, the above ground entrance at Mercury Lane, and an emergency exit and ventilation shaft at Pitt Street and Mercury Lane.        

Figure 2.2: Karangahape Station and construction area (image from the approved A2N Resource Consent drawings)

2.2.3

Mercury Lane amendments

To enable the station platforms to accommodate 9-car trains, design changes are required in the Mercury Lane area of Karangahape Station. This includes the addition of K3A (extension to the platform tunnel lengths), K7 (temporary construction access shaft) and K8 (additional cross passage). These are referred to as the ‘Mercury Lane amendments’ for Karangahape Station, which are considered to be in general accordance with the A2N resource consents. As part of these amendments, the central concourse tunnel (K6) has also been removed from the current design.

Page 3

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

These amendments have been taken into consideration as part of this ground settlement assessment to ensure that the proposed Beresford Square entrance is: 

Assessed against the ‘receiving environment’ (which includes the A2N resource consents, including the Mercury Lane amendments); and,



Appropriately takes into account cumulative effects of the Beresford Square entrance (that is, effects in addition to those authorised by the A2N resource consents, with the authorised effects including the Mercury Lane amendments).

Additional specific detail of the proposed Mercury Lane amendments is included in the ‘In general accordance assessment’ report, prepared by the Link Alliance (ref: CRL-KRD-RMA-LKA-RPT-800001).

Figure 2.3 ‘Mercury Lane amendments’ hatched in blue, as well as showing the deletion of K6 hatched in red (source: Link Alliance 2019).

Proposed Beresford Square Entrance

3.1 Overview The proposed Beresford Square entrance is comprised of four intermediate ACZs (K9 to K12), which are shown in Figure 3.1, the Link alliance Drawings in Appendix A and described below. These new ACZs replace the Pitt Street shaft ACZ (K5) as shown on the approved A2N resource consent drawings. The proposed works will fall within the Beresford Square CSA (CSA 2), which will be used for the construction of the Beresford Square entrance. The proposed works for the Beresford Square shaft are programmed to start in June 2020 and form part of the main construction works for Karangahape Station.

Page 4

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Summary details of the four intermediate ACZs are provided below. Refer to the Design and Construction Report, prepared by the Link Alliance, dated 16 December 2019 for further information regarding the proposed works, including the construction methodology.

3.2 Beresford Square Shaft (K9) This includes the shaft excavated within Beresford Square that will provide an additional entrance to Karangahape Station. This shaft connects the underground station platforms to the surface and provides a secondary entry for the station including ticket gates, escalators and lifts. The eastern end of the shaft extends a full height of six levels from street level to platform level. The western end of the shaft extends three levels below street level. Passengers connect to the train platforms via the escalators or lifts and through a mined cross passage. The shaft extends within the footprint of Pitt Street. However the Pitt Street component of the shaft is small given that the majority of the station entrance is located within Beresford Square. Intermediate floors accommodate plant rooms, risers and evacuation scissor stair and escalator control rooms.

3.3 Beresford Square Entrance buildings (K10) The Beresford Square entrance will provide an additional entrance to Karangahape Station, serving the catchment from the Pitt Street/Beresford Square/Hopetoun Street area. This includes the above ground entrance building which houses the entrance escalators and lifts down to concourse level below. There are also provisions for a cafĂŠ and some utility spaces such as public toilets and the Tunnel Ventilation System (TVS) fan exhaust to the west of the shaft.

3.4 Beresford Square Cross Passage (K11) and Service Passage (K12) ACZ K11 comprises the construction of the cross passage, joining the two platforms, with a Tjunction connection to the shaft. Passengers will travel down the escalators or lifts, to the T-junction, then go either left to the eastern platform or right along the cross passage towards the western platform. ACZ K12 comprises the service passage connecting the eastern platform tunnel to the shaft and contains the TVS as well as service rooms and passenger fire egress route.

Page 5

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Figure 3.1 Proposed Beresford Square entrance for Karangahape Station (red hatched areas indicate deleted ACZs from the originally consented proposal, also showing the ‘Mercury Lane amendments’, as described in Section 2.2.3).

Receiving Environment

4.1 Aotea to North Auckland Line Resource Consents The A2N resource consents authorise construction activities associated with the CRL Aotea to NAL works, such as bulk excavation and the taking or diversion of groundwater, that have the potential to cause ground settlement effects. This forms part of the “receiving environment”. Of particular relevance is the groundwater take and diversion permit R/REG/2016/1892. The majority of conditions relating to this consent relate to managing the effects on buildings resulting from any changes to ground and groundwater levels. The A2N resource consent Drawing CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640-4.0, (Appendix B) approved by Auckland Council in 2016, sets Trigger Levels (Alert and Alarm) for vertical movement and differential vertical slope for individual buildings affected by the proposed works. This relates to buildings identified within the 5mm settlement contour line (further discussed in Section 5). For each building within the predicted 5mm settlement contour, a building damage classification (ranging from ‘negligible’ to ‘severe’) was calculated, based on predicted response to excavation induced settlement. A total of 22 buildings were identified within the 5mm settlement contour line for Karangahape Station (from Greys Ave to East Street) (refer Figure 2.2 and Appendix F, these 22 buildings are identified with Building ID numbers). All of these buildings had a building damage classification of “negligible”, except for one building (9 Mercury Lane, Building ID 60) which had a Page 6

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

building damage classification of ‘very slight’ (as assessed using the method outlined in Burland (1997)3).

4.2 Topography Karangahape Road forms a ridgeline, with a relatively steep gradient rising from the proposed CRL Aotea Station towards Karangahape Station. A valley is located south of Karangahape Road, within which the Central Motorway Junction lies. Beresford Square gradually rises from the western end towards Pitt Street.

4.3 Land Use Beresford Square, and the surrounding area is a built up urban environment consisting mainly of mixed use commercial and residential activities. The area consists of character precincts and heritage buildings, with a distinctive built form and streetscape character. The current land use comprises office buildings, retail, residential and visitor accommodation, restaurants and bars, off street parking and venue hire spaces.

4.4 Geology The ground surface within the area surrounding Mercury Plaza to Beresford Square is underlain by a general sequence of fill, alluvium, soils and weathered rocks of the East Coast Bays formation (ECBF), which in turn transition to unweathered units at depth. A geological map and geological sections through the Beresford Square Shaft area are presented in Appendix C. Fill is generally 1-2m thick, but is up to 4m thick just south of the ridge crest at Karangahape Road and is mostly comprised of pavements with granular sub-grades. Local deposits of Pleistocene age Tauranga Group Alluvium (TA2) infill the heads of paleo-tributary gullies carved within the surface of the underlying ECBF soils and rocks. A plan showing the distribution of the TA2 in the vicinity of the Karangahape Station is presented in Appendix C. A variable thickness of weathered East Coast Bays Formation is mapped in the area with some boreholes encountering up to 10m thickness of East Coast Bay Formation Residual Soil (ER) and weathered East Coast Bays Formation (EW) and other nearby boreholes encountering less than 5m of combined ER and EW. This variability may be attributable to preferential weathering down steeply inclined joints or faults. A plan showing the distribution of the ER in the vicinity of the Karangahape Station is presented in Appendix C. The weathered East Coast Bays Formation soils and rocks transition into unweathered units generally characterised as either EU2 (cemented) or EUa3 (Channelised Sandstone). The channelised sandstone (EUs3) in the CMJ area is mapped throughout the Karangahape Station area. The level of the base of the channelised sandstone unit approximates to the vertical rail track alignment through this area. The unit is gently folded and faulted. It is typically massive in the drill core, however swarms of joints are identified in boreholes, which may be related to nearby faulting.

Burland, J. B. (1997). Assessment of risk of damage to buildings due to tunnelling and excavation. Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Ishihara(ed), 3, 1189-1201. Page 7

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Above and below the channelised sandstone unit, the ECBF is predominantly characterised as EU2, with sub-horizontal orientation of strata.

4.5 Hydrogeology 4.5.1

Perched Groundwater

A review of the hydrogeological studies completed during prior CRL project stages and historic groundwater monitoring data from piezometers installed in the region of Beresford Square and Mercury Lane indicates the presence of a shallow or perched groundwater level, varying between approximately 2 m b GL (seasonal high) to 6 m b GL (seasonal low). The perched water level fluctuates between these maximum and minimum levels in response to rainfall events, particularly in the Beresford Square area. These zones were assessed to be relatively isolated and laterally discontinuous, flowing to local topographic sinks or shallow drainage infrastructure.

4.5.2

Regional Groundwater System

4.6 Existing Buildings and Structures The land surrounding the proposed Beresford Square entrance is zoned 'Business - City Centre Zone’. The area is typically characterised as ‘mixed-use’ with low-rise residential, commercial and industrial buildings used for living, entertainment, and retail. Some of these buildings were constructed in the early 20th century and are typically of unreinforced masonry or reinforced concrete construction and are founded on shallow pads and strip footings. Some of the buildings within this area have heritage status and due to the nature of their construction, are more susceptible to surface settlements. Further discussion on buildings which require condition surveys as part of the Karangahape Station main works is included in Section 5.

4.7 Existing Utilities CRL construction activity at Beresford Square is located in an area where there are a number of underground network utilities. The existing utilities and their typical construction types are summarised in Table 4.1.

Page 8

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Table 4.1 Existing service summary

Utility Wastewater Stormwater Watermains Gas Communications and fibre optics Power

Settlement Assessment

5.1 Overview of settlement assessment The construction of the Karangahape Station, including the proposed entrance at Beresford Square, has the potential to induce settlements (vertical ground movement) and horizontal ground movements with resulting effects on nearby buildings and infrastructure. Generally, there are two displacement mechanisms associated with the works that have the potential to induce ground movement. These are: ď‚ˇ ď‚ˇ

Mechanical settlement and horizontal ground movement due to the construction of the shafts and tunnels. Consolidation settlement of surface soils due to changes in groundwater pressures.

Mechanical settlement and horizontal ground movement is expected to occur within several weeks from the start of construction and is therefore relatively instantaneous. Consolidation settlement occurs relatively slowly over a period of months or years. Each component has been assessed individually and then combined to produce the total settlement caused by the works and their subsequent effects.

5.2 Mechanical Settlement and Horizontal Ground Movement Assessment 5.2.1

Tunnel Ground Movements

5.2.1.1 Assessment Method Mechanical settlements for the tunnels and adits, as shown on Figure 5.1, have been assessed using Plaxis 2D (version 2018). Each mined excavation model was set up as plane strain model adopting 15-noded elements.

5.2.1.2 Design Assumptions The assumptions regarding tunnel geometry used in the assessment were based on the cross-section and station layout as per Link Alliance tender design drawings. The mined tunnels will be supported Page 9

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

by shotcrete lining (PPFRS – polypropylene fibre reinforced shotcrete) and rock bolts where applicable. The secondary lining has not been considered in the settlement analyses as the effects on the settlement after the application of the temporary lining is considered negligible. The alignments of the CRL tunnels are referred to as CRL down (MC20) and CRL up (MC30). The mined tunnels extend the length of the Karangahape Station. Beyond the station it is proposed to construct the tunnels by TBM. Two mined tunnel cross sections have been analysed:  

Standard mined tunnel section which is based on cross section at Chainage MC30-683-700 (Drawing CRL-KRD-TUN-LKA=DRG-033012 on Appendix D). Enlarged mined tunnel cross section to allow for the TBM entry and additional height for tunnel ventilation system. This section is based on a cross section at Chainage MC30-683845 (Drawing CRL-KRD-TUN-LKA=DRG-033013 in Appendix D).

The geological sections for the tunnels have been developed from the Link Alliance Leapfrog 3D geological model. Geotechnical design parameters have been taken as specified in the Link Alliance Geotechnical Basis of Design (CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-RPT-800000). The analysis was carried out over multiple model stages to capture the induced ground movements. The stages outlined below were followed for settlement assessment of each cross section.   

  

Initial stage – set up of initial stress conditions prior to tunnel excavation - K0 procedure. Application of 20 kPa surcharge at ground level (displacements due to surcharge are reset at beginning of next stage) to reflect general surface development conditions. Excavation of mined platform tunnels – deconfinement kept at 0% to delay induced mechanical settlement. Groundwater is allowed to drawdown due to excavation (displacements caused by drawdown are reset at beginning of next stage). Deconfinement of excavated rock mass assumed as 50%. Initial 50mm low strength shotcrete lining Primary shotcrete lining and rock bolting (if applicable) – complete deconfinement of rock mass

5.2.1.3 Assessment Results Figure 5.2 presents the assessed settlement cross section profiles (perpendicular to the tunnel alignments) from the mined tunnels. To create a 3 dimensional settlement surface the settlement profile from the standard mined tunnel cross section has been projected along the tunnel centreline from the northern end of the station to the Mercury Lane Shaft and the settlements from the enlarged mined tunnel from the Mercury Lane Shaft to the southern end of the station. This surface has then been combined with the settlement surfaces that have been developed for the shafts and consolidation settlements (Refer Section 5.5 of this report).

Page 10

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Figure 5.1 – Assessed mechanical settlements due to the mined tunnels

5.2.2

Temporary construction shaft ground movement

5.2.2.1 Assessment Method The mechanical settlement and horizontal ground movement analyses were carried out using Plaxis 2D (version 2018) finite element software. The construction access shaft was analysed as an axisymmetric model adopting 15-noded elements.

