Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations TugboatEng on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
AS 2870 vs NCC 1
- Thread starter LiamJS
- Start date
I think you would need to clarify some of the statements. Some of your conclusion contradicts the quotes from the NCC, or needs further clarification to support the conclusions.
Only the performance requirements are mandatory. There are multiple ways of demonstrating compliance with the performance requirements, one of which is AS2870 in the deemed-to-satisfy provisions. This does not mean that AS2870 is the only method of demonstrating compliance.
What does "legally binding Deemed-to-Satisfy" mean? The deemed-to-satisfy options are not legally binding unless I'm missing something.
Only the performance requirements are mandatory. There are multiple ways of demonstrating compliance with the performance requirements, one of which is AS2870 in the deemed-to-satisfy provisions. This does not mean that AS2870 is the only method of demonstrating compliance.
Is there a direct quote from the NCC that says this?
Can you clarify what this means? An expert can show that a solution "is at least equivalent to the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions." The expert would not need to override anything.
This general discussion is a really interesting discussing. Unfortunately most Australian engineers (myself included) have quite limited idea on how exactly the law applies to them and I doubt that most involved in the whole approval process have a good understanding either. It likely isn't until you get into the court room or in front of a disciplinary board that you start dealing with those who have a proper understanding.
In my (somewhat naive understanding), us engineers can get away with almost anything we want if we we can back it up from a performance perspective. Though when it comes to residential design, things are often so prescriptive that engineers could get trapped by a design that performs perfectly adequately for all relevant loads, but doesn't perform in the same manner as the prescribed design.
I do plenty of work where there exists no appropriate Australian standards or where the relevant structural standard has been withdrawn and not replaced. So I'm used to playing in the wild west of engineering. But in some ways it is easier as structural performance is what matters rather than following "THE" rule book.
In my (somewhat naive understanding), us engineers can get away with almost anything we want if we we can back it up from a performance perspective. Though when it comes to residential design, things are often so prescriptive that engineers could get trapped by a design that performs perfectly adequately for all relevant loads, but doesn't perform in the same manner as the prescribed design.
I do plenty of work where there exists no appropriate Australian standards or where the relevant structural standard has been withdrawn and not replaced. So I'm used to playing in the wild west of engineering. But in some ways it is easier as structural performance is what matters rather than following "THE" rule book.
rowingengineer
Structural
Lots of interesting statements, and so many different ways for you to be reviewed (in Qld, qbbc, rpeq, small claims, courts to name a few).
I do hope in Queensland that everyone who is designing footing for houses is using as2870 or a higher order analysis as referenced in the code, as the qbbc insurance starts here. In qld the building code is a seperate area to the qbcc code so is very grey area as to which one is more appropriate, so expert opinion will hold heavy sway, around expected performance.
Technically every builder should ensure that the engineer uses this standard, but I think you could argue that the engineer should know it is standard practice in Qld for class 1a buildings..... However since when do engineers make good lawyers.
I do hope in Queensland that everyone who is designing footing for houses is using as2870 or a higher order analysis as referenced in the code, as the qbbc insurance starts here. In qld the building code is a seperate area to the qbcc code so is very grey area as to which one is more appropriate, so expert opinion will hold heavy sway, around expected performance.
Technically every builder should ensure that the engineer uses this standard, but I think you could argue that the engineer should know it is standard practice in Qld for class 1a buildings..... However since when do engineers make good lawyers.
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
