DCB 60 To DCB 78

17-19 Gladding Place
Manukau City
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City, New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885
Fax: +64-9-262 2856
Email: structural@hera.org.nz
No. 60 February 2001

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the The procedure detailed herein has been the subject of
beginning of the article. review by a number of people following its presentation in
draft form at a series of seminars. The effort and input of
these reviews is greatly appreciated.
Introduction
In This Issue Page
This issue presents a detailed design procedure Design of Multi-Storey Steel Framed 1
for the design of multi-storey steel framed Buildings with Unprotected
buildings with unprotected secondary beams or Secondary Beams or Joists for
joists for dependable inelastic response in severe Dependable Inelastic Response in
fires. The publication of this procedure was Severe Fires
foreshadowed in DCB Issue No. 59, which 15
presented the results of a programme of research References
designed to provide some of the input parameters 17
Figures 60.7 to 60.19
for this new and innovative design method.
Appendix A 28
The design method presented herein is based on
the concept of floor slab panel tension membrane
response [1] developed by the UK Building Design of Multi-Storey Steel
Research Establishment and formulated into a
procedure for UK application [2,3]. In formulating
Framed Buildings With
the procedure [1] for New Zealand use, its scope Unprotected Secondary Beams
of application has been widened and simplified or Joists for Dependable
from that in [2,3], however its aim is to generate a
building response in fire that will meet or exceed Inelastic Response in Severe
the provisions of the NZBC [4] for fire safety and Fires
the performance inherent in any design to the BIA
Approved Document for Fire Safety [5]. This article and design procedure has been written by
G Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer, with the
The length of this procedure and the supporting assistance of Manfred Hinderhofer and Robert Schmid,
Undergraduate Students from the FH Ravensburg –
documentation is such that this is the only article Weingarten on Study Leave at HERA.
in this issue. The next issue planned will cover
topics other than fire engineering!
1. Introduction and Scope
Subject Index for 2000 and Prior Issues 1.1 General background
A hard copy index, covering the six issues for This article presents the Slab Panel Fire
2000, is published with this issue. This index has Emergency Design Procedure, which allows for
been prepared by the Manager of the HERA the use of unprotected secondary beams or joists
Information Centre, Eleonore Bentley. supporting concrete floor slabs and exposed to
severe fire conditions. It is written for application
The same details and the index for all prior issues to multi-storey steel framed buildings subject to
can be found on the HERA web site, at: high fire severity, typical of that possible in open
www.hera.org.nz. plan office and commercial buildings which are
Fire Hazard Category (FHC) 2 or 3. (FHC is as
Access the web site at the above address and defined in Comment to Paragraph 2.2 of [5]).
follow the instructions to go to:
The Slab Panel design procedure is
Services – Information Publications – SDCB
fundamentally different in philosophy and
Index.
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 60, February 2001
procedure to fire engineering design provisions 2. Basis of Slab Panel Design Procedure
currently used on steel framed buildings in New
Zealand. This is because the procedure is written 2.1 General
for application to buildings subject to potential Under ambient temperature conditions, the beams
high fire severity (FHC 2 or 3 to C/AS1 [5]), in support the floor slab. For example, with
which any unprotected steel members may be reference to Fig. 60.7 on page 17 herein, the load
subjected to considerable inelastic demand in the path involved in resisting dead and live loads
event of fully developed fire. The extent of this under ambient temperature conditions is:
inelastic demand is anticipated and a dependable
proportion of the additional reserve of strength Slab → secondary beams → primary beams →
available from the building when undergoing this columns (1)
deformation is incorporated into the procedure.
The procedure is also written around the Under severe fire conditions, when the secondary
temperatures that unprotected steel beams can interior beams are unprotected, they lose most of
realistically reach in fully developed FHC 2 and their strength, such that the ambient temperature
3 fires. load path in equation (1) cannot be maintained.
As a result, the beams form plastic hinges and the
The first draft of this procedure was presented at load-carrying mechanism changes to a two-way
a seminar series in three venues in March 2001. system. This is illustrated in Fig. 59.4, DCB Issue
From these seminars, valuable feedback has No. 59, for the case of a single secondary beam
been obtained and the changes arising from that supporting its tributary area of slab.
consultation period are incorporated into the
details presented herein. These details therefore Under severe fire conditions incorporating
supersede the draft provisions presented in unprotected secondary beams, two-way action
session 2 of those seminars, ie. session 2 of prevails, involving the region of slab and
HERA Report R4-105 [32]. unprotected secondary beams known as a slab
panel.
While a considerable number of publications are
referenced in this procedure, when it comes to the The slab panel resists applied load by two-way
application the procedure is written in such a way action back to the supports, through a load path
that it can be applied in accordance with involving:
publications commonly available to a structural or
fire design engineer. Slab panel → supporting beams →columns (2)
1.2 Scope and content This is illustrated in Fig. 60.7. The same concept
The basis of the design procedure is presented in is applicable to Speedfloor systems, as shown in
section 2. The structural performance that will be Fig. 60.8.
delivered by the procedure is described in
section 3. The slab panel develops its load-carrying capacity
The procedure is only currently applicable to in the deformed state through:
buildings with certain structural characteristics, • Yieldline moment action, plus
which are described in section 4. As with any • Tensile membrane enhancement
procedure written around providing dependable
inelastic behavior, the detailing is as important as The loads transferred from the slab panel into the
the design and the detailing requirements are supporting beams (ie. as shown in Figs. 60.7,
presented in section 5. 60.8) must be resisted by those supporting beams
and transferred back to the columns.
Maintaining effective compartmentation is covered
in section 6, while controlling the onset of The basis of the design procedure – elaborating
structural damage is outlined in section 7. Section on these points – is now briefly covered.
8 presents a design example, section 9 gives
pointers on application of the procedure for 2.2 Basis of design procedure
maximum cost effectiveness. This is followed by
2.2.1 Slab panel behaviour
acknowledgments, in section 10.
(1) Development of yieldline capacity
Following the acknowledgments are the
references and the figures relating to application When the unprotected secondary beams lose
of the procedure. strength in severe fire conditions, the slab panel
begins to deform. Under only moderate
The detailed steps of the procedure are presented deformation, the yieldline capacity is developed.
in Appendix A, with a commentary to these steps This is associated with plastic moment formation
concluding this Bulletin. along a pattern of yieldlines, the shape and extent
of which depend on the positive moment capacity
which can be developed within the slab panel in typically around Lx/100, where Lx = slab panel
each direction and the negative moments which width (Fig. 60.9).
can be developed across any fixed supports.
The ultimate load-carrying capacity of the slab
The general pattern of yieldlines in a rectangular panel continues to increse under increasing panel
slab with all edges supported vertically is shown in deformation. This was graphically observed in the
Fig. 60.15; the pattern of positive and negative Cardington enclosure tests. A mechanism to
moment yieldlines within a slab panel is shown in explain and quantify this enhancement (termed
Figs. 60.7, 60.8, 60.9. the tensile membrane enhancement) has been
developed by Bailey [1], based on the Cardington
The development of the yieldline moment capacity fire tests and confirmed by a full-size, ambient
(kNm/m length) follows conventional reinforced temperature test [9].
concrete practice, as described in [19]. All
components which can dependably contribute to When a slab panel is loaded or deformed to
developing internal tension across a yieldline are failure, the failure mode – conservatively – occurs
included. This calculation is undertaken for the through the development of a central crack across
two directions (x and y) seperately. The elevated the slab panel width, as shown in Fig. 60.1. The
temperature of each component must be crack, shown there as occurring along the line EF,
determined and the appropriate material strength in practice does not extend to the outer edges of
used. the slab panel, where the concrete is in
compression [9].
In the x-direction (ie. calculation of mx), the
positive moment is developed by the mesh and The in-plane axial forces within part of the
unprotected secondary beam elements (top slab panel (one half of element 1) are shown in
flange, web and bottom flange), as shown in Fig. Fig. 60.2. By taking moments about point E and
60.18. The tension contribution from the equating internal and external work, Bailey [1] has
unprotected secondary beam elements are small, developed an expression for the magnitude of
because of their high temperatures, however their axial force developed immediately prior to
moment contribution is significantly greater than formation of the central crack. This allows the
the mesh, because of the large lever arm. For the magnitude and pattern of these forces to be
secondary beams to contribute in this manner, determined and the extent of tensile membrane
they must be connected to the slab with sufficient enhancement to be determined.
shear studs so that slip at the slab and beam
interface is effectively eliminated under severe fire This enhancement arises from two sources. The
conditions. This requires use of shear studs, to first is the influence of the in-plane axial forces on
the extent given in the second paragraph of the yieldline moments. When determining the
section 4.2 herein. moment capacity (mx, my), the slab panel is
always lightly reinforced – ie. the moment is
In the y-direction, the positive moment is governed by the internal tension force that can be
developed by the mesh and the deck trough bars; developed across the yieldline (see Fig. 60.18).
these are shown in Fig. 60.10. The decking This is the case even with secondary beam
spans in the y-direction but is not included in contribution included. It follows that, if a length of
determination of my. This is because the decking yieldline is in a region of in-plane compression,
is laid in individual lengths, which are not able to the yieldline moment is enhanced; if in a region of
transfer tension force across the ends of adjacent tension, it is reduced. By summing the
sheets. Thus there isn’t a dependable tension contribution along all the yieldlines, the overall
load path through the decking, over the slab panel enhancement in yieldline moment capaicty
length, under normal conditions of deck laying and arising from the interaction of moment and axial
fixing. Its contribution is therefore ignored, load is determined. This is independent of the
however in practice it will contribute to some slab panel deflection.
extent to my.
The second source of enhancement comes from
The internal tension force for negative moment, the downwards vertical deflection of the slab
panel displacing the membrane tension force
m'x , over interior primary beams, is developed by relative to the supports, as shown in Fig. 60.3.
the interior support bars (Fig. 60.10). This provides moment enhancement due to P-∆
Having determined the yieldline moments, the effects, with the extent of enhancement
yieldline load carrying capacity is calculated using dependent on the magnitude of deflection and
equation 60.A21.1. The derivation of this sign of membrane force (tension enhances;
equation is given in [19]. compression detracts).
(2) Tensile membrane enhancement Bailey presents these enhancement factors

