Which is the most demanding code in the world? 2

[ThomasH]

Hi all

The questing might seem a bit odd. But this is the simple background.

I'm working on a temporary structure that will be mowed around the world. Europe, North and South America as well as Australia. Probably not Africa.

I should comply with all the applicable codes in the different countries. Hence the questing, can I work with one code and comply with all of them?

Of course I realize that the question is probably inpossible to answer. Let me therefore put it in another manner, the client had information that if we comply with Australian Code we comply with everything. Mayby with the addition that we use windloads from Miami (USA). Could that the a way to mowe forward?

Another question: Since I at the moment don't have Australian Codes, is this the code package for structural codes in Australia:

http://www.abcb.gov.au/en/ncc-products

Any help is appreciated

Thomas

 

[BAretired]

I would have thought that the International Building Code would be the one to use in your case. But if the building is going to be moved around a lot, you should probably be applying much higher load factors than you would for stationary buildings.

Climatic conditions would be difficult to pin down. There are places in North America with extremely high snow and wind loads.

Seismic provisions are very dependent upon location. I think you would want to select the most extreme climatic conditions you could find in a variety of codes: not just the Australian code.



BA

 

[hokie66]

I think yours is a fruitless task. For example, the International Building Code is not international, and really only applies in North America.

The link you gave for Australia is only for construction. For design, the applicable code is the Building Code of Australia, and all the structural design Standards are available from Standards Australia or through SAI Global.

Wind loading for the severe tropical cyclone prone areas of Australia would be as severe as anywhere, e.g. Miami. But snow loads and seismic loads would be much less severe than in other countries. Required live loading would likely be similar in most countries.

I would suggest a robust design using your own codes as a lower bound, then a check with other applicable codes when the time comes.

One similar issue which comes to mind with movable things is caravans (camper trailers) which are imported into Australia from Europe. The gas systems require modification to meet Australian Standards.

 

[dhengr]

I would be inclined to keep it clean and simple, so as you move it from place to place, members, connections, load paths and bracing and hold-downs, etc. generate the fewest questions. Only one bolt size and common (lower) grade on the entire job. Fewest beam sizes possible and never connections which would fit in the wrong place, vary bolt hole spacings, etc. on different sized beams. List all the design loads, design codes, materials used, factors of safety, etc. as part of a permit approval package and erection instructions. IBC and ASCE 7 are good places to start. Then maybe quarry building officials in other areas which you might move to, as to how they compare with these two codes. Again, make it so simple to follow and assemble that it just doesn’t generate any questions to get the AHJ started. Make connections, bracing, tie-downs, etc. simple and fool proof. If all the bolt holes aren’t filled, it is obvious that something is wrong; if a tie-down hole isn’t filled, it is obvious; maybe go so far as to color code beam ends and column connection points. Some of the biggest problems with this kind of structures have been that they are put together using inexperienced workers and to little supervision by someone who understands the structure. It has to be fool proof and wind proof.

 

[hokie66]

Another issue will be the language in which your documents are presented. English will work in many countries...maybe not in South America. Keep it simple, e.g. avoid acronyms. You also may require a dual dimensioning system.

 

[abusementpark]

ACI App D

 

[JStephen]

In the US, even if the design itself was adequate for "anywhere", you'd still wind up having to re-evaluate and re-furnish plans in different places if the item was indeed subject to building codes.

Whether it was subject to building codes at all would be another issue. If it's small enough to haul all over, it may not be. Things like circus tents, oil derricks, travel trailers, containers, who knows?

 

[MiketheEngineer]

NY, NY, Miami, LA - all come to mind

 

[shobroco]

NY, NY, Miami, LA, have wind & seismic, but their snow is not overwhelming (okay, I'm giving Miami & LA more than the benefit of doubt). BC, Canada is going to be worse than any US location, but probably not the worst in the world.

 

[ThomasH]

Hi again

First of all, thanks for all your input.

