Engineering Practice Paper

Earthquake Spectra
Seismic performance of a 1–18
Ó The Author(s) 2021
retrofitted heritage Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions

unreinforced masonry DOI: 10.1177/8755293020988026

journals.sagepub.com/home/eqs

building during the 2010/2011

Canterbury earthquakes

Aina Noor Misnon1,2, Shannon Abeling1, John Hare3,

Devina Shedde1, Reza Jafarzadeh4, Jason Ingham,
M.EERI1, and Dmytro Dizhur, M.EERI1

Abstract
The Heritage Hotel (formerly Old Government Buildings) is one of the architectural
heritage icons of Christchurch, New Zealand. Seismic retrofitting was undertaken on
the structure in 1995 to achieve the earthquake loading provisions of the 1992 stan-
dard for design loadings (NZS 4203:1992). This building is a distinguished 1909
unreinforced masonry Italian High Renaissance palazzo building. The retrofit work
included the installation of new lateral load-resisting structural systems, refurbish-
ment of individual building elements, and partial building demolition with a total cost
of approximately NZ$3.75 million. Detailed observations following the 2010/2011
Canterbury earthquakes showed that the building was subject to only minor damage
during the September 2010 earthquake, whereas the February 2011 event caused
some damage to exterior stonework and flooding in the basement due to liquefac-
tion. This damage was easily repaired, and the building was fully functional by
September 2013. Reported herein are details showcasing the success of the seismic
retrofit and post-earthquake performance observations.

Keywords
Civil engineering, earthquake-resistant design, historical structures, masonry struc-
tures, post-earthquake response
Date received: 15 October 2020; accepted: 8 December 2020

1
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
3
Holmes Group Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand
4
Service and Asset Planning Team, Auckland Council, Auckland, New Zealand

Corresponding author:
Aina Noor Misnon, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,
Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
Email: nmis681@aucklanduni.ac.nz
2 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Introduction
Christchurch is the third most populated city in New Zealand and holds unique cultural
and historical importance to the nation. The early British settlement of Christchurch in
the mid-1800s contributed to the character of the city and had a significant influence on
the architectural style of unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings constructed in the late
1800s (Russell and Ingham, 2010). These URM buildings are well known to be seismically
vulnerable structures and to perform poorly in earthquake-induced shaking because typi-
cally they were not designed to resist lateral loading. Following the 2010/2011 Canterbury
earthquake sequence, URM buildings were reported as the most severely damaged struc-
tural type with more than 50% of the assessed URM buildings being tagged with red pla-
cards, indicating that these buildings had experienced severe damage (Moon et al., 2014).
However, the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes also revealed a number of success stories
regarding the performance of URM buildings that had been seismically retrofitted before
the earthquake sequence.
In New Zealand, the level to which a building is retrofitted is measured using the para-
meter %NBS (percentage of New Building Standard). Depending on the ownership, func-
tion, and composition of the building, it is common to retrofit to exceed thresholds of
either 34% (1/3) or 67% (2/3) NBS. This involves scaling the acceleration ordinates of the
relevant ground motion records or the design acceleration spectra defined by the loading
standard utilized for ultimate limit state (ULS) design while maintaining the duration of
shaking (New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE), 2017).
The Christchurch earthquake was the stronger of the two earthquakes discussed in this
article. The earthquake induced peak ground accelerations (PGAs) in the vicinity of
Heritage Hotel which ranged between 0.37 and 0.52 g, compared to the current design
PGA for the Canterbury area of 0.35 g. Depending on the particular building, its owner-
ship, and its function, it is common to retrofit to exceed thresholds of either 34% (1/3) or
67% (2/3) NBS, wherein the acceleration ordinates of the relevant ground motion records
or the design acceleration spectra defined by the loading standard utilized for ULS design
are scaled and the duration of shaking remains the same (NZSEE, 2017). With respect to
the Christchurch earthquake, which was the stronger of the two earthquakes discussed in
this article, PGAs experienced in the vicinity of Heritage Hotel ranged between 0.37 and
0.52 g, compared to the current design PGA for the Canterbury area of 0.35 g (Bradley
et al., 2014; New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS), 2016). A significant proportion
of URM buildings retrofitted to greater than 67% NBS performed adequately during the
Canterbury earthquakes with either insignificant or moderate levels of overall building
damage (Moon et al., 2014). Bailey et al. (2014), Dizhur et al. (2015), Abeling et al. (2018),
and Misnon et al. (2018) have reported case studies of seismically retrofitted URM build-
ings that performed well in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Bailey et al.
(2014) reported in detail the posttensioning seismic retrofit of the Arts Centre of
Christchurch which contributed to preventing excessive out-of-plane damage and the for-
mation of macroblock failure mechanisms for the retrofitted building. Surface bonded
glass fiber–reinforced polymer (GFRP) fabric was installed to a URM building on the
Christchurch Girls’ High School (GHS) campus prior to the 2010/2011 Canterbury earth-
quakes which resulted in excellent performance of the building with only minor damage
following the earthquake sequences (Dizhur et al., 2015). The utilization of conventional
steel retrofitting techniques for URM buildings in Christchurch was reported by Abeling
et al. (2018) and Misnon et al. (2018), with such cost-effective techniques resulting in mini-
mal to no damage to the retrofitted buildings. These case studies highlighted the
Misnon et al. 3

