Australian Standards 2

[nuche1973]

Greetings all,
I am working on a series of structures using the Australian Standards. Since this is my first exposure to this "code". What if any similarities exist between these standards and IBC2006? I am designing structural steel support frames and need input on how to approach the wind and seismic calculations. I am assuming that if I follow the design procedure outlined in IBC 2006 I may be close. The firm I work for does not have a copy of the AS. Any help or suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

 

[hokie66]

There would be some similarities, but I doubt there are many, although I have no knowledge of the IBC. If you are doing design to Australian Standards, you have to use them.

Wind and seismic loading is to AS/NZS 1170, and structural steel to AS 4100. There is a lot of getting up to speed ahead of you. May be best to partner with an Australian firm. If you don't even have a copy of the standards, you can't do the work.

 

[sdz]

Hokie66 is right.
I know enough of IBC to know there are substantial similarities and differences.
Either buy the standards and learn them, or hire me.

 

[youngstructural]

CCB1: I doubt you will be very close when relying on the IBC to work with AS standards... Most of all the regional wind speeds, etc, will be unavailable to you without the AS 1170 code.

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't the IBC Working Stress Loads? That would further complicate your job, since the AS standards are predominantly Limit States (split factor) Design.

Buy the codes, or seek out an Australian-local partner,
Good luck,

YS

B.Eng (Carleton)
Working in New Zealand, thinking of my snow covered home...

 

[hokie66]

CCB1,

If the job is in Australia, you will need an Australian registered engineer for verification and assumption of responsibility.

 

[apsix]

And in some (most?) states the engineer will need to be registered in the state where the structure is located.

 

[BigH]

The Aussie standards I have seen are very much more friendly and direct that US standards. Good for them! (especially material (soil, aggregate, etc) testing).

 

[gr2vessels]

CCB1,
Heloooooo!!??? Are you still alive????
Hope you're well, people around the world are trying to help you, please honour their effort to help you out....

 

[nuche1973]

gr2vessels,
yeah I'm here. I have to limit my time on "forum" sites, so I can't immediately respond to all the posts.

By reading the posts I see that in-order to work on a project in Australia, I need a copy of the AS sections that I am working in, and have to hire an Australian Engineer, correct? Which would be difficult for me, which leads me to verify the following: I've been told that a company in the US could design per IBC 2006, seal the calc's, and leave the issue of accptance to whomever reviews the calc's in another country, is that correct?

 

[csd72]

CCB1,

Ther is an Australian code forum for when you have more specific questions.

http://www.eng-tips.com/threadminder.cfm?pid=744

I have used both ASCE7 and AS1170 and I must say that there are some very fundamental differences.

The australian earthquake code is much simpler than the US ones as you can normally get away with a static equivalent.

Regarding wind, things are very different. Australian wind loads are not factored up like in the US, what you calculate is what you put into the equation.

The real complexity comes with the return period required, anything from 50 years for temporary works to 2000 years for post disaster utilities (such as hospitals). This return period effects your velocity directly.

Serviceability loads are also dictated by the return period which used to be 20 years but has since gone up I believe.

Another difference is in the way the code allows for local pressure. ASCE7 factors the overall pressures down whereas AS1170 calculates the overall pressures from the velocity and uses a factor between 1.5 to 3 for cladding to allow for local pressures.

In general though the use of AS1170 is very similar to ASCE7.

As for your last question, if I was your client I would refuse to pay you for that. Designing in US codes using US sections is a complete waste of time. The australian engineer would have to redesign everything.

This is no big deal, look at the australian standards site and get your company to purchase pdf copies of the standards and their commentaries (these are sold separately). For a few hundred bucks you will be able to download them. As people have said, you will need the relevant sections of AS1170 and as4100.

http://www.standards.org.au/

Also for Australian steel sections check out:

http://www.onesteel.com/

Getting used to a new code is always an interesting experience, it can make you question some things you previously took for granted. Good luck.

 

[nuche1973]

csd72, thanks I appreciate the information.

 

[csd72]

I forgot to mention about the registration, I expect that it is possible for you company to register with the relevant Australian state under a similar procedure to getting a pe licence.

Unlike many of the US states, I believe that most australian states honor the free trade agreement and will allow Americans access to registration.

Where is this building?

 

[apsix]

"I've been told that a company in the US could design per IBC 2006, seal the calc's, and leave the issue of accptance to whomever reviews the calc's in another country"

The 'International' in IBC does not have the normal meaning, it should be read as 'intra-national'.
Designing to it for an Australian building would be a futile exercise.

 

[nuche1973]

Thanks for the information.