5.2.2.2 Design Assumptions The access shaft (refer ACZ ‘K7’ in Figure 2.3) is proposed to be located to the south of the proposed Mercury Lane Shaft of Karangahape Station, offset approximately 21.5 m from the MC20 alignment. The shaft is expected to remain open for approximately 3 years. The shaft is to be circular, comprising of either secant piles or sheet piles (supported by 3 rows concrete walers) extending to the top of unweathered rock, and rock support (rock bolts and mesh and/or shotcrete lining) below the secant/sheet piles. For the analysis we have conservatively assumed sheetpiles, as this results in the largest settlements. The shaft is to have a 16.8 m internal diameter in the upper sheet pile section and 15 m diameter in the lower rock cut section in order to accommodate requirement for vertical transport of construction equipment. The geological sections for the temporary construction shaft have been developed from the Link Alliance Leapfrog 3D geological model. Geotechnical design parameters have been taken as specified in Table 6-1 of the Geotechnical Basis of Design Report4. 4

Geotechnical Basis of Design – Stage C Revision C01, Link Alliance Report No CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-RPT-80000, 3 December 2019 Page 11

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

For the mechanical settlements and horizontal ground movement assessment the groundwater level of 50m RL has been assumed based on an average seasonal high from nearby boreholes and historical data. Due to model constraints, groundwater drawdown has not been incorporated within the mechanical settlement model. Instead, groundwater levels were manually stepped down within the excavation as the excavation progressed, while the groundwater level behind the sheet pile wall remained the same throughout. The analysis was carried out over multiple stages to model the induced mechanical settlement. The stages outlined below were followed for the assessment. The model stages have been applied to analyse mechanical settlement only, where groundwater drawdown external to the shaft, has not been modelled.      

5.2.2.3 Assessment Results Figure 5.2 presents the assessed mechanical settlement profile at the ground surface arising from the construction of the temporary shaft. This settlement profile has been projected around the perimeter of the shaft to create a 3 dimensional settlement surface. The surface has then been combined with the settlement surfaces that have been developed for the tunnels, other shafts and consolidation settlements (Refer Section 5.5 of this report).

Figure 5.2 – Assessed mechanical settlements due to the temporary construction shaft Page 12

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

5.2.3

Mercury Lane Shaft Mechanical Ground Movements

5.2.3.1 Assessment Method The mechanical settlement and horizontal ground movements due to the proposed design of the Mercury Lane Shaft (refer ACZ â€˜K1/K4â€™ in Figure 2.3) were assessed as a plane strain model using PLAXIS 2D v2018. The soil-structure interaction throughout the staged construction and long term conditions has been considered. Two cross sections have been assessed for the resource consent design, aligned North-South and East-West. Geological conditions are based on the typical location of maximum retained height for each section.

5.2.3.2 Design Assumptions The station shaft comprises top-down construction using diaphragm walls to the competent channelised sandstone (EU3) and open cut in the rock down to the base of the shaft. The construction of the lower walls and floors is then constructed bottom-up. The geological sections for the Mercury Lane shaft have been developed from the Link Alliance Leapfrog 3D geological model. These are typical of the location of maximum ground retention heights. Geotechnical design parameters have been taken as specified in Table 6-1 of the Geotechnical Basis of Design (CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-RPT-80000). The perched system has been simplified for modelling purposes as a saturated zone commencing from about 3.5m below ground level. For comparison the highest measured groundwater level to date within the boreholes adjacent to the site is about 6.5m below ground level (piezometer installed within the EW unit). The adopted design groundwater pressures have been taken as hydrostatic below the perched groundwater level until the bottom of the upper aquifer (ER unit), and then assumed constant until the corresponding pressure in the regional groundwater table (likely highly conservative). Within the soils, top down construction staging has been modelled. A planned staged excavation of 100mm below the underside of each floor slab level has been modelled for the purpose of this ground settlement assessment. Within the rock, a planned excavation of 500mm below the underside slab has been modelled. The Mercury Theatre to the north of the Mercury Lane Shaft has perimeter masonry walls that widen at their base to form brick footings. Concrete pad footings support jack studs to the timber flooring. Based on a review of available historical drawings, the footing load has been estimated to be up to about 330 kN/m over a 1.5 m footing width (220 kPa). This load has been included in the PLAXIS model as a surcharge. It has been assumed that the Mercury Theatre structure has no ability to redistribute the footing load through the structure. Further assessment of the settlement beneath the Mercury Theatre will be undertaken as part of detailed design.

5.2.3.3 Assessment Results Figure 5.3 presents the assessed mechanical settlement profile from the Mercury Lane Shaft. This settlement profile has been projected around the perimeter of the shaft to create a 3 dimensional settlement surface. The surface has then been combined with the settlement surfaces that have been developed for the tunnels, other shafts and consolidation settlements (Refer Section 5.5 of this report). Page 13

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Figure 5.3 – Assessed mechanical settlements due to the Mercury Lane shaft

5.2.4

Beresford Square Shaft Mechanical Ground Movements

5.2.4.1 Assessment Method The mechanical settlement and horizontal ground movements due to the proposed design of the Beresford Square Shaft (refer ACZ ‘K9’in Figure 2.3) was assessed as a plane strain model using PLAXIS 2D v2018. The soil-structure interaction throughout the staged construction and long term conditions has been considered. Four critical cross sections have been assessed for the resource consent design. These are the shallow, western end of the shaft, the deep north side of the shaft, the eastern end of the shaft and the deep southern side of the shaft.

5.2.4.2 Design Assumptions The station shaft comprises top-down construction using diaphragm walls to below B4 level within the competent channelised sandstone (EU3) and open cut in the rock down to the base of the shaft. The floors and lower walls are then constructed bottom-up. The geological sections for the Beresford Square Shaft have been developed from the Link Alliance Leapfrog 3D geological model. Four critical cross sections have been analysed – the shallow western end of the shaft, the deep north side of the shaft, the eastern end of the shaft and the deep southern side of the shaft. These are typical of the location of maximum ground retention heights. Page 14

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Geotechnical design parameters have been taken as specified in Table 6-1 of the Geotechnical Basis of Design Report. The perched system has been simplified for modelling purposes as a saturated zone commencing from about 2.5m below ground level. For comparison the highest measured groundwater level to date within the boreholes adjacent to the site is about 3.1m below ground level (piezometer installed within the ER unit). The adopted design groundwater pressures have been taken as hydrostatic below the perched groundwater level until the bottom of the upper aquifer (ER unit), and then assumed constant until the corresponding pressure in the regional groundwater table (likely highly conservative). Within the soils, top down construction staging has been modelled. A planned excavation of 100mm below the underside of each floor slab level (B0, B1, B2) has been modelled for the purpose of this ground settlement assessment. Within the rock, a planned excavation of 500mm below the underside of the B3 and B4 slabs has been modelled.

5.2.4.3 Assessment Results Figure 5.4 presents the assessed mechanical settlement profile from the Beresford Square Shaft. This settlement profile has been projected around the perimeter of the shaft to create a 3dimensional settlement surface. The surface has then been combined with the settlement surfaces that have been developed for the tunnels, other shafts and consolidation settlements (Refer Section 5.5 of this report).

Figure 5.4 â€“ Assess mechanical settlements due to the Beresford Square shaft

Page 15

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

5.2.5

Validation of Finite Element (PLAXIS) Analysis

To validate the results from PLAXIS analysis, a section of the Beresford Square wall (section S6) was analysed using the limit equilibrium software package WALLAP. This wall section was chosen as:   

It is at the end of the shaft so there are no significant out of balance loads that cannot be modelled in WALLAP; The lateral support from the structure is easily replicated in WALLAP; and, The depth of excavation modelled in WALLAP is 17.5m, through Fill, Residual Soil, Weathered Rock and Unweathered rock and is therefore representative of the soil conditions in the vicinity of the Karangahape Station shafts.

It is noted that this wall section differs from that presented in Figure 5.4 (which includes Deep – East Wall), also located at the eastern end of the station. This is due to the lateral support and assessed excavation depths for the Deep – East Wall section differing from those at Section S6. The WALLAP analysis used the same parameters and construction staging as the PLAXIS analysis and the wall deflections and bending moments were calculated using the 2D finite element model method in WALLAP. WALLAP is not suitable for modelling open excavation in rock (below the DWall), therefore the comparison has been taken to the last excavation stage before the rock cut, i.e. to B3 level or 17.5m below existing ground level (47.5mRL). The WALLAP and PLAXIS analysis resulted in similar results, with the maximum wall deflections from the WALLAP analysis being 1mm greater than the PLAXIS Analysis. Figure 5.5 presents a comparison of the horizontal displacement of the wall from the two analyses.

Figure 5.5: Comparison in wall deflection for Section 6 between PLAXIS and WALLAP.

Page 16

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

5.3 Enabling Works Mechanical Ground Movements 5.3.1

Assessment method

As part of the enabling works for Karangahape Station temporary excavation works will be required to allow diversion of utilities. The settlements and horizontal ground movements due to the proposed temporary excavation works have been assessed using the empirical methods outlined in CIRIA (2017)5.

5.3.2

Design Assumptions

Details of the proposed temporary excavation works, including the exact position, size and support methods have not been finalised. For the assessment, based on discussions with the utilities and construction teams, it has been assumed that the following temporary excavations will be required:   

4 m (W) x 4 m (L) x 4.6 m deep pit adjacent to the Beresford Square Shaft; 2 m (W) x 40m (L) x 3.5 m deep trench on Mercury Lane near the intersection with Cross Street; and 3 m (W) x 3 m (L) x 3 m deep pit west of the Beresford Square shaft.

The location of the temporary excavation works are shown in Figure 5.6 below. Based on the proposed locations and excavation depths, it is expected that the temporary excavations will extend into ECBF residual soil with an estimated undrained shear strength of 80kPa. Based on information provided by the construction team, the proposed temporary excavation ground support will be designed to limit vertical ground movements at the property boundaries to approximately 5mm.

CIRIA (2017). Guidance on embedded retaining wall design. CIRIA Report C760, 2017.

Page 17

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Figure 5.6 â€“ Location of temporary excavation works

5.3.3

Assessment Results

Figure 5.7 presents the assessed mechanical settlements and horizontal ground movement profiles from the temporary excavation works using the empirical methods in CIRIA (2017). Figure 5.8 shows the total combined settlements at Beresford Square shaft, including the mechanical settlements for the temporary excavation works.

Page 18

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Figure 5.7 – Assessed mechanical settlements and horizontal ground movement due to the enabling works

Figure 5.8 – Total combined settlements, including temporary excavation works

A summary of the estimated ground movements at adjacent buildings due to the temporary excavation works is shown in Table 5.1

Page 19

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Table 5.1 Approximate settlement and horizontal ground movement due to temporary excavation

Building ID

Address

50 N/A1 54 60 65

61-65 Pitt Street 22 Beresford Square 238 Karangahape Road 9 Mercury Lane 1 Cross Street

Approximate Settlement due to temporary excavation works (mm) 5 3 6 5 5

Approximate horizontal ground movement due to temporary excavation works (mm) 5.5 3 6 5.5 5.5

1. As the total combined settlements at 22 Beresford Square are less than 5mm, no further assessment has been undertaken for this building and therefore no Building ID has been assigned.

The settlement and horizontal ground movements from temporary excavation works shown in Figure 5.7 and Figure 5.8 and summarised in Table 5.1 have been included in the damage assessment undertaken for Building ID_50, ID_54, ID_60 and ID_65 (refer to Table 6-4) and are included on the combined total settlement contours plans shown in Appendix F. As the total combined settlements at 22 Beresford Square are less than 5mm, no further assessment has been undertaken for this building.

5.4 Consolidation Settlement Assessment Consolidation settlement is caused through the reduction of pore water pressure (and subsequent increase in effective stress) when groundwater drawdown occurs. Consolidation settlement was calculated using the exported Modflow/SeepW results from the updated 2019 drawdown assessment (Section 5.4.1), interpolated around the station footprint and calculated using onedimensional consolidation settlement theory (Section 5.4.2). This is consistent with the general approach for calculating consolidation settlement that was used in the application for the A2N resource consents6.

5.4.1

Drawdown Assessment Update

Pattle Delamore Partners (PDP) was engaged by the Link Alliance to update and extend the existing groundwater drawdown models7 to support the consolidation settlement assessment for the revised Karangahape Station design outlined in Sections 2.3 and 2.4. Updates to the previous groundwater drawdown models included: 



Aurecon, (2016). Auckland City Rail Link (CRL) Assessment of Settlement Effects Report, Resource Consent Package 2, Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation. Reference No. CRL-SYWRME-000-RPT-0045, Revision 3, 30 June 2016. 7 PDP, (2016). Auckland City Rail Link (CRL) Aotea Station to North Auckland Line Construction and CRL Operation: Groundwater Technical Report. Reference No. A02502731R001, dated May 2016. Page 20 | Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects



Northwest through Beresford Square, was selected to consider the greatest possible extent of the compressible TA and ER soils around the revised station footprint. The latest Link Alliance station design, considering the effects from the changes in shaft size and configuration on drawdown when compared to the originally consented proposal.

5.4.2

Consolidation Settlement Assessment



Considering the variation in the modelled depressurisation characteristics between the TA and ER units in the PDP assessment, the consolidation settlement assessment differentiates between the different drawdown responses within these two units. Independent depressurisation functions have therefore been adopted for these different units, best fitting the extent of depressurisation captured by (and exported from) the PDP models for each of the TA and ER units. The depressurisation functions have then been assigned for the respective units around the entire station footprint. The assigned depressurisation functions are based on the PDP model outputs which have been completed along a geological section representing the upper bound thicknesses for the TA and ER. The application of these depressurisation functions around other sections of the station development (where the saturated TA and ER units are likely to be thinner) is considered to be appropriately conservative. For the consolidation settlement analyses, the Beresford Square shaft, Mercury Lane shaft, temporary construction shaft and the mined tunnels have been consolidated into a single combined station footprint, with the ER and TA depressurisation functions determined by PDP groundwater drawdown assessment, applied around the edges of this footprint. In the updated PDP assessment the mined tunnels were found to have comparatively little influence on the extent of depressurisation.

5.4.2.1 Settlement Estimation for ER The lateral extent of drawdown in the ER around the station footprint was determined using a combined approach considering:   

Following this approach, drawdown (and subsequent depressurisation) in the ER from the edge of the new station excavation footprint was determined using the function expressed in Figure 5.9 below. The lateral extent of drawdown effects was considered up to 150 m from the edge of the Page 21

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

station based on the long-term dewatering model prediction in the PDP 2019 technical memorandum.