effectiveness of the retrofits in minimizing earthquake damage and emphasize the impor-
tance of heritage preservation of historic and culturally significant buildings.
The Heritage Hotel building was identified as a successful example of a seismic retrofit
that was instituted prior to the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes and was designed to
fully meet NZS 4203:1992 (1992) (100% NBS). The Heritage Hotel building performed
well, with no significant structural damage being observed following the September 2010
and February 2011 earthquake events (Gin and Gallaway, 2011). Details of the building
that were acquired from in-depth interviews of key stakeholders and property documenta-
tion after the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes are presented herein.

Building description
The Heritage Hotel (previously known as the Old Government Building) is a prominent
URM building in the Italian High Renaissance palazzo style that is located off Cathedral
Square in the Central Business District (CBD) of Christchurch, New Zealand. The iconic
heritage building was originally designed in 1909 by J.C. Maddison and is listed as a
Category 1 historic place by Heritage New Zealand (Johnson et al., 1986; Yonge, 1997).
The subject building is constructed of unreinforced mixed masonry (clay brick and
stone) and has a rectangular plan with exterior dimensions of approximately 80 m by
21 m and a height of 18 m (Figure 1a and b). The building was originally constructed with
a basement and three floors that had ceiling heights up to 5.4 m. The foundation of the
building comprised closely spaced 7.5 m precast driven reinforced concrete (RC) piles,
with the exception of the west elevation, which has 5.5 m piles (Johnson et al., 1986). The
building has load-bearing clay-brick URM walls with the first and upper floors of the
building being composed of solid red bricks. The north and west elevations (both street-
facing elevations) have heavily rusticated limestone covering the brickwork at the ground
floor. The internal and external brick walls are up to 1.1 and 0.9 m thick, respectively
(Hare, 1996; Johnson et al., 1986).
The floors of the Heritage Hotel were originally constructed of timber, with the excep-
tion of the vaults (see Figure 4a) and toilets, which had concrete floors of thickness 450
and 250 mm, respectively. The roof of the building originally was constructed of light-
weight concrete approximately 250 mm thick and had a stone parapet along the perimeter

Figure 1. Photos showing Heritage Hotel building located at 30 Cathedral Square: (a) exterior view of
north elevation and (b) exterior view of west elevation.
4 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Figure 2. The staircase landing at the center of the building (image reproduced from Yonge, 1997).

(Hare, 1996; Johnson et al., 1986). On the west fac xade, Tuscan columns (plain columns
without carvings or ornamentation) span two stories to support the roof of the distinct
main entrance. The building fac xade was inspired by the classical style and has regular and
symmetric window placement, Corinthian columns, and a heavy balustrade and parapet.
xade is adorned with dressed limestone, creating a rusticated base, and the
The first-floor fac
second- and third-floor facades feature smooth red clay brick and finer detailing (Yonge,
1997).
The most significant heritage feature of the subject building is a central staircase that
rises to the full height of the building with landings composed of RC. The staircase is
divided on each floor by a long corridor extending from east to west, as shown in Figure 2.