normalised to the positive moment capacities;
The extent of slab panel displacement needed to they are given herein as equations 60.A35 to
develop the yieldline capacity is relatively small; 60.A38 and are applied as detailed in Appendix A.
Fig. 60.1
Mode of Failure of a Slab panel Loaded into the Tensile Membrane Regime (from [1])
Fig. 60.2
In-Plane Axial Forces Within the Slab panel at the Time of Failure (from [1])
Note: The notation herein is that used in [1].
Fig. 60.3
Enhancement of Yieldline Moment Capacity Due to Displacement of Membrane Tension Force (from [1])
Note: This view is taken along the line EF.
An in-depth explanation of these factors is given • Mesh/steel/concrete materials and
in [1], along with the development of equations designations used are those for the UK
60.A22.1 to 60.A42. Where changes have been • The effect of elevated temperature on the
made in adapting the procedure to New Zealand material strengths is ignored.
application, the reasons for these changes are
given in the commentary to Appendix A. Work is currently underway in the UK to produce a
revised procedure that has a wider scope of
2.2.2 Design of supporting beams and application.
columns
The supporting beams are shown in Figs. 60.7, 2.3.2 New Zealand application
60.8 and comprise: The procedure presented herein has been
developed from first principles using the Bailey
• Primary interior beams method [1] rather than adapting the UK
• Primary edge beams application.
• Secondary edge beams
In the report on the ambient temperature test,
Their design for severe fire conditions is given in Bailey notes some factors required to be
section A6 of Appendix A and illustrated in section considered for general application of the slab
8.5. The load transfer from slab panel into these panel method. These are [9];
supporting beams depends on the pattern of
yieldline development. (i) Elevated temperatures of components near
the fire-exposed face need determination,
The supporting columns are also shown in Figs. for general application, to account for
60.7, 60.8. They are protected from direct fire expected strength loss of materials which
exposure. Their design for severe fire conditions are at high temperatures.
is given in section A7 of Appendix A and
illustrated in section 8.6. (ii) High temperature shear capacity at the slab
panel supports needs to be determined.
2.2.3 Temperatures reached in crticial
components (iii) Detailing for effective force transfer and
As previously stated, this is a design procedure integrity at supports needs to be
written for application under severe fire conditions, considered, especially under conditions of
where temperatures in all components are high structural fire severity.
typically sufficiently high to reduce the ambient
The initial application of the UK procedure puts
temperature mechanical properties of the steel
conservative restrictions on its use to avoid these
and concrete. It is therefore important to
factors exerting significant influence, rather than
determine appropriate temperatures reached and
directly taking them into account.
the influence of those temperatures.
The New Zealand application of the UK
This is undertaken as detailed in Appendix A, procedure, as developed herein, addresses these
which also refers back to DCB Issue No. 59 for a factors directly and thus permits a wider range of
background to the slab reinforcement and application. It extends the methodology to:
concrete temperature determination.
• High structural fire severity (FHC 2 and 3)
2.3 Application of slab panel design
• No explicit limitation on slab panel size
methodology
(limitations are implicitly imposed by the
method)
2.3.1 UK application
The first application of this procedure [1, 9] has • Contribution of secondary beams to slab
panel moment capacity is included
been developed by the UK Steel Construction
Institute; details are given in SCI Publication • Contribution to slab panel moment capacity
P288 [2]. of slab reinforcement that is additional to
the mesh is included
The UK application is limited in scope to: • Design of all components takes account of
their elevated temperature
• Moderate levels of structural fire severity • Shear capacity at elevated temperature is
(60 minutes maximum time equivalent) checked
• Maximum panel dimension of 9m (being the • Slab reinforcement and detailing provisions
secondary beam span in [17]) are included
• Only some secondary beams are allowed to
be unprotected Some of the recommendations from P288 [2]
relating to compartmentation are directly relevant
• The secondary beam contribution is ignored
to New Zealand and are referenced herein.
3. Structural Performance to be Delivered 4. Building Structure Characteristics
by Procedure Required for Implementation of Slab
panel Design Procedure
3.1 Under severe fire conditions
The structural performance that will be delivered 4.1 Floor slabs
by this procedure, in the event of fully developed Floor slab characteristics required are;
fire conditions, is as follows: (1) Concrete is normal weight, (NWC)
(1) Slab and unprotected secondary beams f c' ≥ 20 MPa.
may undergo appreciable permanent
deformation. The procedure is readily expandable to light
weight concrete (LWC); guidance on
The maximum extent of this is described in determining component temperatures for
section 2.2 of DCB Issue No. 59 and shown some of the slab panel components using
in Fig. 59.2 therein. In practice, the LWC floor slabs is already included in
inelastic demand would usually be less, for Appendix A.
the following reasons:
(2) Mesh reinforcement
• Lower fire load
• Presence of shielding linings • Hard-drawn wire mesh to NZS 3421 [24]
• Non-fire rated enclosures reducing the can only be used if the pitch of the mesh
fire size bars is 300mm; mesh with lesser pitches
• Fire service intervention do not have the ductility required
• Mesh formed from welded grade 430
(2) Support beams and columns will undergo bars to NZS 3402 [26] must be used
minimum permanent deformation where the area of mesh required is such
that the required bar pitch < 300mm.
(3) Load-carrying capacity and integrity of the Plain or deformed bars may be used for
floor system will be preserved. this mesh, plain bars are easier to weld
into mesh.
(4) Insulation requirements will be met for at • Position, covers are as specified in
least the F rating times specified by C/AS1 Appendix A.
[5].
(3) Bar reinforcement
(5) Local and global collapse will be
dependably prevented. • Grade 430 deformed bar reinforcement
to [26]
In practice, structural repair and reinstatement of • Position, covers are as specified in
a steel building designed to this method will be Appendix A.
almost as straightforward as that for a building
with all floor support beams protected, based on 4.2 Steel beams/joists
experience from actual fires in modern, multi- Typically all steel beams will be composite with
storey framed buildings. the floor slab.
3.2 Maintaining effective compartmentation If these beams are not composite, then shear
Effective compartmentation will be maintained, studs to NZS 3404 Clause 13.3.2.3(h) are
both between floors and between firecells on the required; ie. maximum stud spacing at 4xslab
same floor. The former is a consequence of the thickness.
floor system performance that will be dependably
delivered by this procedure. The latter may Hot-rolled beams, welded beams, Speedfloor
require special detailing and is covered in Joists, beams with web openings are all suitable.
section 6. However, see commentary section CA4.2.1 for
guidance where the unprotected secondary
3.3 Suppression of structural damage beams are either of non-uniform cross section or
Although this slab panel design procedure contain web openings.
anticipates and allows for significant floor system
deformation and associated structural damage, See section A6 of Appendix A for the extent of
this can be minimised through: protection required to the supporting beams.
• Shielding linings (limited effectiveness) The design structural fire severity (FRR) to use for
• Sprinkler protection (extremely effective) supporting beams, when determining the extent of
passive fire protection required in accordance with
This is covered further in section 7. section A6.2 Step 3 Option 3.1, is given by:
• FRR = 1.0 teq for beams with Tl < 700oC These systems will therefore retain their integrity
• FRR = 0.8 teq for beams with Tl ≥ 700oC under severe fire conditions.
See DCB Issue No. 59 for the background to All gravity system columns will be protected and
these recommendations. hence subject to negligible inelastic demand in
fire.
4.3 Columns
Bare steel columns are required to be passive Thus local and global structural stability will be
protected full height. The limiting temperature to retained throughout the fire.
use and the FRR to apply are given in section 7.5
of DCB Issue No. 59; see page 25 therein. 5. Detailing Requirements for Use With
Procedure
For design of concrete-filled structural hollow As with any system designed to deliver a
section columns, refer to section 7.6 of DCB Issue dependable level of inelastic response, the
No. 59. detailing is as important as the design.
4.4 Connections (1) This especially relates to the floor slab,