Normalised change in pressure Head with Normalised Distance (within ER) Normalised Distance from Shaft, đ?‘Ľ (actual distance/150m) 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Normalised Î”Pressure Head Y [f(đ?‘Ľ)]

0 0.1

Y(đ?‘Ľ) = 0.6818đ?‘Ľ2 - 1.6909đ?‘Ľ + 1

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Î” Head vs Distance

0.9 1

Figure 5.9 Depressurisation in ER with distance from station excavation (normalized)

The depressurisation at any distance (đ?‘Ľ) from the edge of the shaft can be expressed using: âˆ†đ?‘ƒ(đ?‘Ľ) = đ?‘Œ(đ?‘Ľ) Ă— đ?‘ƒđ?‘šđ?‘Žđ?‘Ľ Where: Pmax = Maximum depressurisation (Î” pressure head, metres) at shaft edge (đ?‘Ľ = 0m) PDP provided the Link Alliance with an export from the updated groundwater drawdown assessment model data in order to determine Pmax and the subsequent distribution of depressurisation in the ER around the station. The exported data summarises the changes in pressure (and total) head at various nodes spaced throughout different elevations in the ER, and at different distances from the shaft wall east and west of the station (10m horizontal spacings). A maximum depressurisation of Î” 2.4m was calculated at the base of the ER over the exported intervals of model data. However, in order to better represent the depressurisation over the entire ER profile (not just the base, which would over-estimate depressurisation throughout the rest of the profile), the Î” pressure head measured at various elevations throughout the ER profile was averaged (from top to base of ER) for each of the exported 10m intervals. Depressurisation in the ER with distance from the station outline was calculated using the function in Figure 5.9 above. Based on the average Î” pressure head calculated either sides of the shaft in the PDP model, Pmax values of Î” 1.5m for the areas to the north, east and south of the station and Pmax of Î” 0.8m to the west were adopted (Figure 5.10). Page 22

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Change in pressure Head with Distance (within ER) Distance from Shaft (m) 0

100

120

140

160

-0.2 0

ΔPressure Head (m)

0.2 0.4

Δ Head vs Distance in ER (North, South, East)

0.6

Δ Head vs Distance in ER (West)

0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Figure 5.10 Depressurisation in ER with distance from station excavation

5.4.2.2 Settlement Estimation for TA The depressurisation in the TA around the station footprint was determined using the change in head and extent of drawdown in the TA to the east of the Beresford Square shaft (with the TA being absent to the west along the analysed section), as shown in Figure 7 of the PDP technical memorandum. The lateral extent of drawdown effects was considered up to 150 m from the edge of the station based on the long-term dewatering model prediction in the PDP 2019 technical memorandum.

Link Alliance, (2019). Geotechnical Interpretative Report, C3 Design Report. Reference No. CRL-SYW-GEOLKA-RPT-800006, Revision C00, dated September 2019. Page 23

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Following this approach, the extent of drawdown (and subsequent depressurisation) in the TA and from the edge of the new station excavation footprint was determined using the function expressed in Figure 5.11 below.

Normalised change in pressure Head with Normalised Distance (within TA) Normalised Distance from Shaft, đ?‘Ľ (actual distance/150m) 0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Normalised Î”Pressure Head Y [f(đ?‘Ľ)]

-0.20

0.00

Y(đ?‘Ľ) = 3.9375đ?‘Ľ4 - 6.4157đ?‘Ľ3 + 2.1237đ?‘Ľ2 - 0.6721đ?‘Ľ + 1

0.20

0.40

0.60 Î” Head vs Distance 0.80

1.00 Figure 5.11 Depressurisation in TA with distance from station excavation (normalized)

The depressurisation at any distance (đ?‘Ľ) from the edge of the shaft can be expressed using: âˆ†đ?‘ƒ(đ?‘Ľ) = đ?‘Œ(đ?‘Ľ) Ă— đ?‘ƒđ?‘šđ?‘Žđ?‘Ľ Where: Pmax = Maximum depressurisation (Î” pressure head, metres) at shaft edge (đ?‘Ľ = 0m) Field evidence indicates that TA saturated thickness east of the shaft is likely to be limited to less than 1.5 m when compared against lowest seasonal groundwater levels and interpreted geology. Due the limited saturated thickness of the TA, it is expected that maximum depressurisation/ drawdown will be limited to Î” 1.5 m magnitude and at the base of the TA. In order to better represent the depressurisation over the total TA profile thickness (not just the base, which would over-estimate depressurisation and predicted consolidation settlement throughout the rest of the profile), an averaged maximum depressurisation value of 50% of the value at the base of the TA was assigned. This assumes hydrostatic depressurisation over the saturated TA thickness (Figure 5.12).

Page 24

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Change in pressure Head with Distance (within TA) Distance from Shaft (m) 0

100

120

140

160

0.00 0.10

Î”Pressure Head (m)

y = 7E-09x4 - 2E-06x3 + 9E-05x2 - 0.004x + 0.8018 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 Figure 5.12 Depressurisation in TA with distance from station excavation

5.4.2.3 Total Consolidation Settlement Estimation To calculate consolidation induced settlements around the station footprint area, the groundwater depressurisation profiles were combined with the 3-D ground layer model (exported from the Leapfrog 3-D model) and the GIR soil stiffness parameter values, and then spatially interpolated using ArcGIS software and FME (Feature Manipulation Engine) to generate consolidation induced settlement contours. Total consolidation settlement at any given point is obtained as the sum of the consolidation settlements derived for the compressible ER and TA units through the methodology described above. The distribution of consolidation settlement around the revised station footprint is included in Figure 5.13 below.

Link Alliance, (2019). Geotechnical Interpretative Report, C3 Design Report. Reference No. CRL-SYW-GEOLKA-RPT-800006, Revision C00, dated September 2019. Page 25

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Figure 5.13 Consolidation settlement contours

Page 26

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

5.5 Combination of Settlement Predictions The assessed mechanical settlements from the three shafts, the tunnels, adits, enabling works and the consolidation settlement have been combined using GIS software to determine the total settlement across the site. The settlement from each of the individual settlement surfaces was determined at discrete points on a 1m grid across the site. These settlements were added together to create a combined settlement surface. Appendix F presents the contour plan showing the combined total settlement surface.

Assessment of Effects

6.1 A2N Resource Consent Trigger Levels The A2N resource consent Drawing CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640-4.0 (Appendix B), approved by Auckland Council in 2016, sets Trigger Levels (Alert and Alarm) for vertical movement and differential vertical slope for individual buildings effected by the proposed works. This drawing includes the following definitions: 

  

The slope "across building" shall be measured from the point of maximum vertical movement at the face of the building to the shorter distance of the point at which vertical movement is zero or to the rear of the building and the corresponding vertical movement at this location. Vertical movement is taken as the maximum measured at the face of the building. Alert level = 80% of design prediction. Alarm level=100% of design prediction.

6.2 Methodology A building’s structural tolerance to total and differential settlement is unique and depends upon the building materials used, its foundation system (shallow or piled), the quality of construction, and the existing condition of the structure. To assess the effects of settlement on buildings near the proposed Karangahape Station, including the second station entrance at Beresford Square, the method outlined in Burland (1997) has been adopted. This approach remains the most commonly used and recommended method to assess settlement effects. It was the approach used for the assessment of settlement effects for the existing CRL Britomart to Wyndham and A2N resource consents, and has been used widely in similar Auckland projects including the Waterview Connection. The method outlined in Burland (1997) assesses the effects on nearby buildings using a staged process. Buildings are eliminated based on their level of risk, with the staging process separated into a Stage 1, Stage 2, and Stage 3 assessment. Each stage is discussed in detail below.

6.2.1

Stage 1 - Preliminary Assessment

The Stage 1 assessment involves carrying out screening assessments on nearby buildings to identify buildings which have negligible damage potential. To assess buildings with negligible risk, Burland

Page 27

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

(1997) recommends the criteria defined in Rankin (1988)10 which includes buildings experiencing settlement less than 10 mm and maximum differential settlement of 1:500. These limits are considered by Burland to provide a conservative basis for identifying buildings requiring further study. In this assessment, Stage 1 was foregone and Stage 2 assessments have been completed for all buildings within the predicted 5 mm ground settlement contour.

6.2.2

Stage 2 Assessment

The second stage of assessment has been carried out for buildings which are within the 5 mm settlement contour or have a maximum differential settlement greater than 1:500. This assessment was carried out using the Oasys software XDISP, a three-dimensional software, which assesses the response of infrastructure to excavation induced settlement. The Stage 2 assessment recommended in Burland (1997) follows the work of Burland and Wroth (1974)11 and Boscardin and Cording (1989) 12. The assessment relates to the concept that the tensile strain acting on a building due to settlement, can be directly related to its degree of damage. The assessment evaluates the maximum tensile strain on the building due to fibre strain (bending), diagonal strain (shear) and horizontal strain, which is compared to the limiting values and categories of damage included in Table 6.1 and Table 6.2. The method assumes each building acts as a simply supported beam with no interaction between the ground and foundations (greenfield conditions), even though all buildings will inherently have some degree of resistance against bending imposed by the ground. As a result, the effects estimated in Table 6.1 can generally be considered conservative. Table 6.1 Building damage assessment criteria

Building damage classification after Burland (1995) and Mair et al (1996) Category of damage

Description of Degree of Damage

0 1 2 3 4 5

Negligible Very Slight Slight Moderate Severe Very Severe

Limiting Tensile Strain (%) < 0.05 0.05 – 0.075 0.075 – 0.15 0.15 – 0.3 > 0.3

Approximate equivalent ground settlement and slopes after CIRIA (1996). Max slope of ground

Max settlement of building (mm)

< 1/500 1/500 – 1/200 1/200 – 1/50 1/200 – 1/50 > 1/50

< 10 10 – 50 50 - 75 > 75 > 75

Rankin, W. J. (1988). Ground movements resulting from urban tunnelling, predictions and effects. Engineering Geology of Underground Movement, Geological Society, Engineering Geology Special Publication No. 5, 79-92. 11 Burland, J. B., & Wroth, C. P. (1974). Settlements of buildings and associated damage. In Conference on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge. 12 Boscardin, M. D., & Cording, E. J. (1989). Building response to excavation-induced settlement. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 115(1), 1-21. Page 28

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Table 6.2 Building damage classification

Category of damage

Normal degree of severity

Description of typical damage [(building damage classification after Burland (1995), and Mair et al (1996)]

Negligible

Hairline cracks.

Very Slight

Slight

Moderate

Severe

Very Severe

General category after Burland (1995)

Aesthetic Damage

Serviceability Damage

Stability Damage

Typical crack widths are greater than 25 mm but are also dependent on the number of cracks. 6.2.3

Stage 3 Assessment

Burland (1997) recommends a more detailed assessment is carried out for buildings that, as a result of the Stage 2 assessment, are classified as being at risk of ‘moderate’ damage level or greater. Various attempts have been made to factor this into the analysis of building damage, most notably Page 29

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

by Potts and Addenbrooke (1997). The process involves reducing the horizontal and vertical movements on a building by accounting for the stiffness and presence of foundations, thus reducing the predicated strain on the building. All buildings have been classified below a ‘moderate’ damage level. No Stage 3 damage assessments have been undertaken, but will be considered for some buildings (e.g. Mercury Theatre at 9 Mercury Lane) during detailed design.

6.3 Buildings Assessed A total of 24 buildings close to Karangahape Station have been identified for the Stage 2 assessment as they were within the 5 mm settlement contour line outlined in Section 4.5. These buildings are summarised in Table 6.3. The Building numbers in Table 6.3 are the same numbers on A2N resource consent Drawing CRLSYW-RME-000-DRG-2640-4.0. Two buildings which were not included on Drawing CRL-SYW-RME000-DRG-2640-4.0 are within the 5mm contour:  

16 to 18 Beresford Square (Building ID_47) 20 Beresford Square (Building ID_158) (Samoa House)

Original construction drawings (1963) for Building ID_47 indicate that the building is a reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced masonry infill. No construction drawings are available for Building ID_158, however based on a visual inspection of the exterior of the building, it is believed that this building was likely constructed at some time around the 1970’s and appears to comprise reinforced concrete and reinforced concrete blockwork with a mixture of timber framing and timber exterior panelling. However, where construction drawings are unavailable, the conservative position is to assume that the building will perform in the same manner as a masonry structure (i.e. lower resistance to tensile strains than reinforced buildings). Therefore, for the purposes of this assessment Building ID_47 and Building ID_158 have been conservatively assessed as if they are masonry buildings, but we would expect these buildings to perform much better than this.

Page 30

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Table 6.3 Buildings within the 5mm settlement contour Height [m]

Basement

Poisson ratio

E/G 13

17.5

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Masonry

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Beresford Square

Unreinforced Masonry

Shallow

0.3

55-59

Pitt street

Steel Frame/Unreinforced Masonry Infill

Shallow

0.3

Pitt street

Unreinforced Masonry

Shallow

0.3

211 â€“ 235

Karangahape Road

Unreinforced Masonry

Shallow

0.3

16-18

Beresford Square

Reinforced Concrete Frame and Unreinforced masonry infill

Shallow

0.3

259-281

Karangahape Road

Masonry

Shallow

0.3

2.6

251-253

Karangahape Road

Unreinforced Masonry

Shallow

0.3

2.6

61-65

Pitt Street

Unreinforced Masonry

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Shallow

0.3

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Shallow

0.3

12.5

Building No

Street No.