Building history
The Heritage Hotel building was initially constructed to accommodate government offices
following the establishment of Christchurch as the capital of the Canterbury District
(Johnson et al., 1986). Construction began on 20 November 1911 and was completed in
March 1913 (see Figure 3), with the building housing government offices for approximately
70 years (Yonge, 1997). After the 1960s, the building experienced a series of earthquakes
and storms that resulted in damage, with an earthquake having a moment magnitude of
Mw 5 occurring during January 1968 that caused plaster damage and masonry cracking to
the building. The Wahine Storm occurred in April 1968, and an earthquake the following
month triggered the development of additional cracks throughout the building. In the early
1970s, noticeable settlement occurred in the southwest corner of the subject building, which
was attributed to increased ground motion due to the construction of the nearby Carruca
House and Housing Corporation buildings (Johnson et al., 1986; Yonge, 1997).
Work was undertaken between the 1960s and 1980s to seismically strengthen the build-
ing and to repair both internal and external wall damage. The 1960s retrofit work included
Misnon et al. 5

Figure 3. The Heritage Hotel building in 1913 (courtesy of Christchurch City Libraries).

the removal of the 450-tonne stone parapet, installation of a smaller RC parapet, and
strengthening the floor-to-wall connections. In 1979, asbestos cement roofing and
standing-seam galvanized roofing were used to weatherproof parts of the main roof of the
building, and in 1980, two damaged masonry columns with substantial diagonal shear
cracking were replaced with steel substitutes, plus significant cracks to the exterior and
interior walls were repaired by adding steel ties to the exterior faces and at the roof level in
the southwest corner (Johnson et al., 1986; Yonge, 1997).
From late August 1980 until 1988, the building was only partially occupied, after which
time it was completely vacated. After remaining vacant for almost 3 years, demolition of
the building was proposed in March 1991 on the basis of a structural assessment that was
undertaken by the Ministry of Works and Development, who found the building to be
unsafe (Yonge, 1997). However, strong public support for saving the building influenced
the Christchurch City Council (CCC) to purchase it in July 1991 (Yonge, 1997). Numerous
new use options were proposed, including an art museum, movie theater, casino, and office
space. In 1995, a plan for serviced and residential apartments was agreed upon and exten-
sive strengthening alongside restoration works was undertaken.

1995 seismic retrofit

The configuration of the Heritage Hotel, as with many URM buildings, was one that fea-
tured large ground floor entrances and facades with regular window openings. Combined
with the thickness (900–1100 mm perimeter walls) and concentration of the masonry walls
which produced a notably large seismic mass for the building’s footprint, as well as the lack
of lateral load-resisting elements, the perimeter walls were evaluated to fail at the low levels
of applied lateral loading through the formation of rocking mechanisms (Hare, 1996). The
existing timber diaphragms were identified as also limiting the building’s ability to respond
in a global manner when subjected to seismic excitation, resulting in an estimated lateral
seismic capacity of 15% of the full 1992 standard design loading.
After CCC purchased the building, options to seismically retrofit the building were pro-
posed with the aim of improving the structural integrity of the building while minimizing
intrusive intervention to heritage elements (Hare, 1996; Yonge, 1997). The two retrofit
strategies initially proposed both addressed structural weaknesses which were a risk to life
safety and hence of principal importance, including replacement of the parapet and
6 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

