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 cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
AS3600 - 2019 2nd Draft For Public Comment
- Thread starter rapt
- Start date
Link to AS drafts page.
[URL unfurl="true"]https://sapc.standards.org.au/sapc/public/listOpenCommentingPublication.action[/url]
[URL unfurl="true"]https://sapc.standards.org.au/sapc/public/listOpenCommentingPublication.action[/url]
For some reason Trenno's link doesn't list the new draft, but it's available at:
(pdf version is free).
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
(pdf version is free).
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
Settingsun
Structural
8.2.4.3 is wrong or have I misunderstood? [Edit: Checked against AS 5100.5. The AS 3600 draft is wrong as noted below.]
[ul]
[li]Commas missing before kv in both items (a) & (b)? [Tabs are missing cf AS 5100.5][/li]
[li]Upper limit of 1.10 in (a) should be a lower limit of... not sure, maybe 0.15 to match item (b)? [Upper limit should be 0.10 according to AS 5100.5][/li]
[/ul]
[I won't bother reporting this. I like to watch the world burn and surely someone will misinterpret the 1.10 limit as conservative at some stage.]
[ul]
[li]Commas missing before kv in both items (a) & (b)? [Tabs are missing cf AS 5100.5][/li]
[li]Upper limit of 1.10 in (a) should be a lower limit of... not sure, maybe 0.15 to match item (b)? [Upper limit should be 0.10 according to AS 5100.5][/li]
[/ul]
[I won't bother reporting this. I like to watch the world burn and surely someone will misinterpret the 1.10 limit as conservative at some stage.]
Settingsun
Structural
I've just gone straight to the shear sections because I was aware they were a major change, and this is pretty disappointing for a second public draft. It's just typos but so sloppy; might need to make a submission after all (or SAI could proof-read their drafts...)
[ul]
[li]8.2.4.2.1 items (a) and (b) are both listed as applying to Asv/S < Asv.min/S, whereas (b) should presumably be the greater-than-or-equal-to provision.[/li]
[li]8.2.4.2.1(a) items (i) and (ii)are both listed as applying to f'c <= 65 MPa, whereas (ii) should presumably be > 65 MPa.[/li]
[/ul]
On a technical note, it appears that the simplified one-way shear rules are very conservative for thin slabs. 0.10*sqrt(f'c) in the draft (once corrected) compared with 0.17*sqrt(f'c) which was previously accepted, eg AS5100.5-2004 and Warner et al 'Concrete Structures' textbook. I might request that the simplified rules include something specifically for slabs - probably just needs the old Beta.1 factor or similar.
[ul]
[li]8.2.4.2.1 items (a) and (b) are both listed as applying to Asv/S < Asv.min/S, whereas (b) should presumably be the greater-than-or-equal-to provision.[/li]
[li]8.2.4.2.1(a) items (i) and (ii)are both listed as applying to f'c <= 65 MPa, whereas (ii) should presumably be > 65 MPa.[/li]
[/ul]
On a technical note, it appears that the simplified one-way shear rules are very conservative for thin slabs. 0.10*sqrt(f'c) in the draft (once corrected) compared with 0.17*sqrt(f'c) which was previously accepted, eg AS5100.5-2004 and Warner et al 'Concrete Structures' textbook. I might request that the simplified rules include something specifically for slabs - probably just needs the old Beta.1 factor or similar.
- Thread starter
- #9
steveh49,
You should try being on the committee! There other recently introduced errors in those areas that you have not picked up as well, and they were correct in the last draft I saw early Feb. Somehow they were changed in the interim by the ghosts!
You should try being on the committee! There other recently introduced errors in those areas that you have not picked up as well, and they were correct in the last draft I saw early Feb. Somehow they were changed in the interim by the ghosts!
- Thread starter
- #10
Toby43, what happens when you click on?:
Also you could try going through Standards Australia:
If you want to comment you will need to go to the Standards Australia site, and register if you haven't before.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
Also you could try going through Standards Australia:
If you want to comment you will need to go to the Standards Australia site, and register if you haven't before.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
The code isn't listed on the Standards Australia list of open drafts. It only lists drafts that can be commented on using that list. As it explains AS3600 must have a different way to submit comments, as described in the document. It looks like you have to get it through the store which isn't free for me.
The link to Standards Australia below (and in my post yesterday) is to the comments page for AS 3600:
It has a button which links to the SAI Global store where the pdf is available for free download (at least in Australia). It also has a paper copy available for sale at $85.
I don't know why it isn't listed on the AS general list of documents open for comment; perhaps because its supposed to be close to the final document to be published in the near future.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
It has a button which links to the SAI Global store where the pdf is available for free download (at least in Australia). It also has a paper copy available for sale at $85.
I don't know why it isn't listed on the AS general list of documents open for comment; perhaps because its supposed to be close to the final document to be published in the near future.
Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
- Thread starter
- #17
Note the change in Clause 13.1.2.4. The use of development length to develop less than the yield strength should only in regions where full yield strength is not required. Thus, in potential hinge forming regions, one should not use development length to develop less than yield. This is to ensure that concrete structures have sufficient ductility at collapse since bond failure (before reaching yield) is brittle and sudden. AS 5100.5 will need to follow this. AS 5100.5 will need to be changed to follow this.
Correction was made to clauses 8.2.7.1(1) and 8.2.7.1(2) in the most recent draft. The missing strength reduction factor phi was added before V_us. The missing gamma_p was added before P_v. phi and gamma_p are also missing in the current version of AS5100.5-2017. That has to be corrected.
- Thread starter
- #20
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question