23-39

Pitt Street

Masonry14

Pitt Street

1-7

Address

Construction form

2.6 12.5 2.6 2.6 2.6

243

Karangahape Road

Unreinforced masonry building with steel bracing alterations

158

Beresford Square

Masonry14

214

Karangahape Road

238

Karangahape Road

246-254

Karangahape Road

256

Karangahape Road

Masonry

Shallow

0.3

2.6

258-264

Karangahape Road

Masonry

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Mercury Lane

Unreinforced masonry building

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Cross Street

Reinforced concrete frame

Shallow

0.3

12.5

268

Karangahape Road

Reinforced concrete frame

Shallow

0.3

12.5

270

Karangahape Road

Unreinforced masonry building

Shallow

0.3

2.6

Reinforced Concrete Frame and Unreinforced masonry infill Reinforced Concrete Frame and Unreinforced masonry infill Reinforced concrete frame with unreinforced concrete infill

2.6

East Street

Steel frame building

Shallow

0.3

12.5

121

50-60

Pitt Street

Masonry

Shallow

0.3

2.6

122

Pitt Street

Masonry14

Shallow

0.3

2.6

6.4 Assessed ground movement The cumulative total settlement and differential vertical slope across each of the buildings listed in Table 6-3 have been determined based on the assessed cumulative effects of the mechanical settlements from the enabling works, tunnel and shaft construction and the consolidation induced settlements. The assessed total settlement for six of the buildings are greater than the Alarm Level in the A2N resource consents. The differential vertical slope for all of the buildings are less than the Alarm

E/G values of 12.5 for framed buildings and 2.6 for masonry buildings have been used based on recommendations in Mair, Taylor and Burland (1996). 14 Masonry has been assumed where construction form is unknown. Page 31

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Levels in the A2N resource consent (Drawing CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640-4.0). Table 6-4 summarises and compares the consented and assessed settlements effects. Damage to buildings is typically the result of differential vertical slope across the building rather than the magnitude of total settlement. Therefore the increase in total settlement for these six buildings is not expected to result in increased damage to the buildings as the differential slopes is less than previously consented differential slopes and less than typical values that would be expected to cause damage.

6.5 Building Damage Classification and Assessment of Effects Conclusion Tensile strains have been calculated for each of the buildings listed in Table 6.3 using the Stage 2 Assessment methodology outlined in Section 6.2.2. Based on the results of this assessment, all of these buildings have been classified as â€œNegligibleâ€? damage category, which corresponds to aesthetic damage only (hairline cracks) as per Table 6.2. Table 6.4 provides a summary of the tensile strains and building damage classification of each assessed buildings within the 5mm contour. Appendix F provides a plan showing the location of the buildings that have been assessed, the results of the building damage classification assessment and the total settlement contours. Output from the Xdisp software building damage assessments results are presented in Appendix G.

Page 32

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Table 6.4 Summary of building classification due to excavation induced displacement

Consented Effects Building No

Street No.

29-39

Assessed Effects

Consent settlement alarm level15 [mm]

Consent differential vertical slope alarm level15

Maximum Tensile Strain16 [mm]

Building damage classification16

Maximum estimated settlement [mm]

Maximum estimated differential vertical slope

Maximum tensile strain [%]

Building damage classification

Pitt Street

1/800

0.005

Negligible

1/4900

0.007

Negligible

Pitt Street

1/800

0.018

Negligible

1/4750

0.007

Negligible

Beresford square

1/800

0.023

Negligible

1/10000

0.010

Negligible

55-59

Pitt Street

1/800

0.016

Negligible

1/2500

0.010

Negligible

Pitt Street

1/800

0.017

Negligible

1/4375

0.030

Negligible

211 â€“ 235

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.012

Negligible

1/7000

0.021

Negligible

16-18

Beresford Square

0.012

Negligible

1/4670

0.035

Negligible

1581

Beresford Square

1/5600

0.006

Negligible

259-281

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.015

Negligible

1/2000

0.013

Negligible

251-253

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.013

Negligible

1/2900

0.008

Negligible

61-65

Pitt Street

1/800

0.016

Negligible

1/2000

0.042

Negligible

243

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.007

Negligible

1/3375

0.040

Negligible

214

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.009

Negligible

1/7000

0.012

Negligible

238

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.005

Negligible

1/2700

0.019

Negligible

246-254

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.005

Negligible

1/87500

0.003

Negligible

256

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.007

Negligible

1/15000

0.007

Negligible

258-264

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.002

Negligible

1/4000

0.015

Negligible

268

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.002

Negligible

1/10000

0.003

Negligible

270

Karangahape Road

1/800

0.008

Negligible

1/20000

0.004

Negligible

Mercury Lane

1/636

0.047

Very slight

1/1250

0.037

Negligible

East Street

1/439

0.050

Negligible

1/6500

0.014

Negligible

Cross Street

1/800

0.025

Negligible

1/2300

0.020

Negligible

121

50-60

Pitt Street

1/800

0.022

Negligible

1/4850

0.010

Negligible

122

Pitt Street

1/800

0.023

Negligible

1/1150

0.033

Negligible

Address

Notes: 1. For building ID 158, the Vertical Movement Alarm Trigger Level shown on drawing CRL-KRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257003 has been set at 10mm (i.e. greater than the maximum estimated value of 6mm shown in this table). This is consistent with the approved A2N consent, which has minimum Alarm Trigger Levels of 10mm for all assessed buildings.

Assessed effects greater than consented effects

Page 33

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Monitoring and Mitigation – Proposed Conditions

It is proposed that all of the relevant conditions from the A2N resource consents (with appropriate amendments to refer to Beresford Square entrance drawings) be applied to the Beresford Square entrance resource consent. The existing A2N resource consent conditions include requirements for pre and post construction building condition surveys, an Independent Building Assessor, and monitoring and management of settlement effects in accordance with a ‘Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan’ (GSMCP). It is proposed that the construction of the Beresford Square entrance works will be covered by the GSMCP that is being prepared in accordance with the requirements of the A2N resource consents. There are two buildings that weren’t addressed in the A2N resource consent conditions as these buildings (Building ID 47 and ID158) were outside of the 5mm settlement contour authorised by the A2N resource consents. The A2N consent conditions are considered to be appropriate for these two additional buildings.

Summary and Conclusions

The Link Alliance has completed an assessment of the ground settlement effects for construction of Karangahape Station, taking into account the proposed Beresford Square entrance and Mercury Lane design amendments. The assessment of settlement effects has considered mechanical settlements, horizontal ground movement and consolidation settlements due to groundwater drawdown. Total ground settlement contours have been developed based on cumulative settlements from the Beresford Square entrance, Mercury Lane Shaft, the temporary construction shaft, the tunnel and adit construction and the consolidation settlement. The contours do not include the settlements from the enabling works. Building damage assessment has been be completed following the method outlined by Burland (1997) for buildings near the Karangahape Station. This assessment has considered the cumulative ground settlements and horizontal ground movement, including the effects of enabling works (primarily being excavations associated with the relocation of underground network utilities). This method recommends that buildings predicted to experience more than 10 mm vertical settlement or 1:500 differential settlement be identified for further assessment. A more conservative approach has been adopted, whereby all buildings identified as being within the 5 mm settlement contour line have been selected for further assessment. A total of 24 buildings close to Karangahape Station were identified as being within the 5 mm settlement contour line, and these buildings have been assessed to assign a building damage classification. The assessment of settlement effects undertaken for the Link Alliance Karangahape Station design has classified the damage potential for all 24 buildings to be “Negligible”. A level of damage no worse than ‘hairline cracks’ would be expected for a building that has been assessed as having a damage classification of negligible. Consideration of the predicted settlement effects and building damage classifications has also been undertaken in the context of the A2N resource consents, which form part of the receiving environment. Page 34

| Karangahape Station – Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

For the A2N resource consents, a total of 22 buildings were identified as being within the 5 mm settlement contour line. There are two buildings in Beresford Square that are now within the 5mm contour, that were not identified in the A2N resource consent (Building IDs 47 and 158). For the two additional buildings (Building IDs 47 (16-18 Beresford Square) and 158 (20 Beresford Square)), the magnitude of total settlement and differential vertical slopes across these buildings are less than the typical differential vertical slopes authorised by the A2N resource consents. For 16 of the 22 buildings identified in the A2N resource consents, the magnitude of total settlement and differential settlements now predicted are less than the authorised vertical and differential settlements for those same buildings. For the remaining six of the original 22 buildings identified in the A2N resource consents, the assessed magnitude of total settlements are greater than A2N resource consent Alarm Levels. However, the differential vertical slopes across these buildings are less than the A2N resource consent alarm levels for all 22 buildings. Damage to buildings is typically the result of differential vertical slope and tensile strain across the building rather than the magnitude of total settlement. Therefore the increase in total settlement for these six buildings is not expected to result in increased damage to the buildings, as differential slopes are less than those previously consented and less than typical values that would be expected to cause damage. It is proposed that all of the relevant conditions from the A2N resource consents (with appropriate amendments to refer to the updated settlement contours and alert and alarm triggers which form part of this report) be applied to the Beresford Square entrance resource consent.

Page 35

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

APPENDICES

Page 36

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix A â€“ Proposed Beresford Square Entrance Design Plans

Page 37

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Title Block Ver 2.03

N STREET

UPPER QUEE N ST

REET

W EST ST

IAN

AHAPE KARANG

DACRE ST REET

REET

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

UPPER QUEE

E RIV ND NO KIN MC

T SS S CRO

ROAD

REET

K3A K2 K8 CSA 3

K11 K12

GR EY SA VE NU E

T PIT

ET RE

K3 OS R ST T EE

SQUA RE SFOR D BERE HO PE TO UN

LEGEND

AD RO

T EE

ET RE

E AP AH NG RA KA

TR TS

T LA GA

ST EA

K9/K10

PIT

K1/K4

CRL DESIGNATION

ST RE ET

NOTES:

ALIGNMENT

CSA 2

K1 K2 K3 K3A K4

MERCURY LANE SHAFT MERCURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS STATION PLATFORM TUNNELS EXTENDED MERCURY LANE ENTRANCE BUILDING

K7 K8

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SHAFT MERCURY LANE CROSS PASSAGE

K9 K10 K11 K12

BERESFORD SQUARE SHAFT BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING BERESFORD SQUARE CROSS PASSAGE BERESFORD SQUARE SERVICE PASSAGE

CSA2 CSA3

BERESFORD SQUARE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA MERCURY LANE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA

PROPOSED DRIVEN TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL SHAFTS/ CUT AND COVER CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA (CSA)

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:24 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

INDICATIVE AREA OF PROPOSED WORKS SUBJECT TO RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

NOTE: 'BLUE' INDICATES INTERMEDIATE ACZS SUBJECT TO THIS RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

25000

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES

50000 mm

1:1000

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

As indicated

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE - LINK ALLIANCE DESIGN

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100003

REVISION

A00

Title Block Ver 2.03

N STREET

UPPER QUEE N ST

REET

W EST ST

IAN

AHAPE KARANG

DACRE ST REET

REET

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

UPPER QUEE

E RIV ND NO KIN MC

T SS S CRO

ROAD

REET

K3A K2 K8 CSA 3

K11 K12

GR EY SA VE NU E

T PIT

ET RE

K3 R ST T EE

SQUA RE SFOR D BERE HO PE TO UN

AD RO

T EE

ET RE

E AP AH NG RA KA

TR TS

T LA GA

ST EA

K9/K10

PIT

K1/K4

LEGEND CRL DESIGNATION

ST RE ET

CSA 2

NOTES:

ALIGNMENT

PROPOSED DRIVEN TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL SHAFTS/ CUT AND COVER CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA (CSA)

K9 K10 K11 K12

BERESFORD SQUARE SHAFT BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING BERESFORD SQUARE CROSS PASSAGE BERESFORD SQUARE SERVICE PASSAGE

CSA2 CSA3

BERESFORD SQUARE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA MERCURY LANE CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT AREA

DCR

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REPORT

REMOVED FROM AURECON DCR DESIGN

INDICATIVE AREA OF PROPOSED WORKS SUBJECT TO RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:27 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

K1 K2 K3 K3A K4 K5 K6 K7 K8

ADDED BY LINK ALLIANCE DESIGN

NOTE: 'BLUE' INDICATES INTERMEDIATE ACZS SUBJECT TO THIS RESOURCE CONSENT APPLICATION

25000

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES

50000 mm

1:1000

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

As indicated

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED CP

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE - LINK ALLIANCE DESIGN (COMPARISON WITH AURECON DCR DESIGN FOR INDICATIVE AREA OF PROPOSED WORKS) PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100004

REVISION

A00

Title Block Ver 2.03

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

N 2 - 100007

PITT ST

TUNNEL BELOW

KAR AN

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:28 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

BE SQ RE UA SF RE OR D

GAH APE RO

CANOPY ABOVE

1 - 100006

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES

PROPOSED BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING Scale: 1 : 250

CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

1 : 250

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED CP

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING/SHAFT - FLOOR PLAN L0

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100005

REVISION

A00

Title Block Ver 2.03

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

ROOF BSQ 70,693

L0 BSQ ENTRANCE 64,693

B1 BSQ 58,743

B2 BSQ CONCOURSE 53,743

B3 BSQ 48,743

B4 BSQ 43,743

B5 BSQ OTE 38,743 B6 PLATFORM 33,743 MRL B7 UNDER PLATFORM 32,243

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING/SHAFT - SECTION 1

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:30 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

Scale: 1 : 250

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

1 : 250

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE BUILDING/SHAFT - SECTION 1

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100006

REVISION

A00

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

Title Block Ver 2.03

PITT ST

BERESFORD SQUARE

ROOF BSQ 70,693

L0 BSQ ENTRANCE 64,693

B1 BSQ 58,743

B2 BSQ CONCOURSE 53,743

B3 BSQ 48,743

B4 BSQ 43,743

BERESFORD SQUARE SHAFT BEYOND SHOWN DASHED B5 BSQ OTE 38,743 B6 PLATFORM 33,743 MRL B7 UNDER PLATFORM 32,243

BERESFORD SQUARE - CROSS PASSAGE SECTION 2

Last Saved: 12/12/2019 3:36:31 PM Filename: BIM 360://NZ-PRO - City Rail Link (1-C1782.01)/CRL-KRD-ARC-LKA-MOD-145101.rvt

Scale: 1 : 250

ISSUED FOR RESOURCE CONSENT PURPOSES CLIENT:

SCALE

SIZE

1 : 250

REVISIONS

DESIGNED

100mm

STAGE A APPROVED

CP APPROVED

12/12/2019 DATE

BERESFORD SQUARE CROSS PASSAGE - SECTION 2

TITLE:

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT DESCRIPTION REV

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

CP DRAWN

CITY RAIL LINK AUCKLAND

PROJECT:

CHECKED

DATE

12/12/19

PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

CRL

ZONE

KRD

DISCIPLINE

RME

ELEMENT

LKA

TYPE

DRG

SHEET

- 100007

REVISION

A00

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix B â€“ A2N Consent Drawings

