Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011
- Thread starter OzEng80
- Start date
- Status
- Thread starter
- #3
Hi kikflip
I haven't had a good oportunity to look through the codes yet but initial impressions are:
AS1170.2
Appears to be more of clarification than anything and addresses some common points of confusion/contention.
2.5.7 Debris loading is a function of Vr and is clearly defined (these values look familiar and I think were part of a ‘cyclone shelter’ design manual).
5.3.2 Openings and internal pressure coefficients seem clearer (most of my designs are region C so it has always been pretty straight forward!). The 25m height limit for debris is good. I am bemused by the note under 5.3.2 regarding garage doors designed to AS4505 being able to be treated as closed and intact – ie capable of resisting debris loading?!
5.4.3 Excellent clarification and diagrams for Kc
5.4.4 Increasing the upper limit of Kl to 3.0 for corners of roofs and the upper limit of Cpe x Kl to 3.0 is nasty and will be extremely difficult to put into practice. Much better diagrams.
AS2870
I haven’t had time to look through this although I went to a course last year where they advised what was coming. It’s my understanding that a lot of the typical designs get worse and now we are obliged to give direct and site specific consideration to trees (can’t just rely on the CSIRO disclaimer).
I will update this once i get a chance to put them into use (and all the gremlins come out!).
What are your thoughts?
I haven't had a good oportunity to look through the codes yet but initial impressions are:
AS1170.2
Appears to be more of clarification than anything and addresses some common points of confusion/contention.
2.5.7 Debris loading is a function of Vr and is clearly defined (these values look familiar and I think were part of a ‘cyclone shelter’ design manual).
5.3.2 Openings and internal pressure coefficients seem clearer (most of my designs are region C so it has always been pretty straight forward!). The 25m height limit for debris is good. I am bemused by the note under 5.3.2 regarding garage doors designed to AS4505 being able to be treated as closed and intact – ie capable of resisting debris loading?!
5.4.3 Excellent clarification and diagrams for Kc
5.4.4 Increasing the upper limit of Kl to 3.0 for corners of roofs and the upper limit of Cpe x Kl to 3.0 is nasty and will be extremely difficult to put into practice. Much better diagrams.
AS2870
I haven’t had time to look through this although I went to a course last year where they advised what was coming. It’s my understanding that a lot of the typical designs get worse and now we are obliged to give direct and site specific consideration to trees (can’t just rely on the CSIRO disclaimer).
I will update this once i get a chance to put them into use (and all the gremlins come out!).
What are your thoughts?
OzEng80,
I thought that standard would be similar to how the large industrial doors worked but I was not sure so I did a aquick google.
Looks like these doors have a lock in track along each side and are designed to act as a catenary between.
Not in the description of the code that it also notes the loads that the structure has to be designed to take.
This is definately something that the structural engineer would need to be involved in the specification and checking of.
I thought that standard would be similar to how the large industrial doors worked but I was not sure so I did a aquick google.
Looks like these doors have a lock in track along each side and are designed to act as a catenary between.
Not in the description of the code that it also notes the loads that the structure has to be designed to take.
This is definately something that the structural engineer would need to be involved in the specification and checking of.
- Thread starter
- #6
We butt heads with roller door manufacturers all the time over this. Catenary loads from windlocked systems are massive and are generally orientated about the weak axis of the primary structural elements. Can be a real headache (& that is after turning a blind eye to 'corner' configurations!). It is one thing to say that a roller door (working as a sail) can resist cyclonic loadings but a completely different thing to say that it is resistant to debris loadings (as implied).
I am assuming that the argument used is that the impact testing done by Lysaght for custom orb and trimdek can be extrapolated to door configurations. This seems like quite a stretch given that the testing was based only on the 100x50 at 15m/s for a 900 sheeting span with screwed side laps. With the new code doubling the speed of impact and introducing 'ball bearings' i don't know how this can be justified.
What do you think of the Kl = 3.0 for roof corners?
I am assuming that the argument used is that the impact testing done by Lysaght for custom orb and trimdek can be extrapolated to door configurations. This seems like quite a stretch given that the testing was based only on the 100x50 at 15m/s for a 900 sheeting span with screwed side laps. With the new code doubling the speed of impact and introducing 'ball bearings' i don't know how this can be justified.
What do you think of the Kl = 3.0 for roof corners?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question