Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here


AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011

AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011

AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011

New additions have been released in case you didn't receive notification from SAI (like me).  

RE: AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011

What do you think of the new revisions?

RE: AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011

Hi kikflip

I haven't had a good oportunity to look through the codes yet but initial impressions are:

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.


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?

RE: AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011

AS1170.2 also specifically spells out a 0.9 kc factor for windward+ leeward combination

RE: AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011


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.

RE: AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011

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?

RE: AS2870 and AS1170.2 - 2011

Yes, I can see that this is going to cause issues, particularly for overhanging corners.

It would be interesting to see the statistical justification for this in the commentary.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close