Page 38

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

195

1150 1150

80 6829

201-203

80 6829

1160 1170

+0 K683

1180

6830

10 1190

1190

6830

140-142

LS T

1180

219

90 6829

20 6830 30 6830

6830

30 K683

+050

+050 1230

RIVE

60 1240

6830

80 6830

6830

80 1260

1260

6830

100

8 12

1280

10 90 12

20 31 68

00 13

20 13

+ 83

+1 83

0 15

30 13

13 68

90 31 68

0 +2

30 32 68

10 14

14 60

80 32

139

14 68

80 14

3 68

0 31

3 68

0 32

3 68

00 15

3 33 68

1 15

4 33 68

83 K6

50 +3

+3 83

33 60

40 15

7 33

68 33 80

39 0

38 90

K6 83 +

15 70

10 0

68 3

118

15 80

6834

16 00 K6

DATE 13.05.16 30.09.16 14.10.16

REVISION DETAILS ISSUED FOR CONSENT ID 120 ADDED, REVISED GROUND MONITORING POINTS EXTRA MONITORING POINTS ADDED

APPROVED B.NEWNS B.NEWNS B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL AND CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT SHEET 2 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DATE

TITLE

13.05.16

B.NEWNS

Auckland 14/10/2016 3:15:55 PM

D.MATHER ORIGINAL SIZE

100

6837 10

REV 1.0 2.0 3.0

R.ALEA

+700

259-261

CHECKED

16-18

15-25

DESIGNED

20mm

1880

K683

8-10 12-14

CLIENT

1870

6836

1840

6836

4-6

6836 90

1860

SCALE 1:1000

6836 80

40m

1830

K683 +6

17/11/2016

1820

43 1-7

1850

61-65

6836

1840

6836 60

+650

1830

K683

1820

6836 40

1810

6836 30

1800

6836

1790

29 10

683640

1810

683630

1800

683620

1790

683610

1780

K683+6

1770

683590

1760

6836 10

+600

1780

K683

683580

1750

1770

6835

1760

6835

1750

Approved Resource Consent Plan

PET

R/LUC/2016/1890

11 17

683570

1740

101-1112/11

5 70

6835

1740

6835 60

1730

+550

10 5

7 9

122

K683

1720

6835 40

1710

41 29-41

6835

157-159

121 60

1700

155

40-50 50

6835

1690

6835 10

1680

153

683560

1730

K683+5

1720

683+ 50

1670

683540

1710

6834 90

1660

683530

1700

6835

1690

7 2

6835

1680

K683 +500

68 34 7

124

151

130 120

159 1670

16 40

6834

1660

3480

1650

6834 70

1640

6834 60

68 34

1630

3+45

149

118

STATIO N 8

K68

1620

68 34

120

6834 40

1610

PITT

141-147

GAHAP E

157

34 20

116

KARAN

245

116

68 3

120

104-108

68 33 70

110 7

152-156

EY GR

231 114

151

139

37 2

139

137

246A-246D

225

135

240-242

150

ON BS

61-87

133

234 223

120 15

96-100

68-72

1/142-5/142 5D/142

129

3 68

140 90 14

70 32 68

80 32 68

70 14

121 125

219

14 3 68

32 224

109-137 pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link CDE\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2611.dwg

14 +2 83 K6

117

50 +2 83 K6 20 14

90-92

31 222

207 205-215

1A/10-8A/10 6 6A-6H 8A/10 1/8-12/8

3 68

AS OL

5 132 10

861/88-22/88 22/88

EXTENSOMETER 14

113

119

126 14

13 20 32 68

214

TYPE 3 PILE INCLINOMETER AND STRUT 7 1/18-12/18 MONITORING ZONE

3 68

90 13 32

00 14

106 68

80 13

40 13

13 31 68

10 31 68

109

220

TYPE 2 GROUND MONITORING LOCATION

203

TYPE 1 BUILDING/COLUMN 401 MONITORING LOCATION

74-78

105

206 208-210 199 201-201A

LEGEND 72

118

204

BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED

189

105

385

103

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID381

68-70

196

113

0 3+10 K68

K68

486 89

185-187

484

1270

482

181

183

480

379

188

472

PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL 48-62

PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

78 53-59

464 466

371

1270

171-179

460

100 85

458

PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL 89

67-101

50mm CONTOUR

456

71-87

167

77-87

1250

40mm CONTOUR

462 1250

168

159

40 363

369 70

ON BS HO 157

30mm CONTOUR

1240

145

BS O

6830

72-76 101/72-1535/72

450 20mm CONTOUR

6830

31-37

147

JOIN LINE TO DRG 2603

1220

152-160

MAYORAL D

1230

141

K683

150

6-8 125A

86-90

10mm CONTOUR

1210 40 6830

40 6830

74 78

1210

148

131-139

1200

221

144

5mm CONTOUR

1200

127-129

1170

136

205

1160

125

48-52

6829

FE DE RA

134

LEGEND 438

"THESE DRAWINGS PRESENT REFERENCE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY INFORMATION TO ENABLE TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS TO ASSESS POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS PART OF A REGIONAL CONSENT APPLICATION. THEY ARE NOT INTENDED FOR ANY OTHER USE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE DESIGN WILL BE DEVELOPED FURTHER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO SUIT FINAL CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGIES"345-361

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2611

3.0

700

800

LEGEND

5mm CONTOUR

10mm CONTOUR

R/LUC/2016/1890

Approved Resource Consent Plan 20mm CONTOUR

20 30

30mm CONTOUR 17/11/2016

40mm CONTOUR

50mm CONTOUR PROPOSED BORED TUNNEL PROPOSED MINED TUNNEL PROPOSED CUT AND COVER TUNNEL / SHAFT

113

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID

BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED

LEGEND

TYPE 1 BUILDING/COLUMN MONITORING LOCATION TYPE 2 GROUND MONITORING LOCATION

TYPE 3 PILE INCLINOMETER AND STRUT MONITORING ZONE

10 45

122

EXTENSOMETER 5

53 54 pw:\\DESIGNSHARE.AU.AURECON.INFO:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link (CDE)\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2612.dwg

44 50 52

126

125

49 5

10 10

74 70

5 67

5 81

127

10 68

10 64

84 85

124 87

9/30/2016 12:21:59 PM

Auckland

FINAL POSITIONS TO BE AGREED WITH AMA / NZTA

40m

SCALE 1:1000

CLIENT

REV 1.0 2.0 3.0

DATE 13.05.16 19.08.16 30.09.16

REVISION DETAILS ISSUED FOR CONSENT 5MM CONTOURS ADJUSTED, MONITORING POINTS ADDED EXTRA MONITORING POINTS ADDED

APPROVED B.NEWNS B.NEWNS B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

1:1000

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING ASSESSMENT MECHANICAL AND CONSOLIDATION SETTLEMENT SHEET 3 OF 6

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

S.CHAU 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2612

3.0

700

800

THE FOLLOWING TRIGGERS HAVE BEEN SET BASED ON THE DESIGN AND GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION UNDERTAKEN TO DATE. FURTHER DETAILED DESIGN MAY MODIFY THE TRIGGER LEVELS PRESENTED BELOW. ANY REVISIONS BASED ON FURTHER DESIGN SHALL NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES AFFECTED NOR INCREASE THE POTENTIAL BUILDING DAMAGE IMPACTS MATERIALLY FROM THAT PRESENTED BY THE APPLICATION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING BUILDING AND GROUND MOVEMENT AT EACH EXCAVATION STAGE SO THAT GROUND MOVEMENTS GREATER THAN PREDICTED CAN BE DETECTED EARLY ENOUGH TO UNDERTAKE REMEDIAL ACTIONS.

pw:\\designshare.au.aurecon.info:PW_PROD_AU\Documents\Projects\23xxxx\239933 - City Rail Link CDE\01-WIP\Drawings\CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640.dwg Auckland

THIS DRAWING TO BE READ INCONJUNCTION WITH DRAWING CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2642

TABLE 1: TRIGGER LEVELS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS, CONTINUED

Address

ID No.

TRIGGER LEVELS VERTICAL MOVEMENT (mm)

27/02/2017 5:47:48 p.m.

ALERT LEVEL = 80% OF REFERENCE DESIGN PREDICTION

THE ALERT LEVEL FOR DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING IS BASED ON MAXIMUM VALUE OF 1:1000 OR DESIGN PREDICTION WHICHEVER IS STEEPER.

2. VERTICAL MOVEMENT IS TAKEN AS THE MAXIMUM MEASURED AT THE FACE OF THE BUILDING.

ID No.

NOTE:

ALARM LEVEL=100% OF DESIGN PREDICTION

1. THE SLOPE "ACROSS BUILDING" SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE POINT OF MAXIMUM VERTICAL MOVEMENT AT THE FACE OF THE BUILDING TO THE SHORTER DISTANCE OF THE POINT AT WHICH VERTICAL MOVEMENT IS ZERO OR TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING AND THE CORRESPONDING VERTICAL MOVEMENT AT THIS LOCATION.

TABLE 1: TRIGGER LEVELS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

NOTE:

Address

TRIGGER LEVELS VERTICAL MOVEMENT (mm)

DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING

Alert

Alarm

Alert

Alarm

DIFFERENTIAL VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING

Alert

Alarm

Alert

Alarm

65-69

Albert Street

1 / 680

1 / 544

177a

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

6-12

Kingston Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

177-185

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Kingston Street

1 / 753

1 / 602

187-191

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Albert Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

193

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Albert Street

1 / 819

1 / 655

195-199

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Victoria Street West

1 / 1000

1 / 800

201

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Victoria Street West

1 / 1000

1 / 800

203-205

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Victoria Street West

1 / 1000

1 / 800

207-209

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

51-63

Victoria Street West

1 / 681

1 / 545

211-213

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

98-102

Albert Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

215

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Victoria Street West

1 / 1000

1 / 800

221

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

37-41

Victoria Street West

1 / 1000

1 / 800

223-231

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

32-42

Wellesley Street West

233

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Mayoral Drive

1 / 574

1 / 459

235-237

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Wellesley Street West

1 / 1000

1 / 800

239

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

67-101

Vincent Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

241-255

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

R/LUC/2016/1890

105

Vincent Street

1 / 895

1 / 716

Dundonald Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Approved Resource Consent Plan

113

Vincent Street

1 / 681

1 / 545

Dundonald Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

117

Vincent Street

1 / 720

1 / 576

100

Dundonald Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

New North Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

To be demolished for the project

125

Vincent Street

1 / 750

1 / 600

101

127

Vincent Street

1 / 801

1 / 641

102

1-13

Mt Eden Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

133

Vincent Street

1 / 848

1 / 678

103

New North Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

139

Vincent Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

104

New North Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

149-157

Greys Ave

1 / 1000

1 / 800

105

10-14

New North Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

159

Greys Ave

1 / 1000

1 / 800

106

16-20

New North Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

29-39

Pitt Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

107

22-26

New North Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Pitt Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

108

Nikau Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Beresford Square

1 / 1000

1 / 800

109

Flower Street

1 / 890

1 / 712

Pitt Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

110

10-14

Nikau Street

1 / 503

1 / 402

Pitt Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

111

Nikau Street

1 / 411

1 / 329

211-235

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

112

Flower Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

259-281

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

113

Flower Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

251-253

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

114

Albert Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

61-65

Pitt Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

115

120-130

Albert Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

243

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

116

103

Albert Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

214

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

117

13-15

Wellesley Street West

1 / 650

1 / 520

238

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

118

103

Vincent Street

1 / 698

1 / 558

246-254

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

119

109

Vincent Street

1 / 790

1 / 632

256

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

120

150

Vincent Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

258-264

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

121

50-60

Pitt Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

268

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

122

Pitt Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

270

Karangahape Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

124

Upper Queen Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Mercury Lane

1 / 795

1 / 636

125

1 / 1000

1 / 800

East Street

1 / 549

1 / 439

126

1 / 1000

1 / 800

East Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

127

16-24

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

East Street

130

257

New North Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

23-31

Mercury Lane

131

Federal Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Cross Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

132

Victoria Street West

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Upper Queen Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

133

Victoria Street West

1 / 1000

1 / 800

46-50

Upper Queen Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

134

Victoria Street West

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Upper Queen Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

135

99 (back)

Albert St (carpark)

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

138

Mt Eden Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

139

Mt Eden Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

141

Nikau Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

142

6-8

Ruru Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

1 / 1000

1 / 800

143

Ruru Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

149

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

144

Ruru Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

157-159

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

145

Enfield Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Enfield Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

To be demolished for the project

1 / 1000

1 / 800

146

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

147

25-27

Enfield Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

173

Symonds Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

148

Normanby Road

1 / 1000

1 / 800

Stable Lane

1 / 1000

1 / 800

149

Shaddock Street

1 / 976

1 / 781

150

Shaddock Street

1 / 1000

1 / 800

161-165

79 80

* STEEPEST SLOPE OF EITHER MECHANICAL OR COMBINED CLIENT

REV 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0

DATE 13.05.16 19.08.16 30.09.16 14.10.16

REVISION DETAILS ISSUED FOR CONSENT TRIGGER LEVELS REVISED, NOTES REVISED DIFFERENTIAL SLOPE REVISED AND NOTES ADDED MOVEMENT DIRECTION REVISED

APPROVED B.NEWNS B.NEWNS B.NEWNS B.NEWNS

SCALE

SIZE

NOT TO SCALE

DRAWN

PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

17/11/2016

AUCKLAND CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT

AOTEA TO NAL TRIGGER LEVELS TABLE AND NOTES SHEET 1 OF 2

APPROVED

L.RUSBATCH

DESIGNED

DATE

TITLE

R.ALEA CHECKED

B.NEWNS

S.CHAU 0

20mm ORIGINAL SIZE

100

200

300

400

500

DOCUMENT 600

PROJECT

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ELEMENT

TYPE

SHEET

REVISION

CRL

SYW

RME

000

DRG

2640

4.0

700

800

R/LUC/2016/1890 Approved Resource Consent Plan 17/11/2016

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix C â€“ Regional Geology and Geological Cross Section