Now I have made som preliminary studies of different codes. First of all, I don't think any of them can be considered as the "most demanding", just as I expected. It depends on where the structure is located, not the code as such. More snow in Alaska than in southern France, tougher eartquakes in California than in northern Europe. The same snow load gives similar designs so the safety levels are similar which seems resonable. It also simplifies things.

So I have an idea on how to solve the problem. Since I don't have all possible locations right now it is preliminary but it's an idea.

Code for strength: Eurocode, a modern code that applies in several countries. Also, sinsa I work in Europe I am familiar with that code. I have worked with several others but Eurocode is very familiar.

Loads: Will be based on the actual possible locations. In some cases data might be difficult to find. Maybe I'll ask the forum if anybody knows .

Load combinations: Most codes seem to have similar load factors. I'll probably use the eurocode factors for consistency.

Utilisation: Relatively low to be safe. I think that a simple (clear) analysis with relatively low utilization will probably be more effective for the project than saving some material.

A final question, the structure is temporary with "lifelength" of a few months. If I work in the US, does that mean the Earthquake can be ignored due to very low probability? Any other effects due to "short life"?

Regards

Thomas

 

[hokie66]

If you give us an idea of the useage and size of the structure, perhaps we can offer better opinions.

 

[ThomasH]

It is a moving exhibition but not open to the general public. I think a good comparision is a consert arena but built on an open field. Not just a stage built in an existing arena but the entire arena.

Thomas

 

[hokie66]

Most of these are regulated locally. There have been several recent failures during severe storms. Suggest that wind loading should be the main concern.

 

[racookpe1978]

As far as penalties for failure go, Hammurabi original building code back in Mesopotamia was then, and is now, pretty hard to beat: Your client's head break from building failure in an earthquake zone, you "lose" your own head.

 

[ThomasH]

Well, I certainly hope I don't loose my head because of this project. The would certainly ruin the holiday.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

Sounds like a wind problem - primarily.

Remember local codes often supersede the "national" building code for that area or nation.

For example, Southern Florida has wind loads up to about 150 mph - where San Diego is 85 - I think!!

Your question is a bit all consuming and somewhat vague.

What controls your current design: Wind, Snow, Seismic or whatever??

Find the worse places in the world and cover each one and you might have a good answer - albeit - probably rather expensive.

 

[TLHS]

You might be able to step around some extreme cases if you're talking about a short term installation that the owners have a fairly good level of control over. If you get your design snow event you can make sure the roof gets cleared. If you know there's a hurricane coming you can refrain from building the damn thing until it's clear and that sort of thing. Your risk is fairly small if you're spending a few weeks in the worst case wind or seismic zone. If it's considered an acceptable risk to have a building erected for 40 or 50 years with an environmental load of some return period you should have a similar risk if you're there for six weeks and design to a shorter return period.

The problem will be convincing local authorities. Honestly, though, that's going to be difficult anyway. You're going to have to meet loading requirements, material requirements, and detailing requirements of your different jurisdictions. I'm betting that may actually be impossible, as there are probably contradictory requirements in various codes. It's going to be a hell of an undertaking.

Good luck

Also, this is vaguely topical and was an interesting read for me:

http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=833

 

[dhengr]

You haven’t really answered this question..., are you going to design and build a few of these and ship them from site to site, maybe one for the US and another for the EU, or are you going to build a new structure at each location? The latter case may be more complicated since you will truly be starting from scratch with the prevailing code and local materials, likely slightly differing each time. In either case, I suspect you will have to present (want to) present a clean and clear permitting package for each location. Maybe you want to come up with a pretty clean structural system and assembly procedure, and then do a good job of modeling them in a way that you can change a few loads and re-run your analysis for each permitting package, just to check your design. Regarding the fact that the structure will only be in one location for a couple months, maybe you should talk with your insurer (your E&O and the structure’s insurer) about designing for worst wind and EQ if you would have some control over when this would be in place in a max. snow or hurricane prone area, etc. From what I have read about the failures of some of these structures, good control of the erection process, with knowledgeable supervision and inspection as part of the whole structural package are essential. Also, some control over when the structure/area should be evacuated when bad weather is imminent; the show does not have to go on if dozens of people could be harmed.