where:
4.4.1 Connections to unprotected secondary
beams • Decking must be fastened to beams
to NZS 3404 Clause 13.3.2.4
Connections between unprotected secondary
beams and primary beams or columns are • Mesh must be lapped to NZS 3101
subjected to significant inelastic rotation up to the Clause 7.3.21
maximum temperature, then are subject to tension • Bars must be lapped to NZS 3101
force during the cooling phase. This is described Clause 7.3.17
in more detail on pages 11, 12 of DCB Issue No. • See Figs. 60.10 to 60.14 for detailing
54 and illustrated in, for example, [36]. These of reinforcement
connections must be designed and detailed to • Covers are important and must be
retain their integrity during both the healing and placed as specified in Appendix A.
the cooling phases.
(2) When passive fire protection is specified, it
These requirements are similar to the severe must be placed as specified, especially:
earthquake requirement to retain integrity under
seismic-generated inelastic rotation demand. The • Full length of beams
same design and detailing concepts should be • Full height of columns.
used. All the connections given in HERA Report
R4-100 [6] will be suitable in this regard. (3) When unprotected concrete-filled structural
hollow section columns are used
4.4.2 Connections to supporting beams
These will be subjected to lower rotation and axial • FRR is provided to DCB Issue No.
force demands from fire, either because the 58, pp 25-30, and the Canadian
beams are protected or because they possess a method referenced from that DCB
very high reserve of strength. However, they will • For protected beams to these
typically be connections between supporting columns, treat the connection region
beams and columns (eg as shown in Figs 60.7, as shown in DCB Issue No. 42, Fig.
60.8) and therefore subject to earthquake design 42.2, by running the passive
and detailing requirements. These will cover the protection over the column within the
fire condition. depth of the connection region.
Once again, connections given in [6] are suitable. 6. Maintaining Effective Compartmentation
4.5 Overall structural stability 6.1 Floor to floor compartmentation

The slab panel design procedure is applicable to This is covered by the slab panel design
all structural systems. There are no specific procedure, which will ensure that the floors
limitations on type or position of lateral load- function as fire separations throughout the fire.
resisting system elements imposed by the use of
this method. 6.2 Compartmentation between firecells on
the same floor
Lateral load-resisting systems will have protected Fire separating walls on the same floor must cope
columns, which will therefore be subject to with the expected slab panel deformations.
negligible inelastic demand in fire, and either There are two cases to consider; walls located
protected beams or beams with a very high under slab panel support beams and walls located
reserve of strength in severe fire conditions. within the slab panel.
6.2.1 Compartment walls under slab panel The deflection allowance recommended from [2]
support beams is for Lx/30 over the middle half of the slab panel,
These beams will not deform more than is reducing linearly to zero at the supports. Apply
expected from a conventionally protected beam this also in the y-direction.
and no special detailing is required, as shown in
Fig. 60.4. Deformable fire rated systems are available, as
they are needed to maintain fire resistance across
seismic gaps. Contact HERA for details of
systems and suppliers, if required.
7. Controlling The Onset of Structural

Damage From Severe Fire
The slab panel design method anticipates

inelastic floor system behaviour under fully
developed fire conditions and controls the pattern
and extent of this behaviour so that structural
repairs can be readily undertaken.
There are, however, two ways of minimising this

demand and these are very briefly given in section
7.1 and 7.2.
7.1 Sprinkler protection

This is the preferred method; it suppresses
structural damage by suppressing full fire
Fig. 60.4 development.
Compartment Walls Below Slab Panel Support
Beams (detail from [2]) The annual probability of fully developed fire
occurrence in a sprinklered multi-storey building of
Insulation requirements must be fulfilled and voids the type for which this procedure has been written
and service penetrations must be fire stopped. has been assessed by Feeney [18]. It is
extremely low, as shown by the following
Beams protected with intumescent coatings comparisons:
require additional insulation because the
temperature on the non-fire side is likely to • Annual probability full fire development, no
exceed the temperature rise associated with earthquake, sprinkler failure, is 1.2 x 10-5
meeting the insulation criteria. • Annual probability full fire development
following earthquake, sprinkler failure, is
6.2.2 Compartment walls within the slab panel 1 x 10-4
region • Compare with annual probability of severe
These must be detailed to accommodate the earthquake, which is 2.2 x 10-3.
expected slab panel deformation. A deformable
blanket with the necessary fire resistance Sprinkler protection also brings many other
(stability, insulation) must be used, as shown in benefits with regard to life safety and property
Fig. 60.5. protection.
7.2 Shielding of the beams by non-fire-rated

ceilings
Fig. 60.5 The annual probability of a fully developed fire in a
non sprinklered, multi-storey building of the type
for which this procedure has been written has
been assessed [18] as 6.6 x 10 -3. Thus it is
statistically more likely than a severe earthquake.
Shielding does not suppress full fire development;

it only provides a radiation barrier for a limited
period of time. This shields the beams above the
barrier from the fire generated radiation below.
Provided that the shielding system remains in
Compartment Walls Within Slab Panel Region place for the period of high fire temperatures, it
(detail from [2]) will keep the temperatures of unprotected beams
above the barrier much lower than they would
otherwise be, with correspondingly lower floor • Design of the columns for the fire emergency
system deformation. This has been graphically condition is given in section 8.6
illustrated in Australian natural fire tasks, eg [33], • The overall outcome is summarised in section
on well ventilated enclosures with fire loads 8.7
corresponding to FHC 2 and FHC 3.
The design example uses the procedure given in
The effectiveness of shielding linings is very Appendix A. The results of applying each
dependent on the system used. For small fire equation is given.
cells, moderate structural fire severity fire loads
(FHC 1), moderate to high levels of ventilation and 8.2 Input data
fixed linings, the system is very effective. It is
routinely used in FED in such applications, eg. as 8.2.1 General
described in [21]. This is shown in Table 60.1 on page 11. This
table is a simplified copy of the input table from
For high structural fire severity fire loads the program [34] we have developed; a copy of
(FHC 2, 3) shielding linings will only be effective which is available free-of-charge on a “use at your
when the fire is of short duration. This requires own risk basis” from HERA.
small enclosures or high ventilation. In such
instances, in non-sprinklered buildings, the slab The applied load, w*, comprises:
panel method in conjunction with a non-fire rated
ceiling system would provide a suitable • Slab dead load, including ponding = 2.46 kPa
combination of dependable structural response • Superimposed dead load = 0.5 kPa
(through the slab panel procedure) and • Self-weight of secondary beams = 0.21 kPa
reasonable suppression of structural damage • Long term live load = 0.4 x 3.5 = 1.4 kPa
(through the ceiling system).
• Total load, w* = 4.57kPa
Selection of a ceiling system should be to section
5.12 of HERA Report R4-90-DD-Rev 2 [12]. 8.2.2 Design structural fire severity
(section A3.2)
8 Design Example teq = ef kb wf = 68 mins (60.1)
ef = 800 MJ/m2 floor area
8.1 General description and scope of kb = 0.065 (see Table 51.1; DCB
example Issue No. 51)
The floor system used in this design example is wf = function of (H and A v/Af)
shown in Fig. 60.6. It is from an actual 17 storey = 1.31
building, previously used in our fire research H = 3.7m
programme, more details of which are given in A v/Af = 37.5/300 = 0.125
DCB Issue No. 48.
This is calculated as described in section 7.2 of
The building was built in 1988 using Grade 250 DCB Issue No. 59.
steel for the floor support beams. For the
purposes of this example, the floor beams have 8.3 Temperature and mechanical properties
been re-sized, using Grade 300 members, to give of slab panel components
smaller member sizes likely to be used in a
current design. The dimensions, layout of the 8.3.1 Mesh within the slab (section A4.1.1)
structural systems (seismic and gravity) have not FRR mesh = 0.8 teq = 54 mins
been altered. u3,mesh = 2 x 93 − 120 − 30 − 7.5 = 28.5mm
u1,mesh = u2,mesh = 40.3mm
The ratio of (Av/Af) for this building in practice is γ = 1.99
0.2; in this design example it has been reduced to Cs,θ = 1125
0.125 to illustrate application to a higher structural θs,mesh = 428oC
fire severity (teq). Mesh is cold-formed, to NZS 3421 [24]
fyrθ/fyr20 = 0.94 (equations 60.A6.1 and 60.A6.2)
The scope of this design example is as follows: fyrθ,mesh = 454 MPa
• Input data is given in section 8.2 8.3.2 Interior support bars (section A4.1.2)
• Calculation of the temperatures of components FRRisb = 54 mins
is given in section 8.3 θs,isb = 358oC
• Checking the design adequacy of the slab fyrθ,isb = 420 MPa (equation 60.A6.6)
panel is covered in section 8.4
• Design of two of the supporting beams for the 8.3.3 Deck trough bars (section A4.1.3)
fire emergency condition is given in section 8.5 FRRdtb = 54 mins
θs,dtb = 221oC
fyrθ,dtb = 430 MPa (equation 60.A6.5)
Fig 60.6
Reflected Floor Plan of Telecom Towers Building, Showing Slab panel Used in Design Example
8.3.4 Secondary beam elements (section 8.4 Design adequacy of slab panel
A4.1.5)
The temperature and the reduction in ambient 8.4.1 Yieldline load-carrying capacity of slab
temperature yield stress is given by Tables 60.2 panel
and 60.3, respectively, for FHC 2 and NWC.
(1) Determination of mx (section A4.2.1(1))
8.3.5 Secondary beam connections; bolts and
web (section A4.1.6) Rtsx,mesh = 66.9 kN/m
θf = θs,web,connection = 750oC Rtsbx,tf = 35.2 kN/m
(see Table 60.2) Rtsbx,w = 24.3 kN/m
fufθ/fuf = 0.130 (equation 60.A9) Rtsbx,bf = 17.6 kN/m
Rtsx,total = 144.0 kN/m
erx = 155mm
ax = 8.5mm
mx = 21.7 kNm/m
Table 60.1
Input Data for Fire Example
Fire Data
Fire Hazard Category FHC2
Time equivalent
Inside hight of firecell, H 3.7 m
Area of vertical openings, Av 37.5 m2 Time equivalent, teq 70 min
2
Floor area of firecell, Af 300 m
Thermal inertra for firecell, b 1700 J/m2s0.5K
Slab Dimensions Slab mesh reinforcement and concrete strength
Lx 8.9 m fyr20,mesh 485 MPa