Page 39

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Â°

ISO A3 297mm x 420mm P:\1007807\WorkingMaterial\00 Projectwide\GIS\WorkingData\KRd_TOTALSettlement_ANTH\outputs\Outputs20191105\Karangahape_RegionalGeology20191105.mxd

CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-102101- Oct2019 CLIENT:

Link Alliance has prepared this document for the sole use of the client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other third party should rely on this document without the written consent of Link Alliance. Link Alliance undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document. This sketch is confidential and shall only be used for the purpose of this project Service Layer Credits: Sourced from the LINZ Data Service and licensed for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licence

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870

10 15 20 25 Meters

CREATOR ID : ANTH

Legend

Indicative Shaft Locations

Geology Residual East Coast Bays Formation (ER) Tauranga Alluvium (TA)

C3 Stations and Tunnels - Karangahape Road Station

ZONE:

Indicative Tunnel Extent

Track

CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT:

TITLE:

DOCUMENT:

Karangahape Station Regional Geology PROJECT

CRL

ZONE

SYW

DISCIPLINE

GEO

ORGANISATION

LKA

TYPE

SKE

SHEET

702410

REVISION

60mRL

1 4 5 6 6 6 19 49 55 600 1500

7 14 24 28 34 50 136 300 500 429 429 300 429 50

28 9 13 18 29 41 41 94 88 150

40mRL

7 4 5 4 4 6 14 22 58 45 750 29 50 51 50

10 38 53 84 174

20.51 MPa 24.13

30mRL

3.5 1.3 5.4 2.8 2.5

70mRL 60mRL 50mRL

13.96 MPa 12.84

40mRL

19.5 MPa 15.31 MPa 16.44

15.73MPa 16.96 MPa 31.6 28.26 MPa 1000

CRL3B-BH316 3m

CRL2-BH220 18m

EBS337-MH1 13m

CRL3B-BH275R CRL2-BH275 15m 13m

CRL3B-BH314 7m CRL3B-BH314A CRL2-BH218 6m 11m

CRL1B-BH134 1m

CRL2-BH216 CRL3B-BH325 9m 9m

EBS1065-BH3 7m

CRL-KAR-XSec-BeresfordSquareS7-extended

70mRL

50mRL

5.73 MPa 2.08

MPa MPa MPa MPa

30mRL

20mRL

10mRL

20m

40m

60m

80m

100m

120m

140m

Legend LINK: F

.: EU

.: MBL

.: EW

.: MBU

180m

200m

220m

260m

280m

300m

320m

A: 399406, 802567

.: TA

B: 399692, 802401 LOOKING NORTH WEST

Existing Building Outlines Extents sourced from LINZ. Heights not representative

Responsible dept. Technical reference

Creator

Legal owner

Document type

Document status

Title

Identification number

KAR

Scale: 1:900

CRLL

Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

240m

Location

CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-030200-B .: ER

160m

50m

N. Kirkeby SECTION

CRL-KAR-XSecBeresfordSquareS7

Approved by

DRAFT

Rev. Date of issue

2.0 05/09/2019

Sheet

Â°

ISO A3 297mm x 420mm P:\1007807\WorkingMaterial\00 Projectwide\GIS\WorkingData\KRd_TOTALSettlement_ANTH\outputs\Outputs20191105\Karangahape_RegionalGeology20191105.mxd

CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-102101- Oct2019 CLIENT:

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870

10 15 20 25 Meters

CREATOR ID : ANTH

Legend

Indicative Shaft Locations Indicative Tunnel Extent

Track

CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT:

TA Thickness (m) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5

C3 Stations and Tunnels - Karangahape Road Station

ZONE:

TITLE:

DOCUMENT:

Distribution of Tauranga Alluvium Karangahape Station PROJECT

CRL

ZONE

SYW

DISCIPLINE

GEO

ORGANISATION

LKA

TYPE

SKE

SHEET

702411

REVISION

Â°

ISO A3 297mm x 420mm P:\1007807\WorkingMaterial\00 Projectwide\GIS\WorkingData\KRd_TOTALSettlement_ANTH\outputs\Outputs20191105\Karangahape_RegionalGeology20191105.mxd

CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-102101- Oct2019 CLIENT:

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870

10 15 20 25 Meters

CREATOR ID : ANTH

Legend

Indicative Shaft Locations Indicative Tunnel Extent

Track

CITY RAIL LINK

PROJECT:

ER Thickness (m) 0-1

5-6

2-3

7-8

1-2 3-4 4-5

C3 Stations and Tunnels - Karangahape Road Station

ZONE:

6-7 8-9

9-10

TITLE:

DOCUMENT:

Distribution of Residual East Coast Bays Formation Karangahape Station PROJECT

CRL

ZONE

SYW

DISCIPLINE

GEO

ORGANISATION

LKA

TYPE

SKE

SHEET

702411

REVISION

TERRACE N O T N Y O P

KARANGAHAPE ROAD STATION

MC30 - UP NIMT 1 32

24 239

80-86

238

T CONTINUATION - REFER TO SH

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

214 235

40-50 50

ANE

L URY

CONTINUATION REFER TO SHT 6

MER

PITT ST

23-31

246-254

9 11-13

61-65 243

256

55 4-6 47

TRS. LEN. 70.000m

258 BRG 178°15'23" LEN. 252.522m

APE R D NGAH

SQ OR D

278

KARA

SF RE BE

TRS 683+908.646

683+900

683+880

TP 683+873.646

X-Section MC20 CH683+870

X-Section MC20 CH683+740

16-18

683+860

683+840

683+820

FROM AOTEA STATION85

MC20 - DOWN NIMT

683+800

KARANGAHAPE ROAD STATION

270

683+780

259-261

268

683+760

683+720

12-14

249

683+740

683+700

683+680

683+660

683+640

TP 683+621.124 683+620

683+600

1-7

8-10

683+920

683+580

Last saved by: MTJ181(2019-12-11) Last Plotted: 2019-12-11 Filename: AECOM_DS10_AU\Documents\60604837-CRL C3-Alliance Detail Design\DesignJV\900 CAD-GIS\01_WIP\20-SHEET\315 Alignment\CRL-SYW-ALI-LKA-DRG-212207

TRS. LEN. 35.000m

KRD CONFIGURATION SUBJECT TO DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 29

20 284

267-281

KARANGAHAPE ROAD STATION

PLAN

EXISTING SURFACE

PROPOSED LOW RAIL LEVEL

Scale 1:500

70 65 60 55

I.P. 683+643.627 RL = 32.993

50 45 40 35 30

12.5

CREATOR ID : CRL_SYW__00_LKA_DRG_212207

100mm

683+900.000

683+890.000

683+878.130 683+880.000

683+873.646

683+870.000

683+860.000

683+850.000

683+840.000

683+830.000

683+820.000

683+810.000

683+800.000

683+790.000

683+770.000

683+780.000

19.229 52.346 33.117

19.967 52.997 33.030

21.043 54.036 32.993 20.878 53.872 32.994

21.434 54.427 32.993

21.752 54.745 32.993

23.159 56.152 32.993

25.177 58.170 32.993

27.156 60.149 32.993

27.372 60.365 32.993

28.174 61.167 32.993

29.151 62.144 32.993

29.680 62.673 32.993

30.339 63.332 32.993

31.101 64.094 32.993 SCALE

SIZE

AS SHOWN

DESIGNED REVISIONS

31.981 64.974 32.993

32.907 65.900 32.993

33.275 66.268 32.993

33.419 66.412 32.993

33.386 66.379 32.993

32.942 65.935 32.993

32.449 65.442 32.993

31.913 64.906 32.993

31.870 64.863 32.993

31.549 64.542 32.993

31.371 64.361 32.990

31.341 64.288 32.947

29.794 62.313 32.519

29.694 61.971 32.277 29.719 62.026 32.307

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870 20

VC. L 60.000 R. 1927

Scale H: 1:500 Scale V: 1:500

STAGE-B APPROVED

PROJECT:

DRAWN B01

ISSUED FOR STAGE B - SYSTEM WIDE

M.FLEET

22-11-2019

I.AHMED

A02

ISSUED FOR STAGE A C3

M.FLEET

08-11-2019

CHECKED

APPROVED

DATE

M.BUTLER

DESCRIPTION

M.FLEET

TITLE: DATE

CITY RAIL LINK SYSTEM WIDE

ZONE:

K.VANAMOLDER

REV

683+760.000

L 204.503 GRADE -0.000%

VC. L 60.000 R. 2009

LONGITUDINAL SECTION

CLIENT:

683+750.000

TRS. L 35.000

12.5

683+740.000

STR. L 252.522

m H=1:500 V=1:500 0

683+730.000

683+720.000

683+710.000

683+700.000

683+690.000

683+680.000

683+673.627

683+670.000

683+660.000

683+650.000

683+640.000

683+630.000

683+620.000 683+621.124

683+613.627

683+610.000

TRS. L 70.000

29.574 61.671 32.097

LOW RAIL TO SURFACE:

29.043 60.733 31.690

EXISTING SURFACE LEVELS:

ΔEa=33.33mm/s ΔD=28.37mm/s 1 in 500 V=60km/h

7 0.24 6% L 74E 2.98 D GRA

PROPOSED VERTICAL DESIGN: PROPOSED LOW RAIL LEVELS:

Ea=0mm D=0mm V=70km/h

30.796 63.650 32.854

HORIZONTAL ALIGNMENT:

ΔEa=18.06mm/s ΔD=9.45mm/s 1 in 1077 V=70km/h

30.225 62.937 32.712

CANT ALIGNMENT:

29.582 61.571 31.989

KILOMETRAGE:

683+600.000

RAIL ALIGNMENT - STAGE B WORKING PLAN AND SECTION MC20 - SHEET 7 PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

ZONE

CRL - SYW -

DISCIPLINE

ALI

ORGANISTION

TYPE

SHEET

- LKA - DRG - 212207

REVISION

B01

MC20 CH 683740.0

80mRL

70mRL

60mRL

50mRL

40mRL

30mRL

20mRL

10mRL

20m

40m

60m

80m

100m

120m

140m

160m

180m

Legend Location A: 399612.709, 802451.208 B: 399432.793, 802445.731 LOOKING UP CHAINAGE Scale: 1:500

Responsible dept. Technical reference

Creator

Legal owner

Document type

Document status

Title

Identification number

CRLL

Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

NOTES: 1. THE GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION OF GROUND CONDITIONS AT THIS SITE IS BASED ON OBSERVATIONS AND THE RESULTS OF TESTING AT DISCRETE LOCATIONS, AND THE CONTINUITY OF GROUND COULD VARY FROM THOSE PRESENTED ON THE DRAWING. 2. THIS INFORMATION CANNOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCUREMENT OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 3. GEOLOGICAL MODEL DISPLAYED IS CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-030200_Nov2019_v1.0 4. HORIZONTAL DATUM: EDENTM2000. VERTICAL DATUM: AUCKHT1946 5. DESIGNS DISPLAYED ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY, REFER TO REVIT MODEL FOR UPDATED DESIGNS 6. THE EUs1 EXTENT SHOULD BE TREATED WITH CAUTION AND MAY WARRANT FURTHER INTERPRETATION ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. 7. LINK ALLIANCE BOREHOLES ARE DRAFT AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT INTO GEOLOGICAL MODEL SHOWN.

50m

N. Kirkeby Section MC20

Approved by

DRAFT

Rev. Date of issue

5.0 06/12/2019

Sheet

MC20 CH 683870.0

80mRL

70mRL

60mRL

50mRL

40mRL

30mRL

20mRL

10mRL

20m

40m

60m

80m

100m

120m

140m

160m

180m

Legend Location A: 399616.665, 802321.267 B: 399436.748, 802315.792 LOOKING UP CHAINAGE Scale: 1:500

Responsible dept. Technical reference

Creator

Legal owner

Document type

Document status

Title

Identification number

CRLL

Vertical exaggeration: 1x 0m

NOTES: 1. THE GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION OF GROUND CONDITIONS AT THIS SITE IS BASED ON OBSERVATIONS AND THE RESULTS OF TESTING AT DISCRETE LOCATIONS, AND THE CONTINUITY OF GROUND COULD VARY FROM THOSE PRESENTED ON THE DRAWING. 2. THIS INFORMATION CANNOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCUREMENT OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 3. GEOLOGICAL MODEL DISPLAYED IS CRL-SYW-GEO-LKA-MOD-030200_Nov2019_v1.0 4. HORIZONTAL DATUM: EDENTM2000. VERTICAL DATUM: AUCKHT1946 5. DESIGNS DISPLAYED ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY, REFER TO REVIT MODEL FOR UPDATED DESIGNS 6. THE EUs1 EXTENT SHOULD BE TREATED WITH CAUTION AND MAY WARRANT FURTHER INTERPRETATION ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. 7. LINK ALLIANCE BOREHOLES ARE DRAFT AND MAY NOT HAVE BEEN BUILT INTO GEOLOGICAL MODEL SHOWN.

50m

N. Kirkeby Section MC20

Approved by

DRAFT

Rev. Date of issue

5.0 06/12/2019

Sheet

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix D â€“ Typical Mined Tunnel Cross Sections

Page 40

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

NOTES 1.

REFER TO DRG-030044 FOR GENERAL NOTES.

REFER TO DRG-033011 FOR NOTES AND DETAILS SPECIFIC TO KRD STATION TUNNELS AND ADITS.

8.792 3.

TUNNEL LININGS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS DEFINED IN: CRL-SYW-PMT-AT-REQ-021931 CRL.DM02 CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND STRUCTURES Rev06. 3.2. LINK ALLIANCE, CITY RAIL LINK CONTRACT C3: STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA: STATIONS AND TUNNELS. 3.1.

1.788

OTE 8.15m2 R4 4 99

KRD STATION TUNNELS AND ADITS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED WITH A GROUNDWATER PRESSURE RELIEF SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRL.DM02 CLAUSE 6.3.1.2 PERMANENT SUPPORT AND LINING.

LEAKAGE ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA FOR KRD TUNNELS AND ADITS = CLASS 2; SUBSTANTIALLY DRY; PUBLICLY VISIBLE AREAS WITHIN STATIONS.

PENETRATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN PLATFORM SLABS, PLATFORM WALL SUPPORTS AND OTE SLABS FOR MEP SERVICES AS REQUIRED.

ALLOWANCE FOR SECONDARY LINING 400mm MIN. PLAIN CONCRETE LINING (1.5KG/m3 PP Fibre)

300 THICK SLAB (1.5kg/m3 PP FIBRE, 150kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL)

4 .5

R4 .3

.9 9

9 0.300

CORBEL (1.5kg/m3 PP FIBRE, 93kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL)

DOWN STAND WALL (TBC) INDICATIVE FINISHES

.35

1°

STATIC ENVELOPE

R7.2

6.338

060 23.178°

1.406

R7.470 R7.325

32.410°

TRACK CENTRE

R6.925

0.800

7.838

1.520

4.250

1.415

20.

R7.1 14 R6.71 4

WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE & GEOTEXTILE 4.796

PLATFORM FFL

0.200

0.750 0.200 0.300

UNDER PLATFORM SERVICE SPACE TOP OF BASE SLAB

0.500

0.40

IN-SITU SLAB 200 THICK (1.5kg/m3 PP FIBRE, 250kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL)

PLATFORM SLAB

IN-SITU WALL 200 THICK. (1.5kg/m3 PP FIBRE, 150kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL)

20.821 °

2.398

0.836

0.100

0.750

1.200

Last saved by: VAUGHAN.GILES(2019-01-16) Last Plotted: 2019-01-17 Filename: C:\PWWORKING\AECOM_DS10_AU\GIL12534\DMS52502\CRL-KRD-TUN-LKA-DRG-033012.DWG

ALLOWANCE FOR INITIAL SUPPORT

0.40

ARCH FOOTING

IN-SITU WALL WITH CORBEL 200 THICK. (1.5kg/m3 PP FIBRE, 150kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL)

0.800

SECTION - KRD - TYPICAL PLATFORM TUNNEL - TYPE PT-1

033011

SCALE 1:50 (A3)

TENDER PURPOSE ONLY

CLIENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INITIALS

CITY RAIL LINK LIMITED 0 1:50 (A3)

0.625

1.25 m

ISSUE/REVISION

LEGEND

PROJECT NAME

C3 – RRFP – STATIONS & TUNNELS

STATIC PROFILE

CONCRETE

CONSTRUCTION JOINT STRUCTURAL GAUGE

DRAINAGE AGGREGATE

DESIGNER

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

APPROVED

RADIUS SETOUT POINT (CENTRE OF RADIUS) MAINTENANCE WALKWAY

000

24/01/2019

I/R

DATE

TENDER DESIGN SUBMISSION DESCRIPTION

KARANGAHAPE STATION TUNNELS TYPICAL PLATFORM TUNNEL TYPE PT1 - SECTION SHEET NUMBER

CRL-KRD-TUN-LKA-DRG-033012

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

NOTES 1.

REFER TO DRG-030044 FOR GENERAL NOTES.

REFER TO DRG-033011 FOR NOTES AND DETAILS SPECIFIC TO KRD STATION TUNNELS AND ADITS.

TBM TRANSIT PLANNED TO OCCUR THROUGH THE COMPLETED PLATFORM TUNNEL EXCAVATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECONDARY TUNNEL LININGS. NOMINAL 1000 CLEARANCE REQUIRED OUTSIDE THE TBM SHIELD IN THE ZONES ADJACENT TO THE PLATFORM TUNNEL HEADWALLS.

ARRANGEMENT AND DETAILING OF TRACK FORMATION AND ASSOCIATED DETAILING BY CONTRACT C7. DESIGN TO BE COORDINATED WITH CONTRACT C3 DESIGN.

INCLUDES ALLOWANCES FOR CONVERGENCE, OVERSPRAY AND SMOOTHING LAYER.

PENETRATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN PLATFORM SLABS, PLATFORM WALL SUPPORTS AND OTE SLABS FOR MEP SERVICES AS REQUIRED.

TBM TRANSIT FRAME SUPPORT (NOTE INDICATED ON OTHER PLATFORM TUNNEL PROFILES BUT PRESENT).

APPROXIMATE OUTSIDE OF TBM SHIELD

0.400 1.938

1 .75 R5 6 .60 R5 6 . 20 R5

OTE 10.847m2 300 THICK SLAB (1.5kg/m3 PP FIBRE, 150kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL)

R4 44

R4 .3

1000mm CLEARANCE REQUIREMENT (REFER NOTE 3)

10.077

.9 9

0.300

CORBEL (1.5kg/m3 PP FIBRE, 93kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL)

ALLOWANCE FOR SECONDARY LINING 400mm MIN. PLAIN CONCRETE LINING (1.5KG/m3 PP Fibre) DOWN STAND WALL (TBC)

INDICATIVE FINISHES

STATIC ENVELOPE 32.1

76°

TBM SHIELD NOMINAL 7100Ø R7.2

R7.1

1.886

0.800

23.178°

TBM AXIS MARK

39.774°

TRACK CENTRE

4.776

PLATFORM FFL

0.200

1.200

0.836

0.100

0.750

2.355

31.476°

WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE & GEOTEXTILE WITH SMOOTHING LAYER OF SHOTCRETE ALLOWANCE FOR INITIAL SUPPORT (REFER NOTE 5)

PLATFORM SLAB

UNDER PLATFORM SERVICE DUCT

0.750

TOP OF BASE SLAB

IN-SITU WALL 200 THICK. (1.5kg/m3 PP FIBRE, 150kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL)

0.200 0.300

0.500

0.40

MASS CONCRETE INFILL

IN-SITU SLAB 200 THICK (1.5kg/m3 PP FIBRE, 250kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL)

19.887 °

1.449

1.520

R6.925

Last saved by: VAUGHAN.GILES(2019-01-14) Last Plotted: 2019-01-16 Filename: C:\PWWORKING\AECOM_DS10_AU\GIL12534\DMS52502\CRL-KRD-TUN-LKA-DRG-033013.DWG

7.988

R7.470 R7.325

° 608

1.415

19.

27°

6.488

0.642

6 26.

R6.71

4.250

ARCH FOOTING

MASS CONCRETE INFILL IN-SITU WALL WITH CORBEL 200 THICK. (1.5kg/m PP FIBRE, 150kg/m3 REINFORCING STEEL) 3

TEMPORARY TBM SUPPORT (REFER NOTE 7)

0.800

SECTION - KRD - WIDENED PLATFORM TUNNEL - TYPE PT-2

033011

SCALE 1:50 (A3)

TENDER PURPOSE ONLY

CLIENT

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INITIALS

CITY RAIL LINK LIMITED 0 1:50 (A3)

0.625

1.25 m

ISSUE/REVISION

LEGEND

PROJECT NAME

C3 – RRFP – STATIONS & TUNNELS

STATIC PROFILE

CONCRETE

CONSTRUCTION JOINT STRUCTURAL GAUGE

DRAINAGE AGGREGATE

KINEMATIC ENVELOPE

RADIUS SETOUT POINT (CENTRE OF RADIUS)

DESIGNER

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

APPROVED

CONSTRUCTION JOINT MAINTENANCE WALKWAY

000

24/01/2019

I/R

DATE

TENDER DESIGN SUBMISSION DESCRIPTION

KARANGAHAPE STATION TUNNELS WIDENED PLATFORM TUNNEL TYPE PT2 - SECTION SHEET NUMBER

CRL-KRD-TUN-LKA-DRG-033013

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix E â€“ PDP technical memorandum

Page 41

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

o o o

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix F â€“ Building Damage Classification Plans

Page 42

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

MATCHLINE SHEET 2

NC VI

O BS

A EYS GR

Last saved by: IARA(2020-01-23) Last Plotted: 2020-01-23 Filename: AECOM_DS10_AU\Documents\60604837-CRL C3-Alliance Detail Design\DesignJV\900 CAD-GIS\01_WIP\20-SHEET\200 Geotechnical\CRL-KRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257001.dwg

RAIL TUNNEL

PITT S T

121 EXTENT OF SETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT FOR KARANGAHAPE STATION. SETTLEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED BEYOND THIS POINT AS PART OF THE BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE APPLICATION.

122

PIT

TO S UN

LEGEND

LEGEND TYPE 1 - BUILDING / COLUMN MONITORING LOCATION TYPE 2 - GROUND MONITORING LOCATION 0

TYPE 3 - INCLINOMETER

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID

BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED SHAFT LOCATIONS HERITAGE BUILDINGS LINZ BUILDING OUTLINES

2016 A2N RESOURCE CONSENT TOTAL SETTLEMENT CONTOURS 5mm 10mm

2020 LINK ALLIANCE TOTAL BUILDING ASSESSMENT SETTLEMENT CONTOURS 5mm 10mm 15mm 20mm 25mm 30mm

NEGLIGIBLE VERY SLIGHT SLIGHT MODERATE

35mm 40mm 45mm 50mm 55mm

F ES

RD O

UA SQ

R BE

REVISIONS 0

CREATOR ID : 70

100mm

SIZE A1

DESIGNED

FOR CONSENT NOT APPROVED

PROJECT:

CITY RAIL LINK

KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

R. COLE DRAWN

TITLE:

2020-01-23

I. RAY

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT SUBMISSION

2019-12-19

CHECKED

DATE

2019-12-19

DESCRIPTION

APPROVED

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE

C. EVERY

A01 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT SUBMISSION

REV

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870

SCALE AS SHOWN

KARANGAHAP

E RD

1:1000

CLIENT:

TOTAL SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION - SHEET 1 PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ORGANISTION

TYPE

SHEET

CRL - KRD - GEO - LKA - DRG - 257001

REVISION

A01

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

QU E

MATCHLINE SHEET 1

RAIL TUNNEL

121 122

AY RW

PIT

TS T

MER

50 52 49

CUR

CRO

Y LN

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SHAFT

KARANGAHAP

158

AD A

MER SHA CURY LAN FT E

E RD

EAST ST EXTENT OF SETTLEMENT ASSESSMENT FOR KARANGAHAPE STATION. SETTLEMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED BEYOND THIS POINT AS PART OF THE BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE APPLICATION

SOUTH ST

LEGEND

TYPE 1 - BUILDING / COLUMN MONITORING LOCATION TYPE 2 - GROUND MONITORING LOCATION 25

TYPE 3 - INCLINOMETER

50 m

BUILDING ASSESSMENT ID

BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED

GALATOS ST

LEGEND

SHAFT LOCATIONS HERITAGE BUILDINGS LINZ BUILDING OUTLINES

1:1000

2016 A2N RESOURCE CONSENT TOTAL SETTLEMENT CONTOURS 5mm 10mm

2020 LINK ALLIANCE TOTAL BUILDING ASSESSMENT SETTLEMENT CONTOURS 5mm 10mm 15mm 20mm 25mm 30mm

NEGLIGIBLE VERY SLIGHT SLIGHT MODERATE

35mm 40mm 45mm 50mm 55mm

CREATOR ID : 70

100mm

SIZE

AS SHOWN

FOR CONSENT NOT APPROVED

PROJECT:

CITY RAIL LINK KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

R. COLE DRAWN

TITLE:

2020-01-23

I. RAY

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT SUBMISSION

2019-12-19

CHECKED

DATE

APPROVED

DATE

2019-12-19

DESCRIPTION

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE

C. EVERY

A01 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT SUBMISSION

REV

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870

SCALE

DESIGNED REVISIONS

CLIENT:

CA N

RE A U

AF H S

F ES

O M

R E H

SAMOA HOUSE LN

TOTAL SETTLEMENT CONTOURS AND BUILDING DAMAGE CLASSIFICATION - SHEET 2 PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ORGANISTION

TYPE

SHEET

CRL - KRD - GEO - LKA - DRG - 257002

REVISION

A01

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING TRIGGERS HAVE BEEN SET BASED ON THE DESIGN AND GEOTECHNICAL INTERPRETATION UNDERTAKEN TO DATE. FURTHER DETAILED DESIGN MAY MODIFY THE TRIGGER LEVELS PRESENTED BELOW. ANY REVISIONS BASED ON FURTHER DESIGN SHALL NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES AFFECTED NOR INCREASE THE POTENTIAL BUILDING DAMAGE IMPACTS MATERIALLY FROM THAT PRESENTED BY THE APPLICATION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING BUILDING AND GROUND MOVEMENT AT EACH EXCAVATION STAGE SO THAT GROUND MOVEMENTS GREATER THAN PREDICTED CAN BE DETECTED EARLY ENOUGH TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTIONS. 1. THE SLOPE "ACROSS BUILDING" SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE POINT OF MAXIMUM VERTICAL MOVEMENT AT THE FACE OF THE BUILDING TO THE SHORTER DISTANCE OF THE POINT AT WHICH VERTICAL MOVEMENT IS ZERO OR TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING AND THE CORRESPONDING VERTICAL MOVEMENT AT THIS LOCATION. 2. VERTICAL MOVEMENT IS TAKEN AS THE MAXIMUM MEASURED AT THE FACE OF THE BUILDING.

ITEM

TRIGGER LEVELS

Last saved by: IARA(2020-02-03) Last Plotted: 2020-02-03 Filename: AECOM_DS10_AU\Documents\60604837-CRL C3-Alliance Detail Design\DesignJV\900 CAD-GIS\01_WIP\20-SHEET\200 Geotechnical\CRL-KRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257003.dwg

STREET No.