strengthening of the facxade columns at the west end. These strategies differed in their
approach to resolve the building’s configuration issues. In the first scheme, it was pro-
posed to spray or pour concrete skin walls to the majority of the perimeter walls at all lev-
els and to strengthen the timber diaphragms by applying plywood overlays. The skin walls
were to be reasonably uniform in distribution throughout the building to minimize dia-
phragm stresses and prevent detrimental effects on the foundations for which strength
information was not known (Hare, 1996). The forecast capacity of this proposed scheme
proposed was equivalent to two-thirds of the full NZS 4203:1992 standard design loading.
The second scheme was the chosen option, where a more inventive approach was pro-
posed that mainly involved partial demolition and reconstruction of strong stiff elements
to create a shear core. This would enable all other structural components of the building
to be anchored back to the shear core, to facilitate a global structural response under seis-
mic duress. The retrofit strategy had aimed to provide a load level equivalent to full code
loading under the NZS, 4203 loading standard; however, a review of the original strength-
ening documentation indicated that the strengthening was carried out to achieve 75% of
the NZS 4203:1992 loading. The selection of this retrofit strategy also more greatly aligned
with conservation requirements because by adding a shear core, the need for RC skin
walls throughout the building was minimized, thus reducing the interference with the heri-
tage fabric (Hare, 1996).
The seismic design work first involved partial demolition of the building in Areas 1 and
2 (see Figure 4b) that had previously been the site of toilets and vaults and were areas
deemed to be of low heritage value, as well as being inefficient use of floor area and add-
ing disproportionately to the seismic mass. RC shear walls were then constructed in these
1
areas (Figure 5b) that were designed and detailed for a structural ductility factor of 3 to
sustain a modest amount of inelastic displacement that was deemed to be acceptable in a
major earthquake. The walls were designed to act as a shear core, allowing for the minimal
use of RC skin walls elsewhere in the building. The RC skin walls (Figure 5c) had a thick-
ness of either 200 or 250 mm and were added to the building to aid in reducing diaphragm
stresses. Diagonal steel reinforcement was used in some of the RC skin wall lintels in areas
where shear stresses would have otherwise exceeded permissible design limits. The internal
skin walls (identified as Item 1 in Figure 4b) were constructed by removing a layer of the
existing brickwork (approximately 0.3 m) and pouring concrete in place, with dowels used
to transfer forces from the existing URM walls to the new RC walls (see detail in Figure
9), as was also undertaken for some RC shear walls (identified as Item 2 in Figure 4b) that
abutted existing masonry walls. This approach provided the necessary structural upgrade
and resulted in minimal visual impact on the building. Construction of the two shear wall
cores and the interior skin walls proved to be the most challenging part of the upgrade,
with the two shear cores requiring concrete pours of 400–700 mm thickness against the
existing URM walls and being executed at heights of up to 5.5 m using 40 MPa concrete.
The difficulties in undertaking this work, combined with the rate of progress needed for
timely completion of the works, meant that separate shifts were performed each day, with
machine operation often lasting around 19 h per day (Yonge, 1997).
Extensive diaphragm upgrading was a key part of the 1995 seismic upgrading project.
Hollowcore concrete flooring (precast concrete flooring with hollow perforations (see
Figure 6) with a 100-mm concrete topping was constructed in the new shear core areas to
form rigid diaphragms. The existing timber flooring was strengthened with a new heavily
nailed plywood overlay (Figure 7), and the timber diaphragms were tied to the shear cores
with heavy steel flat collector elements with dimensions of either 200 mm 3 20 mm or
Misnon et al. 7

Figure 4. Plan layouts of the Heritage Hotel building. Note: 1—new concrete skin walls, 2—new
concrete shear walls, 3—new steel floor ties, 4—hollowcore floor with 100 mm topping, 5—new
plywood overlay to existing flooring (typical), 6—prestressed cables added to the center of existing
masonry columns, 7—diagonal steel reinforcement in RC skin wall lintels, 8—new fiber glass–reinforced
parapet with cast in steel uprights, 9—new RC perimeter bond beam, 10—new 100 mm RC roof slab.
(a) Original floor plan showing the locations of vaults with 450 mm concrete floor slab (strong room)
(image reproduced from Yonge, 1997). (b) New first-floor plan after partial demolition. (c) Roof plan
(reproduced from Hare, 1994).

100 mm 3 12 mm, which spanned across the floor and went into the shear walls. The
steel collectors were made continuous using full-penetration butt welds, which was imple-
mented in sections to suit construction. The collectors typically had four high-strength 24-
mm diameter bars of 3300 or 5000 mm length located at the ends of the collectors. These
bars were welded to lap with the collectors and were evenly distributed into the RC shear
walls by splaying the four bars vertically (see Figure 6). Timber plates were bolted to the
top face of the collectors such that the washers were flush with the top face of the timber
plate. The roof was retrofitted with a 75-mm RC topping over the existing slab, and a con-
crete bond beam was cast around the perimeter of the roof.
8 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Figure 5. Retrofit and refurbishing work in 1995 (images reproduced from Yonge, 1997). (a) Center of
construction works of the shear core. (b) New RC shear walls act as shear cores anchored back to the
building. (c) Example of the addition of an RC skin wall at building corners.