Lx2 8.9 m fc`20 20 MPa
Ly 20.5 m Concrete weight Normal
he,slab 93 mm Mesh cover, cmesh 30 mm
t0 120 mm bar spacing in x 300 mm
Slab edge conditions bar spacing in y 300 mm
bar diameter 7.5 mm
Side1 Fixed Emesh 200000 MPa
Decking profile Trapezoidal
Side3 Simple Mesh cold-worked or hot-formed Cold-worked
Slab reinforcement; interior support bars
Applied Load w* 4.57 kPa
fyr20,isb 430 MPa

bar diameter 12 mm Secondary beam input data
bar spacing 500 mm
Slab reinforcement; deck trough bars Spacing between the beams, S sb 2.56 m
Beam depth, d 352 mm
fyr20,dtb 430 MPa Beam flange width, bf 171 mm
Bar diameter 16 mm Beam flange thickness, tf 9.7 mm
Bar spacing 308 mm Beam web thickness, tw 6.9 mm
Covers for heat flow calculation
c1 60 mm Beam flange yield stress, fyfsb20 320 MPa
c2 60 mm Beam web yield stress, fywsb20 320 MPa
c3 40 mm
Secondary beam to primary beam connection Unreinforced web openings No
Ambient temperature design
No. of bolts in each secondary 3 shear capacity of beam, φVv 420 kN
beam to primary beam connection
Ambient temperature design shear 92.6 kN

capacity of bolt, φ Vfn
(3) Determination of m'x along side 1

(2) Determination of my (section A4.2.1(2))
(section A4.2.1(3))
Rtsy,mesh = 66.9 kN/m
(There is no negative moment along side 3,
Rtsy,dtb = 280.7 kN/m which is on the building edge)
Rtsy,total = 347.6 kN/m Rtsx,isb = 94.9 kN/m
ery = 65mm ecθ = 11mm
ay = 20.4mm m'x = 2.9 kNm/m
my = 19.2 kNm/m
(4) Calculation of yieldline load-carrying 8.4.8 Shear adequacy check (section A4.2.8)
capacity (section A4.2.1(4)) vu,slab Ssb + Vu,sb = 23.4 x 2.56 + 43.4
= 103.3 kN
wylθ = 3.68 kPa
X = 2.06 ; i1 = 0.13 ; i3 = 0 V* = 52.1kN < 103.3 kN √ OK
µs = 21.7/19.2 = 1.13
Shear capacity is adequate
8.4.2 Calculation of simply supported load-
carrying capacity (section A4.2.2) 8.5 Design of two supporting beams for the
wylθss = 3.50 kPa fire emergency condition
X = Y=2
This section covers the design of two of the slab
8.4.3 Limiting deflection of slab panel panel supporting beams. One is a primary interior
(section A4.2.3) beam, the other a secondary edge beam. The
∆1 = 881mm; ∆2 = 660mm first beam illustrates application of section A6.2
Step 3 Option 3.1 – ie. application of passive fire
∆max = min (∆1 ; ∆2) = 660mm protection. The second beam illustrates
application of section A6.2 Step 3 Option 3.2 – ie.
8.4.4 Determination of tensile membrane demonstrating an adequate reserve of strength
enhancement (section A4.2.4) without passive protection, using an elevated
L1 = 5.73m temperature capacity check.
a = 2.30
n = 0.28 8.5.1 Design of primary interior beam B3-C3
k = 1.98 This is a 530UB82 Grade 300 member, spanning
A = -2.01 8.2 metres. See Fig. 60.6. It is connected to the
B = 31.05 columns with WP (simple) connections, eg. to [6].
C = 17.43
D = 10.21 (1) Fire emergency design load, simply
b = 0.30 supported moment (section A6.2, step 1)
gox = 0.89 ; goy = 0.37 wu,pib = 0.5 x 4.57 (8.9 + 8.9) + 0.8
αx = 0.46 ; α y = 0.22 = 41.5 kN/m
βx = 0.03 ; βy = 0.18 (the 0.8 is the beam’s selfweight)
e1mx = 0.58 ; e2my = 0.09 ∗ wuL2

Mss = = 349 kNm
e1bx = 0.81 ; e2by = 1.02 8
e1 = 1.39 ; e2 = 1.03 ; e = 1.36 (2) Determination of rf (section A6.2, step 2(1))
wu = 4.93 kPa
∗
Mss 349
8.4.5 Check on moment/tension membrane rf = = = 0.38
adequacy (section A4.2.5) φfire Mpos 930
wu = 4.93 kPa > w* = 4.57 kPa √ OK
φMsx 558
Moment/tension membrane capacity is adequate Mpos ≈ 1.5 = 1.5 x = 930 kNm
φ 0.9
8.4.6 Shear capacity of slab panel (section
A4.2.6) (φMsx is obtained from published tables, eg.
(1) Shear capacity through the slab [20]. The 1.5 factor takes account of
composite action (see DCB Issue No. 2)).
vu,slab = 23.4 kN/m
φfire = 1.0 (NZS 3404 Amendment No. 1)
(2) Shear capacity through the secondary beam
to primary beam connection (3) Determination of Tl (section A6.2, step 2
(3))
Vu,sb-pb = 43.4 kN
Vu, vsb = 79.3 kN Tl = 905 – 690rf = 646 oC
Vu,sb = min (Vu,sb-pb; Vu,usb)= 43.4 kN As Tl > 550 oC, any of the passive fire
protection manufacturer’s published design
8.4.7 Design shear action (section A4.2.7) data can be used directly for determining
V* = 52.1 kN the product thickness required, as these will
have been derived for Tl ≥ 550oC.
(4) Selection of passive fire proection product (2) Determination of rf (section A6.2, step 2 (2))
Either a spray or board system should be ∗