VERTICAL MOVEMENT (mm)

ADDRESS

DIFFERENT VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING

Alert

Alarm

Alert

Alarm

29-39

PITT STREET

1/1000

1/800

PITT STREET

1/1000

1/800

BERESFORD SQUARE

1/1000

1/800

55-59

PITT STREET

1/1000

1/800

PITT STREET

1/1000

1/800

211-235

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

16-18

BERESFORD SQUARE

1/1000

1/800

158

BERESFORD SQUARE

1/1000

1/800

259-281

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

251-253

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

61-65

PITT STREET

1/1000

1/800

243

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

214

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

238

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

246-254

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

256

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

258-264

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

268

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

270

KARANGAHAPE ROAD

1/1000

1/800

MERCURY LANE

1/795

1/636

EAST STREET

1/549

1/439

CROSS STREET

1/1000

1/800

121

50-60

PITT STREET

1/1000

1/800

122

PITT STREET

1/1000

1/800

GROUND SURACE / GROUND AT DEPTH

FREQUENCY

STRUTS AND PILE WALLS

ALERT LEVEL = 80% OF DESIGN PREDICTION ALARM LEVEL = 100% OF DESIGN PREDICTION THE ALERT LEVEL FOR DIFFERENTIAL MAXIMUM VERTICAL SLOPE ACROSS BUILDING IS BASED ON MAXIMUM VALUE OF 1:1000 OR DESIGN PREDICTION WHICHEVER IS STEEPER

MONITORING SYSTEM

"LOCATIONS TO BE SURVEYED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT AND ON COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS. MANUAL OR AUTOMATIC MONITORING POINTS TO BE PRECISION SURVEY / SURVEYED WITHIN 50m OF THE EXTENSOMETERS TUNNEL. AS THE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND BEFORE AND AFTER THE REMOVAL OF EACH STRUT WITHIN THE SHAFTS."

"MONITORING OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF THE GROUND SURFACE WITHIN AN ACCURACY OF +/- 2mm REFER TO CRL-KRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257001 AND 257002 FOR MONITORING POINTS SPACING." "MONITORING OF HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT AT EACH STRUT / ANCHOR LEVEL PER ZONE WITHIN AN ACCURACY OF +/- 2mm

BEFORE AND AFTER THE REMOVAL OF EACH STRUT. SUBSEQUENTLY EACH MANUAL OR AUTOMATIC MONITORING LOCATION IS TO BE PRECISION SURVEY OF SURVEYED UNTIL COMPLETION OF STRUTS AND INCLINOMETERS CONSTRUCTION

MONITORING OF HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT OF THE PILE WALL WITHIN AN ACCURACY OF +/- 2mm"

IN ADDITION, BASELINE READINGS OF THE EXISTING SURFACE LEVEL SHALL BE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS IN ORDER TO CAPTURE THE MAGNITUDE OF THE BACKGROUND MOVEMENTS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE POSITION OF AUTOMATIC SURVEY STATIONS, IF ADOPTED, SHALL BE AGREED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND VERIFIED ON A DAILY BASIS AGAINST SEVERAL CONTROL POINTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE ZONE OF CONSTRUCTION INFLUENCE AND LOCATED ON STRUCTURES THAT ARE SOUND, RIGID AND NOT PRONE TO MOVEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO DEVELOP A MONITORING METHODOLOGY TO CONFIRM EQUIPMENT, FREQUENCY OF READINGS AND PROTECTION OF MONITORING POINTS. TRIGGER LEVELS FOR BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE AND ADJACENT BUILDING ARE AS SCHEDULED BELOW:

SERVICES

TRIGGER LEVELS [+/-]

MOVEMENT

ALERT

ALARM

ALL SERVICES WITH A DIAMETER GREATER THAN 200mm

DIFFERENT VERTICAL GROUND MOVEMENT

1/200

1/160

ALL RIGID SERVICES WITH A DIAMETER LESS THAN 200mm

DIFFERENT VERTICAL GROUND MOVEMENT

1/200

1/160

NON-RIGID SERVICES WITH A DIAMETER LESS THAN DIFFERENT VERTICAL GROUND MOVEMENT 200mm

1/75

1/60

1/200

1/160

IDENTIFIED CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

DIFFERENT VERTICAL GROUND MOVEMENT

FOR EACH OF THE BUILDINGS LISTED IN TABLE 1, THE TRIGGER LEVELS IN TABLE 1 SHALL SUPERSEDE THE TRIGGER LEVELS OF THE A2N RESOURCE CONSENT (COUNCIL REFERENCE R/REG/2016/1982 AS SHOWN ON DRAWING CRL-SYW-RME-000-DRG-2640-4.0) WHERE THE SAME BUILDING IDs ARE REFERENCED.

RETAINING STRUCTURES MOVEMENT KARAHANGAHAPE STATION

MOVEMENT ALERT

ALARM

MERCURY LANE SHAFT

18.000

22.000

BERESFORD ENTRANCE

12.000

15.000

LOCATION

50 m

1:1000 Link Alliance has prepared this document for the sole use of the client and for a specific purpose, each as expressly stated in the document. No other third party should rely on this document without the written consent of Link Alliance. Link Alliance undertakes no duty, nor accepts any responsibility, to any third party who may rely upon or use this document.

CREATOR ID : 70

100mm

SIZE

AS SHOWN

FOR CONSENT NOT APPROVED

PROJECT:

CITY RAIL LINK KARANGAHAPE STATION

ZONE:

R COLE DRAWN

TITLE:

2020-02-04 2020-02-03

I RAY

A00 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT SUBMISSION

2019-12-19

CHECKED

DATE

APPROVED

DATE

2019-12-19 2020-02-04

DESCRIPTION

BERESFORD SQUARE ENTRANCE

C. EVERY

A01 FOR RESOURCE CONSENT

REV

COMPANY NUMBER : 6267870

SCALE

DESIGNED REVISIONS

CLIENT:

MONITORING REQUIREMENT

MONITORING OF HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL EXISTING MOVEMENT AT THE BASE AND FIRST LEVEL OF EACH BUILDING EXTERNAL COLUMN AND FAÃ‡ADE ADJACENT TO THE COLUMNS AND CUT AND COVER EXCAVATIONS AND SHAFTS WITHIN AN FACADES ACCURACY OF +/- 2mm

TABLE 1: TRIGGER LEVELS FOR SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS

BUILDING No.

1. THIS DRAWING TO BE READ IN CONJUCTION WITH DRAWING CRL-KRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257001 AND 257002.

MONITORING OF BUILDINGS, SERVICES AND GROUND MOVEMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION IS AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE ADEQUACY OF THE DESIGN AND ITS CONSTRUCTION FOR THE GROUND CONDITIONS TO MINIMISE/CONTROL THE EFFECTS ON THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES. MONITORING RESULTS SHALL BE MEASURED AT THE SPECIFIED INTERVALS IN THE GSMCP THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE CARRIED OUT AS SCHEDULED BELOW (SUBJECT TO DETAILED DESIGN)

TRIGGER LEVELS AND NOTES PROJECT

DOCUMENT:

ZONE

DISCIPLINE

ORGANISTION

TYPE

SHEET

CRL - KRD - GEO - LKA - DRG - 257003

REVISION

A01

Beresford Square Entrance - Assessment of Settlement Effects

Appendix G â€“ Xdisp Building Classification Results

Page 43

| Karangahape Station â€“ Beresford Square entrance, Assessment of Settlement Effects

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

APPENDIX F: Groundwater Trigger Levels

Karangahape Station Main Works

Table F-1 Groundwater â€“ Alert Trigger Levels BH ID

Screen geology

Alert Trigger Low Level 2 (m RL)

BH220 (replaces BH316)

Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

51.64

BH319

Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

52.18

Unweathered East Coast Bays Formation

33.25 48.68

BH274

Residual to Completely Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

55.68

BH324

Residual to Completely Weathered East Coast Bays Formation Residual to Completely Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

54.44

BH325 BH1025 (replaces BH218) 1

Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

49.64

Residual to Completely Weathered East Coast Bays Formation

52.70

BH320

Fill

48.1

Tauranga Group Alluvium

47.45

Fill

52.6

Unweathered East Coast Bays Formation

44.74

EB312

BH219A (replaces BH425) Notes: 1

New boreholes replace existing monitoring bores that will be destroyed during construction, or likely to be inaccessible. Recorded lowest seasonal water level (m RL) â€“ (0.9 x predicted drawdown [m]).

Table F-2 Piezometer Installation Details

Location ID

Depth Installed (m)

Depth Installed (mRL)

Local X

Local Y

GL (mRL)

BH220

14.00

50.24

399579.630

802444.630

64.64

6.00

61.03

17.00

50.03

399473.990

802463.790

67.03

BH274

8.00

49.47

399574.370

802635.520

57.47

BH324

6.00

54.39

399535.280

802589.290

60.39

BH325

3.50

55.52

399432.590

802563.290

59.02

BH1025

25.05

39.84

399553.561

802493.708

64.89

BH320

18.00

44.40

399547.380

802404.040

62.40

EB312

Screen 3.5-6.5

49.5746.57

399548.710

802281.870

53.07

BH219A

21.00

35.55

399640.690

802508.200

56.55

BH319

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

APPENDIX G: Record of CLG Consultation Outcomes A meeting of the Karangahape CLG was held on 12 November 2019 to discuss the Karangahape Station Main Works and for the CLG to provide comments / feedback on the CEMP and sub-plans, including this GSMCP. No comments were received on this GSMCP.

Karangahape Station Main Works

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan

APPENDIX H: Register of Reviewer Comments Table I-1 Response to reviewer comments

Item No.

Reviewer Comment

Link Alliance Response

BUN60351064 Beresford Square Entrance has been granted. As the activities under this resource consent are a part of the Karangahape Station, the GSMCP should be updated to reference this consent. Specifically, Table 1-1 “GSMCP conditions for Water Permit R/REG/2016/1892 and the relevant sections of this document” and Table 4-2 “Summary of Consent Requirements” should be expanded or duplicated to include the relevant conditions of BUN60351064.

The GSCMP has been updated to include reference to Water Permit WA T60351066 in Resource Consent BUN60351064.

Table C-1 has been revised following the draft review. The revised table takes into account additional ground movements from the mined tunnels and additional early works, as detailed in the memorandum included in Appendix E of the GSMCP.

Table C-1 “Alert / Alarm Trigger Levels” building IDs 48 & 54 have maximum assessed settlements that are greater than their final alarm trigger level – ID48 max settlement 12mm, final alarm trigger level 10mm, and ID54 max settlement 15mm, final alarm trigger level 12mm. Building ID50 has a trigger level greater than the maximum assessed settlement (19mm maximum settlement, 21mm alarm trigger level). These should be revised to be consistent with Table 1 in drawing CRL-KRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257003 Rev A01, dated 4/02/2020.

The increase in maximum ground settlements do not materially affect the outcomes of the previously completed assessment of effects; no additional buildings are included in the revised 5mm settlement contour envelope and the damage classifications for all buildings are no worse than that outlined in the Beresford Square Entrance Consent (BUN60351064). The revised Table C-1 (as included in the GSMCP) and proposed trigger levels were approved by the IBA on 03/04/2020, and represents an update to the proposed trigger levels presented in Table 1 of drawing CRLKRD-GEO-LKA-DRG-257003 Rev A01, dated 4/02/2020 and the draft Table C-1. Appendix B in the final submission of the GSMCP has been updated to include the total settlement contour plan.

Appendix B Geological Cross Sections – Beresford Square sections 7, 8 & 9 are labelled as looking east but appear to be looking north (northeast?); Mercury Lane sections 1, 3 & 4 are shown or labelled looking the wrong direction. It would also be helpful to show the tunnels / platforms and cross passages in the plan inset, as has been done for the Beresford square geological sections.

Karangahape Station Main Works

This is to avoid duplication of the geological sections included in Appendix B of the Mercury Lane Assessment of Settlement Effects Reports (CRL-KRG-RME-LKA-RPT800009-A00 dated 22/11/19) and Appendix C of the Beresford Square Entrance Assessment of Settlement Effects Report (CRL-KRD-RNELKA-RPT-800005-002, dated 04/02/20).

Groundwater and Settlement Monitoring and Contingency Plan The geological sections included in the assessment of settlement effects reports address the queries in Item 3.

Table 2-1 first construction activity listed for Beresford Square (3rd row) is “Diaphragm wall construction and piling around the perimeter of the Mercury Lane Station box” – should this be Beresford Square Station box?

Table 2-1 updated to “Beresford Square Station box”.

Table 6-1 building condition surveys – please show these on the Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan, (i.e. shaded or similar)

Buildings shown and shaded on the total settlement contour plan, Appendix B of the GSMCP. Building ID’s included on the I&M Plan, Appendix D.

More general query – the building at 18 East St between IDs 61 and 63 is not listed for monitoring and has not been assessed for settlement effects. Is it to be demolished, or part of ID 61?

The shed at the back of 18 East Street will be demolished. The other building on this property is situated outside the 5 mm contour and has not been assessed for settlement effects.

10.

Section 7.4 Response to Building or Utility Damage – “In the event that damage to buildings, structures and / or services is reported during the completion of the Karangahape Station main works…” should this be during construction? Table C-1 Building ID 122 has an alarm trigger of 12mm (from A2N consent), but the estimated settlement in ASE Table 6-4 is 14mm. It is also noted that the maximum estimated settlement for ID 50 (61-65 Pitt St) has changed from 21mm to 19mm in the updated ASE (rev 001, 23 January 2020). - ID 122 trigger has been fixed, but not ID 50. Other discrepancies noted above in Point 2.

Instrumentation and Monitoring Plan:  some building monitoring marks are missing in comparison to those shown on the settlement contours plans (IDs 41, 42, 45 & 46) - Not addressed  please outline and shade or hatch the IDed buildings / properties for clarification - Not done

Section 6.2.3 A minimum quarterly frequency is stated for visual inspections. We consider that a minimum monthly frequency would be appropriate.

Rephrased.

Trigger levels have been amended in Table C1 as per our response to Item 2 above.

The Alliance settlement contour plans do not include monitoring marks. The building monitoring marks were checked against those shown on the A2N Consent settlement contours and monitoring marks are consistent. Shading the ID’ed buildings on the I&M layout does not improve the presentation or facilitate the interpretation of the plans in our opinion. The plans have not been updated with the suggested changes. Frequency amended to monthly, and allowance made for the frequency to be reviewed as construction progresses. Updated.

11.

Table 4-3 The role of the “Senior Qualified Person” should be added to the table, and a note referring to where the term is defined.

Karangahape Station Main Works

The definition for “Senior Qualified Person” has also been added to the table of Abbreviations/Glossary of Terms on page iv of the GSMCP.