A new lightweight fiberglass-reinforced cement parapet that replicated the original

parapet design was constructed above the bond beam (Figure 8), and steel uprights were
cast to support the parapet. Following demolition of the vault, the existing foundation
piles were found to be well reinforced although they had only a compression connection to
the existing mass concrete foundation. Thus, new foundation beams were installed where
required to sustain loads under the new RC shear walls. The foundation beams under the
shear walls were typically 1000–1500 mm in width and 1500 mm in depth. A typical exam-
ple of the beam reinforcement is described by six 24-mm diameter high-strength longitudi-
nal bars top and bottom, and L bars lapped to these longitudinal bars at the ends with a
lap length of 1350 mm. Four 24-mm diameter high-strength longitudinal bars were placed
on each side of the beam, and all longitudinal bars were confined with three sets of high-
strength 16-mm stirrups spaced at 250 mm. The beams were also designed with detailing
to utilize the full capacity of existing piles which were partially broken down to cast in
reinforcement to connect them to the beams, thus minimizing the number of new piles
required. Despite some difficulties in driving the new piles close to existing foundations,
the foundation works were performed with negligible variation to the design specification
(Hare, 1996). Difficulties were experienced when completing the foundation works because
at the commencement of the work, the water table was so high that it was visible at the
floor level at the east end of the structure. Cutoff drains and free-draining gravels were
placed below the basement as worst-case precautions to address the regularly fluctuating
water levels (Yonge, 1997).
The stone columns of the west fac xade were diamond cored vertically to their full height,
and lightly prestressed cables were inserted (see Figure 9) to control cracking while provid-
ing additional strength. These cables were tied into the foundation, and concrete caps were
added to the tops of the columns.
Full advantage was taken of the existing story height by adding partial mezzanines to
most of the rooms, set back from the heritage fac xade to avoid visual intrusion. New steel
beams were inserted into existing timber floors to support the partial mezzanine levels, and
the steel beams were used as floor ties where possible to distribute wall anchor forces into
the diaphragm.
Misnon et al. 9

Figure 6. Technical drawings showing wall/floor details (above) and anchor details for collectors into
RC shear walls (below) (drawings reproduced from Holmes Consulting Group Limited, 1995).

The structural upgrade work for the Heritage Hotel was performed according to the
NZS 4203:1992 loading standard and the NZS 3101:1982 concrete design standard. The
loading standard was superseded by the current loading standard NZS 1170:2004, in which
the design seismic loading at the site was reduced. As previously mentioned, analysis of the
drawings and the calculations performed for the seismic retrofit indicates that the strength-
ening achieved 75% of the NZS 4203:1992 standard (Gin and Gallaway, 2011), with this
rating evaluated to be equivalent to approximately 2/3 of the NZS 1170:2004 design load-
xade and the his-
ing standard. Overall, the retrofit design protected the iconic building fac
toric central staircase, with the success of the design having been proven by its satisfactory
performance during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Based on current standard
10 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Figure 7. Technical drawing showing typical internal floor connection (drawing reproduced from
Holmes Consulting Group Limited, 1995).

Figure 8. Lightweight fiberglass-reinforced cement parapet (drawing reproduced from Holmes

Consulting Group Limited, 1995).

practice within the consultancy firm involved in the design of the seismic strengthening, it
is probable that if the retrofit design were undertaken now then computer aided modeling
tools would be utilized to investigate the non-linear structural response of the retrofitted
structure. This would possibly enable a more refined retrofit methodology that may have
also potentially resulted in less intrusion to the heritage fabric of the building, thereby fur-
ther satisfying the principles of conservation engineering.
Misnon et al. 11

Figure 9. Prestressed cables to control cracking and provide additional strength. Also note the new RC
shear wall anchored to existing URM wall (drawing reproduced from Parlante Design Group Limited,
1995).

Building value and cost of retrofit work

In 1991, the Heritage Hotel was purchased by CCC for NZ$735,000 (Yonge, 1997), and
the 1995 retrofit and refurbishment work costs approximately NZ$3.75 million and was
undertaken by two parties under a commercial agreement known as the Symphony
Group/Pacific City Life Joint Venture. In total, when converted to 2018 dollars account-
ing for inflation (Howard and Wright, 2003), the building owner invested approximately
NZ$6.11 million (being NZ$1.24 million for building purchase value and NZ$4.87 million
for the total retrofit cost).
The building now functions primarily as residential apartments (54 units with a total
floor area of 4785 m2), with commercial spaces on the ground floor used as offices and
retail space (6 units with a total floor area of 918 m2). Most of the residential apartments
are leased by their owners to the Heritage Hotel as high-end hotel accommodation, with
an average 2018 rent value of NZ$190 per night. Assuming that the hotel occupancy is
50% per year (Adair, 2018), the contribution to annual net income is at least
NZ$1,872,450.
12 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Table 1. Summary of annually generated income

Building function Usable space area (m2) Average rate (NZ$) Total annual rent
(NZ$)

Residential 4785 (54 units) 190/night/unit, 1,872,450

(hotel accommodation) with 50% annual occupancy
Office 200 275/sqm 55,000
Retail 718 350/sqm 251,300
Sub total 2,178,750

Figure 10. View after the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake showing that buildings nearby have
collapsed while the Heritage Hotel survived.