Mss 41
used. Given that beams forming part of a =
φ fire Mpos + φfire Mneg 1.0 x 620 + 1.0 x 620
perimeter type seismic-resisting system are
unlikely to need passive protection in this = 0.03
building (this is confirmed for the MRF 558
beams in section 8.5.2), the number of Mneg = Msx (rigid connections) =
0.9
beams on each floor requiring passive = 620 kNm
protection is small. Therefore a board Mpos (conservatively take as non-
system will be selected in this instance. composite)
Gib Fireboard [35] is chosen in this = Msx = 620 kNm
instance. It is one of a range of board
systems available; see details of this range (3) Determination of Tl (section A6.2, step
in HERA Report R4-89 [13]. 2 (3))
(5) Determination of thickness, number of Tl = 905 – 690 rf = 882oC
layers required.
As the limiting temperature is very high, use
Hp/A for 530UB82, top flange shielded, box Step 3 Option 3.2 to perform an elevated
protection = 15.3 x 7.85 = 120m-1 temperature moment and shear capacity
(This is obtained from eg. [20]) check on the beam.
From Gib Fireboard catalogue [35]; (4) Determine the design elevated temperature
1 layer 20mm OK for 60 mins up to of the beam and connection components
Hp/A = 260m-1 (section A6.2, step 3.2.2).
1 layer 20mm OK for 90 mins up to
Hp/A = 112m-1 These are:
FRR = 1.0teq = 68 mins (see section 8.2.2) • For beam bottom flange and web
850 – 50 = 800oC
Limiting Hp/A for 68 mins • For beam top flange, 750 – 50 = 700oC
 90 − 68  • Connection components are not critical
=   (260 − 112) + 112 = 221m
-1
 90 − 60  in this instance, as the bolts and

endplate are within the protected region
Hp/Aactual = 120 < 221 √ OK of the column
Use 1 layer 20mm Gib Fireboard on this (5) Determine the design elevated temperature
beam. moment capacity of the beam (section
A6.2, step 3.2.3)
8.5.2 Design of secondary edge beam A4-A5
This is part of the moment-resisting frame fyθ/fy20, for 800oC = 0.110
seismic-resisting system along gridline A. See (see Tables 60.2 and 60.3)
Fig. 60.6. The member is a 530UB82 Grade 300,
spanning 4.45m, with MEP Category 3 Mneg, θ = Mpos, θ = Ms x 0.110 = 68.2 kNm
connections to [6] at each end. (The size is that (base on bottom flange temperature)
used in the original design, however the grade,
category and connection type have been changed (6) Determine moment capacity through a
to what would be more typically used under plastic collapse mechanism check (section
current design practice). A6.2, step 3.2.4)
(1) Fire emergency design load, simply (φfire Mposθ + (φfireMneg, θ) = 68.2 + 68.2
supported moment. = 136.4 kNm
∗
As seen in Fig. 60.6, the load from the slab Mss = 41 kNm < 136.4 kN, √ OK
panel is triangular, varying from zero at end
A5 to a maximum value of L1 w* = 5.73 x Beam has adequate moment capacity
4.57 = 26.2 kN at end A4. There is also a
line load of 3 kN/m from the cladding. (7) Check the elevated temperature shear
∗
Mss = 0.1283 WL + wc1 L2/8 = 41 kNm capacity (section A6.2, step 3.2.5).
Beams have rigid end connections; OK
W = 26.2 x 4.45/2 = 58.3 kN
Conclusion: 9. Application of the Slab Panel Method
Beam A4-A5 does not require passive fire
protection; it fulfills its slab panel support function 9.1 Program available
unprotected, by virtue of its high reserve of This method requires software or load charts for
strength. ease of use in design.
8.6 Design of columns for the fire A program has been developed for use with floor
emergency condition slabs supported on secondary beams and a copy
Minimum column size is W14 x 176 is available free-of-charge on a “use at your own
risk basis”.
All columns satisfy NZS 3404 Table 12.5
Category 3 section geometry limit, therefore: Those wanting a copy, which will be sent via
email, contact Charles Clifton at
Tl = 550oC (see DCB No 59, page 25, structural@hera.org.nz.
section 7.5(1))
FRR = 1.0 teq = 68 mins Very brief guidance on how to apply this
procedure to a slab panel is now given.
W14 x 176 dimensions are (all in mm or mm2)
d = 368 ; b = 372; tf = 23.8 ; tw = 14.4 ; A = 22,600 9.2 Guidance on cost-effective application
Design the floor and structural system for the
2b + 2d gravity and lateral loading conditions. This
Hp/A, for four sided box protection, = determines beam size, spacing, slab depth,
A
= 65m-1 concrete strength, etc.
From [35], for FRR = 68 mins, 1 layer 20mm Gib Then commence the slab panel design for fire.
Fireboard is satisfactory for all columns.
Step 1: Select the size of slab panel in
The columns must be protected full height. accordance with section A2.2 on pages
28, 29. It is advantageous to keep Ly/Lx
8.7 Conclusion as close to 1 as practicable.
For the floor system shown in Fig. 60.6 on
page 10, the requirements of this slab panel Step 2: Determine which of side 1 and 3 can
method for fire emergency conditions are; carry negative moment.
(1) For slab reinforcement Step 3: Start with the following reinforcement
contents:
• Mesh : 7.5mm φ bars at 300 centres
each way (1) Mesh : 7.5mm diameter bars at
300 centres, cold-formed mesh,
• Interior support bars : DH12 at 500
centres fyr20 = 485 MPa
• Deck trough bars : 1 DH16/trough
(2) Interior support bars : DH12 at 4to,
• Edge and trimmer bars : as shown in hot-rolled mesh, fyr20 = 430 MPa
Fig. 60.10 on page 20
(3) No deck trough bars
(2) Floor system beams, etc
Step 4: Input all other variables and do the first
• Sizes and layouts as shown in Fig. check on the load-carrying capacity of
60.6 and as determined for ambient the slab panel. If this is satisfied, check
temperature design shear capacity. If this is also satisfied,
• All beams are either composite or with the design is complete.
shear studs at not more than 480mm
centres If the design load-carrying capacity is
not satisfied, then:
(3) Extent of passive fire protection
(1) Add deck trough bars, until either
• All columns my = mx or the load-carrying
• Primary interior beams A3-B3, B3-C3, capacity is adequate. If it needs
C3-D3 to be further increased, then;
• Primary edge beams A5-B5, C5-D5, A1-
B1 (in practice, beam C1−D1 is in the (2) Increase the mesh area as
stairwell region, with negligible fire load required until the load-carrying
and part of a separate firecell) capacity is adequate.
If the load-carrying capacity is still not adequate 4. NZBC:1992, New Zealand Building Code;
and Ly/Lx ≥ 1.25, then designate one of the Building Industry Authority, Wellington.
unprotected secondary beams as a protected
support beam, in accordance with section A2.2, 5. C/AS1:2001, Approved Document for
and repeat the above calculations. NZBC Fire Safety Clauses C1, C2, C3, C4;
Building Industry Authority, Wellington.
If the load-carrying capacity is still not adequate
and Ly/Lx < 1.25, protect the secondary beams in 6. Hyland, C; Structural Steelwork
accordance with the C/AS1 [5] requirements. Connections Guide; HERA, Manukau City,
1999, HERA Report R4-100.
10. Acknowledgements
7. Buchanan, AH (Editor); Fire Engineering
The HERA Structural Engineer, principal author of Design Guide; Centre for Advanced
this article, would like to acknowledge the Engineering, University of Canterbury,
contribution of all persons/organisations involved Christchurch, 1994.
in the development of this procedure, with special
mention of: 8. Barber, DJ; Calculation of the Fire
Resistance of Composite Concrete Slabs
(1) The two undergraduate students from With Profiled Steel Sheet Under Fire
Germany who have undertaken the computer Emergency Conditions; HERA, Manukau
analyses and program development. City, 1994, HERA Report R4-82.
(2) The UK BRE and Corus, for supplying the fire 9. Bailey, CG; The Tensile Membrane Action
test and slab panel load test data contained of Unrestrained Composite Slabs Simulated
in [1, 9, 17]. Under Fire Conditions; UK Building
Research Establishment, Watford, England,
(3) Colin Bailey of the UK BRE and Jef 2000, paper accepted for publication in
Robinson, Honorary Professor of Engineering Structures.
Construction Marketing at the University of
Sheffield, UK. 10. NZS 3404:1997, Steel Structures Standard;
Standard New Zealand, Wellington.
(4) The Foundation for Research, Science and
Technology, for providing past and on-going 11. NZS 3101:1995 (incorporating
funding of HERA’s fire research programme, Amendments 1 and 2, 1997), Concrete
which has led to the development of this Structures Standard; Standards New
design procedure. Zealand.
12. Clifton, GC et. al.; Draft for Development:

References Revision 2: Design Procedure for the
Inelastic Floor System/Frame Response of
1. Bailey, CG; Design of Steel Structures With Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings in Fully
Composite Slabs at the Fire Limit State; UK Developed Natural Fires; HERA, Manukau
Building Research Establishment, Watford, City, 2000, HERA Report R4-90-DD-Rev 2.
England, 2000, Report No. 81415.
13. Barber, DJ; HERA Fire Protection Manuals
2. Newman, GM et.al; Fire Safe Design - A Sections 7 and 8, Passive / Active Fire
New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Protection of Steel; HERA, Manukau City,
Framed Buildings, The Steel Construction 1996, HERA Report R4-89.
Institute, Ascot, England, 2000, SCI
Publication P 288. 14. Speedfloor Design Manual; Speedfloor
Holdings Ltd., Auckland, 1998.
3.1 Bailey, CG and Moore, DB; The Structural
Behaviour of Steel Frames With Composite 15. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
Floorslabs Subject to Fire: Part 1: Theory; and Design Loadings for Buildings;
The Structural Engineer, Vol. 78, No. 11, Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
pp. 19-26.
16. Clifton, GC and Forrest, E; Notes Prepared
3.2 Bailey, CG and Moore, DB; The Structural for a Seminar on Design of Steel Buildings
Behaviour of Steel Frames With Composite for Fire Emergency Conditions; HERA,
Floorslabs Subject to Fire: Part 2: Design, Manukau City, 1996, HERA Report R4-91.
the Structural Engineer, Vol. 78, No. 11,
pp.28-33.
17. Kirby, BR; The Behaviour of a Multi-Storey 27. AS 3600:1994, Concrete Structures;
Steel Framed Building Subject to Fire Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Attack - Experimental Data; British Steel
Swinden Technology Centre, United 28. DD ENV 1992-1-2 : 1996, Eurocode 2 :
Kingdom, 1998. Also data from BRE, Design of Concrete Structures Part 1.2
Cardington, on the Corner Fire Test and General Rules - Structural Fire Design
Large Compartment Fire Test, 1996. (together with United Kingdom National
Application Document); BSI Standards,
18. Feeney, MJ and Buchanan, AH; Accounting London, England.
for Sprinkler Effectiveness in Performance
Based Design of Steel Buildings; University 29. DD ENV 1993-1-2 : 1996, Eurocode 3 :
of Canterbury, Christchurch, 2000, Report Design of Steel Structures Part 1.2 General
No. 2000/15. Rules - Structural Fire Design (together with
United Kingdom National Application
19. Park, R; Ultimate Strength Design of Document); BSI Standards, London,
Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Volume 2; England.
University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
1970 (approx). 30. Clifton, GC; Fire Models for Large Firecells;
HERA, Manukau City, 1996, HERA Report
20. Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel, R4-83.
Third Edition, Volume 1 : Open Sections;
Australian Institute of Steel Construction, 31. Poh, KW; Modelling Elevated Temperature
Sydney, Australia, 2000. Properties of Structural Steel; BHP
Research, Melbourne, Australia, 1996,
21. Feeney, MJ; Design of Steel Framed Report BHPR/SM/R-055.
Apartment and Hotel Buildings for Fire;
ASEC98, Auckland, 1998, Vol. 2, pp. 563- 32. Clifton, GC and Robinson J; Notes
570; SESOC, Auckland, 1998. Prepared for a Seminar on The Behaviour
and Design of Multi-Storey Steel Framed
22. Amendment No. 1 to NZS 3404:1997; Buildings for Severe Fires; HERA, Manukau
Standards New Zealand, Wellington (to be City, 2001, HERA Report R4-105.
published April 2001).
33. Thomas, IR et. al.; Fire Tests of the 140
23. Hyland, C; Structural Steelwork Estimating William Street Office Building; BHP Co. Ltd,
Guide; HERA, Manukau City, 1998, HERA Melbourne, Australia, 1993.
Report R4-96.
34. Schmid, R and Clifton, GC; IFSP Design
24. NZS 3421:1975, Specification for Hard Program; HERA, Manukau City, 2001.
Drawn Mild Steel Wire for Concrete
Reinforcement; Standards New Zealand, 35. Gib® Fireboard Structural Steel Fire
Wellington. Protection; Winstone Wallboards Ltd,
Auckland, 1995.
25. Clifton, GC et. al; Development of
Perimeter Moment-Resisting Steel Frames 36. Moss PJ and Clifton GC; The Performance
Incorporating Semi-Rigid Elastic Joints: of Multi-Storey Steel Frames in Fires; paper
1996/97 Research Report; HERA, Manukau written for the 2001 Pacific Structural Steel
City, 1998, HERA Report R4-94. Conference, October 2001.
26. NZS 3402:1989, Steel Bars for the

Reinforcement of Concrete; Standards New
Zealand, Wellington.
Fig. 60.7
Reflected Floor Plan for Application of Slab panel Fire Engineering Design Procedure to a Concrete Slab on
Profiled Steel Deck Supported on Primary and Secondary Beams
Notes to Fig. 60.7
1. The beam positions shown are the centrelines.
2. The exterior of the building shown is the edge of the concrete slab.
3. A two slab panel floor system is shown; the concept is applicable to larger floor plan areas.
4. Lateral load-resisting systems are not explicitly shown, but their position is not restricted by the method.
5. The secondary interior beams are unprotected. The columns and primary interior beams will have passive fire protection. The edge
beams may be unprotected if they have a suitably high reserve of strength; see details in section A6.2 Step 3 Option 3.2.
Fig. 60.8
Reflected Floor Plan for Application of Slab panel Fire Engineering Design Procedure to a Concrete Slab
Supported on Speedfloor Joists and Primary Beams
Notes to Fig. 60.8
1. The beam and joist positions shown are the centrelines.
4. Lateral load-resisting systems are not explicitly shown, but their position is not restricted by this method.
5. The Speedfloor Joists are unprotected. The columns and primary interior beams will have passive fire protection. The edge beam
protection may be through radiation barriers where the beam design limiting temperature is not exceeded.
Ly
L1 L1
Side 1, Panel 1
1 y
A E
my,1
Side 2, Slab panel 1 Side 4, Lx

Panel 1 Panel 1
C D
mx,1
mx,1-2
B Side 3, Panel 1 F
2
my,2
Slab panel 2
mx,2
A B C D E
Fig. 60.9
Reflected Floor Plan Showing Dimensions for Slab panel Yield Line Pattern and Developed Moments
Notes to Fig. 60.9
1. The y-direction is parallel to the span of the decking; the x-direction is parallel to the span of the secondary beams.
2. Dependable negative moment resistance is able to be developed only over the primary interior beams and only through the use of
additional reinforcing bars. For slab panel 1 shown above, this resistance is available only from side 3.
Fig. 60.10
Floor Plan Showing Reinforcement Required in the Slab panels for Use of This Design Procedure
Notes to Fig. 60.10
1. The reinforcing bars shown are deformed high tensile reinforcement.
2. The reinforcement shown is additional to the mesh required for shrinkage and temperature control.
3. The edge bars, trimmer bars and interior support bars are required in all instances. They are placed on top of the slab mesh.
Interior support bars are typically 12 or 16 mm diameter.
4. The deck trough bars are optional and used if necessary to increase the load-carrying capacity of the slab panel. They are placed
in the troughs as shown in Figs. 60.11 – 60.13. They will typically be 12 or 16 mm diameter.
5. The centreline position of the primary interior beams is shown in this view, because the placing of the interior support bars is based
around this position. The rest of the floor support beams are not shown herein.
Slab panel 1 Slab panel 2
Interior support bar

S
er,mesh
40 mm S
Optional Mesh
deck trough bar
Steel deck
Shear studs
Primary interior beam
Fig. 60.11
Section A - A Through Slab panels (Incorporating Steel Decking) at the Primary Interior Beam
Note: See Fig. 60.7 for location of this section
DH 12 trimmer bar
DH 12 edge bar
Mesh to end no
S
more than 50 er,mesh
mm away from
edge of slab S
40 mm
Distance from
downward leg of Mesh Optional
edge bar to edge deck trough bars
of slab to be not Steel deck
less than 100 mm
Shear studs
Primary edge beam
Fig. 60.12
Section B – B Through Slab panel 1 (Incorporating Steel Decking) at the Primary Edge Beam
Fig. 60.13
Section C – C Through Slab panel 1 (Incorporating Steel Decking) at the Secondary Edge Beam
Fig. 60.14
Section D – D Through Slab panels (Incorporating Speedfloor Joists) at the Primary Interior Beam
Fig.60.15
Uniformly Loaded Rectangular Slab With All Edges Supported (from [19])
Notes to Fig. 60.15
_____ = slab positive yieldline moment
-------- = slab negative yieldline moment in the x-direction (where

applicable)
mx = positive moment in the x-direction per unit width along the y axis
my = positive moment in the y-direction per unit width along the x axis
m'x = negative moment in the x-direction per unit width along the
y axis
Side 1 = length AD, etc.
F = fixed edge support (side 1 or 3, where applicable)
S = pinned edge support (sides 2 and 4, always)
Primary beam
Secondary beam
(a) WP Connection (from [6])
Primary beam
Secondary beam
(b) FE Connection (from [6])
Fig. 60.16
Secondary Beam to Primary Beam Connections Not Needing Explicit Elevated Temperature Shear Capacity
Check
Fig. 60.17
Application of Design Procedure to Concrete Slabs on Profiled Steel Decks
Notes to Fig. 60.17
1. This figure incorporates the information presented in Figs. 60.7 and 60.9 required for application of the slab panel fire engineering
design procedure.
2. Tributary areas for shear capacity checks are also shown.
Fig. 60.18
Section E – E Through Region of Floor Slab Incorporating Steel Decking Showing Development of Positive
Moment Capacity Using the Mesh Reinforcement and Secondary Beams
Notes to Fig. 60.18
1. See Fig. 60.17 for location of this section, which is taken across the x-direction looking along the y-direction.
2. The optional deck trough bars are not shown in this section.
Ly
L1 Primary edge beam L1
1 Side 1
y
A Tributary area from E
slab panel 1 for shear
my,1 capacity check at
primary edge beam
1000
Slab panel 1 Lx
C D
m x,1 1000 Tributary area from
Side 2 slab panel 1 for Side 4
shear capacity check at
m x,1-2 primary interior beam
B Side 3 F
2
Primary interior beam
Slab panel 2
A B C D E
Fig. 60.19
Application of Design Procedure to Concrete Slabs Supported on Speedfloor Joists and Primary Beams
Notes to Fig. 60.19
1. This figure incorporates the information presented in Fig. 60.8 with dimensions and moments required for application of the slab
panel fire engineering design procedure.
Appendix A
Slab panel Fire Emergency Design Procedure

A1 Introduction and Scope
This appendix presents the slab panel design procedure in step by step format.
It commences in section A2 with the definitions of critical components, variables and notation,
including defining the slab panel to which the procedure is applied.
Section A3 covers the design loads and design structural fire severity required for implementation of
the procedure - ie. the input design actions.
The procedure is presented in sections A4 and A5. Section A4 covers use of the procedure for a
concrete slab on profiled steel decking supported on a network of primary and secondary composite
steel beams. Section A5 covers use for a concrete slab on Speedfloor Joists, supported by primary
beams.
Section A6 covers design of the supporting beams for the edges of the slab panel. These beams
require protection from direct fire exposure. Section A7 covers design of the supporting columns,
which also require protection from direct fire exposure. The figures used in this appendix are included
immediately prior to the appendix.
For each section, and where appropriate, a commentary to the design procedure provisions is given.
The commentary is presented following sections A1 - A7; not all sections have a commentary. The
appendix and commentary relate only to the detailed procedure itself; for a general introduction to the
procedure, overview of its development and related aspects, refer to the details proceeding this
appendix.
A2 Definitions of Critical Components, Variables and Notation
A2.1 Definition of slab panel

For ambient temperature design, the beams support the floor. Under severe fire conditions, the
unprotected beams lose their load-carrying capacity and the floor slab system ends up supporting
the beams. This support is provided by a region of floor slab acting in two way yieldline / tensile
membrane action, transferring the applied loads back to the supporting effectively rigid members.
The unit of floor slab system that develops this capacity to resist the fire emergency design loads is
termed the slab panel.
A slab panel is defined as the area of floor slab and unprotected beams or joists that spans, under
two-way action, between beams that remain effectively undistorted under severe fire conditions
relative to the peak downwards deflection expected within the slab panel region. The slab panel has
dimensions Lx and Ly - ie. length in the x - direction and length in the y - direction, eg. as shown in
Figs. 60.17 or 60.19.
Supports which remain largely undistorted under severe fire conditions are:
• Beams which are shielded from direct exposure to the fire in order to limit their temperature in
accordance with NZS 3404 Clause 11.5. These include primary interior and edge beams,
secondary edge beams and any secondary interior beams which are protected to limit the
length of the slab panel (see section A2.2)
• Beams which form part of the lateral load-resisting system and which are required to be
protected or have a very high reserve of strength under fire emergency conditions
• Supports formed by a separate firecell and hence which will remain cold at the time the slab
panel region is hot, such as those around a lift core or stair well.
A2.2 Determining the size of the slab panel

These are the dimensions Lx and Ly (see Figs. 60.17 or 60.19).
The length Lx is the distance between adjacent primary beams.
The length Ly is the distance between adjacent points of effective slab panel edge support, such as the
edges of the building (see Figs. 60.17 or 60.19), or between a building edge and an internal core. Its
determination will be clear cut in most instances, but be more a matter of designer judgement in
others.
A lower limit on Ly is Ly = Lx (ie. a square panel).
An upper limit of Ly = 30 m is recommended.

A further recommendation is that Ly/Lx ≤ 2.5. One support for the slab panel, for determining Ly, will
always be available - eg. at the edge of the building. If a second support is not obvious, due to the
building layout, within a length of 2.5Lx, then this support can be provided by choosing a suitably
positioned secondary interior beam and designing and protecting it accordingly.
This secondary interior support beam will then split the floor system into two adjacent slab panels and
it will support a triangular load from both slab panels under severe fire conditions. This loading could
be considerably more than the design load for ambient temperature conditions, requiring the beam
size to be increased for the fire emergency design case, in the manner as is documented in section
A6.2 step 1 for the secondary edge beams. Because of this, a secondary interior beam used as a
slab panel support, to reduce Ly, should always be a beam spanning directly onto columns at each
end, rather than onto primary beams at either or both ends.
The edge bars shown in Fig. 60.10 would need to be provided over this secondary interior support
beam, spanning 1500 mm into each slab panel.
A2.3 Notation used
A2.3.1 Normal font notation
∆ = deflection of slab
θ = gas temperature
θs = steel temperature
θf = bolt temperature
φ = strength reduction factor
φfire = strength reduction factor for fire
A = area
Af = floor area of firecell
Ar = area of reinforcement
Arx = area of reinforcement in x-direction
Ary = area of reinforcement in y-direction
Asb = area of secondary beam element (top flange, bottom flange or web)
Av = area of vertical openings (fixed plus variable) available to an enclosure
a = depth of concrete compression stress block
b = width of slab
bf = width of beam flange
d = depth of beam
d1 = clear depth of beam between flanges
dv = effective slab depth for shear capacity
E = modulus of elasticity
e = depth from centroid of tension force to top surface of concrete slab in compression
ec = depth from concrete surface under maximum compression to centroid of concrete in
compression
er = depth from centroid of bar to top of concrete
erx = depth from centroid of tension action to top of concrete, for positive moment in the x-direction
ery = depth from centroid of tension action to top of concrete, for positive moment in the y-direction
fc′ = nominal (specified) cylinder compression stress of concrete (typically 28 day)
fu = nominal tensile strength of steel, bolt, weld etc.
fy = nominal yield stress of steel
G = dead load
H = height of enclosure
he = effective thickness (of slab), as defined by NZS 3404 Section 11
i = storey i or side i, as appropriate
kb = thermal conductivity coefficient
L = dimension of slab panel
M = moment (kNm)
M∗ = design moment
Mrc = composite beam positive moment capacity
mx = positive moment in the x-direction per unit length along the y axis
my = positive moment in the y-direction per unit length along the x axis
m'x = negative moment in the x-direction per unit length along the y axis
nb = number of bolts in secondary beam to primary beam connections
Qu = reduced live load (for fire emergency conditions)
u1 ,u2 ,u3 = distances from centroid of reinforcement to fire exposed faces of slab
γ = coefficient for heat transfer to the reinforcement
teq = equivalent standard fire test time for a reinforced concrete or an insulated steel component
to = total slab thickness
vc = nominal shear stress available from concrete
v* = design shear load per metre width at edge of floor slab panel
V* = design shear load over a defined length of floor slab panel
Vu,sb-pb = design shear capacity of secondary beam to primary beam connection at elevated
temperature
Rcc = internal compression force from concrete
rf = reduction factor
Rts = internal tension force from steel
Rtsb = internal tension force from steel secondary beam element
Ru = nominal capacity
Ssb = spacing of secondary beams
S∗ = design action
tf = thickness of beam flange
tw = thickness of beam web
Tl = limiting temperature of structural component
Vfn = nominal shear capacity of bolt, threads included in shear plane
Vv = nominal shear capacity of steel beam
vu = design shear capacity of floor slab per metre width
vc = nominal shear stress in concrete
wylθ = yieldline load carrying capacity of floor slab panel at elevated temperature
w∗ = design load on floor slab panel under fire emergency conditions, including selfweight
wu = ultimate load - carrying capacity of floor slab panel
A2.3.2 Subscripts
θ = value at elevated temperature