As of 2018, approximately 200 m2 of commercial space was used as office space and the
remaining space was retail/restaurant space. The net face rent cost for Grade B/C office
space in the Christchurch CBD is between NZ$275 and NZ$350 per square meter per
annum (Colliers International, 2017a) and for the prime retail space is between NZ$350
and NZ$600 per square meter per annum (Colliers International, 2017b). Assuming that
the commercial spaces fall in the lowest of the range for rent, this commercial space has a
2018 value of approximately NZ$306,300. The assumptions used to forecast the annual
income generated by the building are summarized in Table 1. Taking the capitalization
rate in 2018 as 8.5% (from the upper end of scale closer to 8%–9%), the total value of the
building could be conservatively approximated as NZ$25,632,353.

Building performance in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes

The Darfield earthquake struck the Canterbury region on 4 September 2010 and was
closely followed by the Christchurch earthquake on 22 February 2011. Given that the
measured ground accelerations in the Christchurch CBD during the 2011 Christchurch
earthquake were larger than those of the 2010 Darfield earthquake, the seismic perfor-
mance of the building described herein is with respect to the Christchurch earthquake.
The significantly diverse geological conditions found in Christchurch resulted in the
structural performance of buildings in the Christchurch earthquake being highly varied.
Figure 10 shows the collapse of a building opposite the north elevation of the Heritage
Misnon et al. 13

Hotel. However, the nearby Chief Post Office building, which is also a heritage structure
located on Cathedral Square, exhibited signs of minor to moderate damage, such as hair-
line cracking of the ornamental stone and brickwork, which constituted evidence of move-
ment of the brick/stonework adjacent to the first-floor windows, and loosening of bolted
connections in some parts of the building. The Chief Post Office building was originally a
URM structure built in 1878, which underwent strengthening works in 1990 that involved
partial demolition and the addition of lateral load-resisting steel frames, RC shear walls,
and steel diaphragm strengthening.
The variability of the soil conditions in the Christchurch CBD is evident from the data
obtained from four seismic monitoring stations located closest to Cathedral Square, which
exhibited significant variation in shaking at each of the stations. For this reason, it was
not possible to accurately evaluate the shaking parameters that the building was subjected
to. However, the derived motion data from the monitoring stations indicate that the
Heritage Hotel experienced shaking in excess of the current NZS 1170:2004 design spectra
(Gin and Gallaway, 2011). Typically, in New Zealand, the structural capacity of a building
of normal importance at the ULS is designed to resist a seismic event having a return
period of 500 years. The accelerations which were recorded in central Christchurch were
approximately 180% of the design loads provided by NZS 1170:2004 and were considered
to be some of the strongest accelerations ever recorded globally, deemed to be approxi-
mately equal to a 2500-year seismic event in Christchurch (Bradley et al., 2014; Gin and
Gallaway, 2011).
Damage assessment of the Heritage Hotel was undertaken immediately following the
main shocks from the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquakes. These damage assessments were
conducted in accordance with guidelines recommended by the NZSEE (2009), with a pre-
liminary investigation conducted to ascertain parts of the building that had sustained dam-
age and to provide a detailed inspection of selected areas.
Overall, earthquake-related damage to the building was reported as minor, and only
minor cracking damage was observed in localized areas of masonry after the 2010/2011
Canterbury earthquake events. The localized cracking around the external building envel-
ope suggested that movement due to shaking had occurred, but that the stonework and
building fabric experienced only a limited amount of consequential damage due to the
overall stiffness of the building. The building could have remained operational following
the earthquakes, but damage to neighboring buildings prevented its reopening to the pub-
lic until late 2013 (Figure 10). Details of the damage from the September 2010 Darfield
earthquake (Mw 7.2) and February 2011 Christchurch earthquake (Mw 6.2) are presented
in the following sections.

Damage from September 2010 Darfield earthquake

After the September 2010 Darfield earthquake, there was no significant structural damage
to the building, with cracks to the external stonework being the most noteworthy damage
to the building (see Figure 11b and c).

Damage from February 2011 Christchurch earthquake

Building exterior. Following the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, the most com-
monly observed damage was minor plaster cracking around windows and doors (Figure
12) on the external southern and eastern walls. Earthquake shaking also caused the
14 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Figure 11. Damage from the September 2010 Darfield earthquake: (a) Heritage Hotel building after
Darfield earthquake showing no significance structural damage, (b) cracks in stone around window
openings, (c) small cracks in the exterior stone, and (d) crack opening in the exterior stone.

Figure 12. Exterior crack damage to the Heritage Hotel building: (a) cracking around windows and (b)
typical external cracking of plaster.

opening of joints as well as the movement of stonework and joints on the northern and
western elevations (Figure 13).

Building interior. Observed damage to the interior of the building included areas where
cracks developed as a result of ground shaking. Shear cracking of the masonry walls was
Misnon et al. 15

Figure 13. Evidence of building movement due to earthquake shaking: (a) localized stonework
movement and (b) joint opening of stone masonry.

observed within the guest rooms (Figure 14a), and a large crack was observed in the con-
crete landing of the staircase (Figure 14b). The main staircase had horizontal and vertical
cracks in the southern masonry walls at each level (Figure 14c), which suggested that this
damage was associated with ground settlement. Spalling and cracking of masonry arches
in internal hallways was also observed on all levels (Figure 14d). Immediate repair works
were undertaken in the damaged areas following the earthquakes.

Basement. The building is founded on soil that is soft to a depth of approximately 6.5 m,
which is susceptible to liquefaction during severe ground shaking. Due to this reason,
the basement experienced flooding immediately following the earthquake with approxi-
mately 50–100 mm of water covering the basement floor and with cracking of ground
slabs suggesting that some minor uplift may have occurred. This uplift was attributed to
differential movement between the Heritage Hotel and the surrounding ground
(McCahon, 2011). Liquefaction occurred at various levels of severity throughout central
Christchurch, with some regions having exhibited only minor traces of liquefaction and
other areas experiencing severe liquefaction with highly prominent ground distortions
being observed. The highly varied manifestation of liquefaction is another illustration of
the complex geological conditions underlying the Christchurch CBD (Cubrinovski et al.,
2014).
Because no significant structural damage was observed after the 2010/2011 Canterbury
earthquakes, the immediate repair work that was undertaken was largely for cosmetic pur-
poses and entailed repointing of the exterior masonry, with the building being fully covered
in scaffolding for repair works (Figure 15).

Summary and conclusion

The Heritage Hotel is a registered Category 1 historic place that represents one of very
few successful examples of a seismically retrofitted heritage building in Christchurch, New
Zealand. Seismic retrofit and refurbishment work was undertaken on this iconic URM
building in 1995 to strengthen the building to the full seismic design requirement of the
standard at the time of the retrofit and to convert the building from government offices to
residential apartments with supplementary commercial space. Partial demolition was
16 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

Figure 14. Damage to the building interior after the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake: (a) shear
crack on interior wall, (b) large crack in stair landing, (c) vertical cracking likely due to settlement, and
(d) spalling and cracking of masonry arches.

Figure 15. Erected scaffolding for cosmetic repairs and repointing (photograph taken on 16 March
2013).
Misnon et al. 17

undertaken in two areas of low heritage value to construct a shear core that allowed for
minimal intervention to the important heritage elements. This case study building is a
prime example showing the financial feasibility of such projects following seismic retrofit-
ting, with the value of the building being greatly increased after the conclusion of the
strengthening works. The building withstood severe earthquake shaking in September
2010 and February 2011 with only minor cracking damage that was quickly repaired.
Thanks to the successful earthquake performance of the 1995 seismic retrofit works, the
Heritage Hotel reopened in September 2013 and remains operational currently. The seis-
mic retrofit of the Heritage Hotel allowed for an important heritage aspect of the city to
be retained for future generations.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the assistance of Katie Eberle, a student intern from California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo. Special thanks to Holmes Consulting, the structural engineer for the
detailed retrofit information. This is QuakeCoRE publication No. 0057.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This project was supported by QuakeCoRE, a New Zealand Tertiary
Education Commission-funded Centre.

Note
1. The structural ductility factor, m, is a numerical assessment of the ability of a structure to sustain
cyclic inelastic displacement (NZS 4203:1992).

References
Abeling S, Dizhur D and Ingham JM (2018) An evaluation of successfully seismically retrofitted
URM buildings in New Zealand and their relevance to Australia. Australian Journal of Structural
Engineering 19(3): 234–244.
Adair D (2018) Record high occupancy for hotels in 2017. Available at: https://www.stats.govt.nz/
news/record-high-occupancy-for-hotels-in-2017. (accessed 15 November 2018).
Bailey S, Dizhur D, Trowsdale J, Griffith M and Ingham JM (2014) Performance of posttensioned
seismic retrofit of two stone masonry buildings during the Canterbury earthquakes. Journal of
Performance of Constructed Facilities 29(4): 1–11.
Bradley BA, Quigley MC, Van Dissen RJ and Litchfield NJ (2014) Ground motion and seismic
source aspects of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Earthquake Spectra 30(1): 1–15.
Colliers International (2017a) Market indicators report 2017—New Zealand CBD Office. Available
at: https://www.colliers.co.nz/en-nz/countries/new-zealand/our-research (accessed 21 September
2018).
Colliers International (2017b) Market indicators report 2017—New Zealand retail. Available at:
https://www.colliers.co.nz/~/media/new%20zealand%20website/files/research/retail/
colliers%20international%20national%20retail%20report%202017.ashx/ (accessed 21
September 2018).
Cubrinovski M, Taylor M, Henderson D, Winkley A, Haskell J, Bradley BA, Hughes M,
Wotherspoon L, Bray J and O’Rourke T (2014) Key factors in the liquefaction-induced damage
18 Earthquake Spectra 00(0)

to buildings and infrastructure in Christchurch: Preliminary findings. In: New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering conference, 21–23 March, Auckland, New Zealand.
Dizhur D, Bailey S, Griffith M and Ingham J (2015) Earthquake performance of two vintage URM
buildings retrofitted using surface bonded GFRP: Case study. Journal of Composites for
Construction 19(5): 1–9.
Gin V and Gallaway B (2011) Heritage Hotel—Old Government Building (OGB) Structural Report.
Christchurch, New Zealand: Holmes Consulting Group Limited.
Hare HJ (1994) Government Buildings Strengthening—Summary of Strengthening Options Technical
Report. Christchurch, New Zealand: Holmes Consulting Group Limited.
Hare HJ (1996) Case study: Christchurch Government buildings strengthening and refurbishment.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 29(3): 141–146.
Holmes Consulting Group Limited (1995) The Randolph Apartments Christchurch Strengthening
Technical Drawing. Christchurch, New Zealand: Holmes Consulting Group Limited.
Howard G and Wright M (2003) The Reserve Bank inflation calculator. Reserve Bank of New
Zealand Bulletin 66(4): 66–70.
Johnson RD, Lochhead I, Shapcott PM and Shaw-Brown D (1986) The Architectural Heritage of
Christchurch 5. Government Buildings. Christchurch, New Zealand: Christchurch City Council.
McCahon I (2011) Heritage Hotel – 28 Cathedral Square Geotechnical Report. Christchurch, New
Zealand: Geotech Consulting Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Misnon NA, Dizhur D, Mackenzie J, Abeling S and Ingham J (2018) Multi-disciplinary post-
earthquake critique of masonry substation retrofits. Earthquake Spectra 34(3): 1363–1382.
Moon L, Dizhur D, Senaldi I, Derakhshan H, Griffith M, Magenes G and Ingham J (2014) The
demise of the URM building stock in Christchurch during the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake
sequence. Earthquake Spectra 30(1): 253–276.
New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS) (2016) Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Practice:
Module 1—Overview of the Guidelines. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Geotechnical
Society.
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (2009) Guidelines for Building Safety Evaluation
during a State of Emergency. Guidelines for Territorial Authorities, New Zealand. Wellington, New
Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (2017) The Seismic Assessment of Existing
Buildings, Technical Guidelines for Engineering Assessment. Wellington, New Zealand: New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
NZS 4203:1992 (1992) Code of practice for general structural design and design loadings for
buildings.
Parlante Design Group Limited (1995) Randolph Apartments Christchurch Structural Upgrade Issue
Technical Drawing. Christchurch, New Zealand: Parlante Design Group Limited.
Russell AP and Ingham JM (2010) Prevalence of New Zealand’s unreinforced masonry buildings.
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 43(3): 182–201.
Yonge M (1997) Government Buildings Christchurch, 1909–1996. Hong Kong, China: Everbest
Printing Co. Ltd.