20 = value at ambient temperature (assumed to be 20°C)
bolt = bolt
bf = bottom flange (of secondary beam)
deck = profiled composite steel decking
f = fastener or floor
mesh = mesh reinforcement in slab
min = minimum
max = maximum
pb = primary beam
r = reinforcement
s = steel
sb = secondary beam
slab = slab
tf = top flange (of secondary beam)
w = weld; or web (of secondary beam)
x = value in x axis direction
y = value in y axis direction
isb = interior support bar
dtb = deck trough bar
sb = secondary beam
ss = simply supported (slab panel - ie. no negative moment capacity on any side)
1 = relating to slab panel 1
A3 Design Loads and Determination of Structural Fire Severity
A3.1 Design loads

These are the vertical loads given by NZS 4203 [15] Clause 2.4.3.4, Load Combination (7) for fire
emergency conditions. This combination is repeated herein as equation 60.A1;
w* = G + Q u (60.A1)
where:
G = gravity dead load on slab panel, including the self-weight of slab and unprotected beams/joists
Qu = ΨuQ = long-term live load from [15].
A3.2 Design structural fire severity
This is the time equivalent, teq. It is obtained using one of the two methods given in section 7.2 of DCB
Issue No. 59; see pp. 24, 25 therein.
A4 Slab Panel Design; Floors Incorporating In-Situ Concrete Slabs On Profiled Steel Decking,
Supported by Primary and Secondary Composite Steel Beams
A4.1 Temperatures of slab panel components and associated mechanical properties
A4.1.1 Mesh within the concrete slab
The approach used is modified from section 6.4.2 of [8], as described in section 7.3 of DCB Issue
No. 59. To elaborate:
Step 1: Determine the design FRR
FRR,mesh = 0.8 teq (60. A2)
Step 2: Determine the distances u1, u2, and u3 from the mesh to the top of the ribs, for trapezoidal
decking, or to the soffit of the slab for flat slab decking.
This is undertaken in accordance with Fig. 59.12, DCB Issue No. 59.
u3,mesh = 2he - to - cmesh - dmesh (60.A3.1)
where:
he, to = slab average thickness and total depth
cmesh = cover to mesh = 30 mm (typical)
dmesh = diameter of bar = 7.2 mm for D147 mesh with bars at 300 centres
Having calculated u3,mesh;
u1,mesh = u2,mesh = 2 u3,mesh (60.A3.2)
Step 3: Determine the heat transfer coefficient, γ
This is given by equations 6.2 and 6.3 of [8]. Equation 6.2 is repeated below as equation 60.A4.
1 1 1 1
= + + (60.A4)
γ u u2 u
1 3
In the use of equation 60.A4, the following restrictions apply:
(u1 + u2) ≤ 5u3

u1 ≤ 4u3
u2 ≤ 4u3
These restrictions will always be met for the mesh bars.
The distances are expressed in mm.
Step 4: Determine the design temperature of the mesh bars.
This uses equations 6.4 to 6.8 of [8], which can be condensed into one equation, as follows:
θs = Cs,θ - 350γ (60.A5)
where:
θs = temperature of the steel bar

γ = is determined from equation 60.A4
Cs,θ has the following values:

• 900 oC for FRR = 30 mins
Step 5: Determine the elevated temperature design yield stress in the mesh bars, fyrθ,mesh.
This utilises the relationship given in EC 2 Part 1.2 [28]. The mesh can be made from either cold-
worked or hot-formed bar, with different expressions given for each.
Details are as follows:
For cold-worked mesh bars, the relationships between fyrθ and fyr20 are as follows;
fyrè
θs ≤ 400o C, = 1.0 (60.A6.1)
fyr20
fyrè
θs = 500o C , = 0.78 (60.A6.2)
fyr20
fyrθ
θs = 600o C , = 0.47 (60.A6.3)
fyr20
fyrθ
θs = 700o C, = 0.23 (60.A6.4)
fyr20
Linear interpolation is used between these points.
These values are appropriate to hard drawn mild steel wire mesh to NZS 3421 [24].
For hot-formed bars, ie. those manufactured to NZS 3402 [26], the relationships between fyrθ and fyr20
are as follows:
fyrè
θs ≤ 350o C, = 1.0 (60.A6.5)
fyr20
fyrè  6650 - 9θs 
350o C < θs ≤ 700o C , =  (60.A6.6)
fyr20  3500 
 1200 - θs 
fyrè
700o C < θs ≤ 1200o C, =  (60.A6.7)
fyr20  5000 
Deformed bars, when used as mesh, interior support bars or deck trough bars, use the hot-formed
relationship.
A4.1.2 Interior support bars
The same five step approach and requirements as for the mesh are used, with appropriate distances
u1, u2, u3 from the fire-exposed top of the rib. Details are as follows:
Step 1: Determine the design FRR.
FRR,isb = 0.8teq (60. A2)
This is the same equation as for the mesh.
Step 2: Determine the distances u1, u2, u3 from the interior support bars to the top of the ribs, for
trapezoidal decking, or to the soffit of the slab for flat slab decking.
u3,isb = u3,mesh + disb/2 (60.A7.1)
where:
disb/2 = diameter of the interior support bar (12 or 16 mm diameter, typically)
u1,isb = u2,isb = 2 u3,isb (60.A7.2)
Steps 3-5: as for steps 3-5, section A4.1.1, using the value of FRR,isb and (u1, u2, u3)isb from steps 1
and 2 above and equations 60.A6.5 to 60.A6.7 for fyrθ / fyr20.
At the end of step 5, the elevated temperature design yield stress in the interior support bars, fyrθ,isb, is
known.
A4.1.3 Deck trough bars
The deck trough bars (dtbs) comprise 1 bar per deck trough, placed typically in every trough, when
used. They are optional to the design and are only used where necessary to increase wu for the slab.
They are placed at 40 mm cover off the deck trough, as shown in Figs. 60.10 - 60.13. Their size will
typically be 12 or 16 mm diameter.

This is as for the mesh, ie
FRR,dtb = 0.8teq (60. A2)
Step 2: Determine the distances u1, u2, u3 from the deck trough bars to the edges of the trough.
This is undertaken as shown in Fig. 9 of HERA Report R4-82 [8].
For deck trough bars in Dimond Hibond,

• c3 = 40 mm; u3 = c3 + 0.5 ddtb
• c1 = c2 = 60 mm, provided that the bar is placed in the centre of the trough.
• u1 = c1 + 0.5 ddtb
• u2 = c2 + 0.5 ddtb
Steps 3-5: as for steps 3-5, section A4.1.1, using the value of FRR,dtb and (u1, u2, u3)dtb from steps 1
and 2 above and equations 60.A6.5 to 60.A6.7 for fyrθ / fyr20.
At the end of step 5, the elevated temperature design yield stress in the deck trough bars, fyrθ,dtb, is
known.
A4.1.4 Concrete and decking
The maximum concrete & decking temperatures have been determined from the wide range of natural
fire SAPPHIRE/SAFIR analyses described in DCB Issue No. 59. For normal weight concrete,
trapezoidal decking;
• Temperature across top of ribs = 750 oC for FHC 2
= 800 oC for FHC 3
(FHC 2 and FHC 3 are as defined in Comment to Para.2.2 of [5]).
• Average temperature over full deck width = 750oC for FHC 2

= 800oC for FHC 3
For normal weight concrete, flat slab base;

• Temperature = 810oC for FHC 2
• Temperature = 870oC for FHC 3
The decking strength is taken as zero at these temperatures, in accordance with Table 4.1of [12]. The
concrete strength at elevated temperature is given by R4-82 [8] and NZS 3101 [11] as :
f'
θc ≤ 350o C , 'cè = 1.0 (60.A8.1)
fc20
fc'θ  910 - è c 
350o C < θc ≤ 910o C, '
=  (60.A8.2)
f c20  560 
f'
910o C < θ c , c' θ = 0 (60.A8.3)
fc20
In practice, when the concrete reaches its peak temperature and hence minimum compression
strength at the exposed face, layers deeper into the slab are cooler and stronger. To account for this
in negative moment and support shear calculations, requires analysis of successive layers of concrete
to find the extent of the compression zone. This is undertaken in Fig. 10 and Table 6 of [8], with the
results tabulated for ease of use. The results are presented for times under the standard fire test in
[8], thus requiring the equivalent standard fire test times (te) for the slab temperatures given above to
allow the data in [8] to be used. These times are:
• for trapezoidal decking; FHC 2 or 3, te = 60 mins

• for flat slab base ; FHC 2, te = 60 mins
FHC 3, te = 90 mins
From these times, values of ecθ are determined; see details following equation 60.A19 on page 37.
A4.1.5 Unprotected secondary beam components
The unprotected secondary beams span the short dimension, Lx, as shown in Figs. 60.7 and 60.9.
Being unprotected, they are assumed to directly exposed to the fire and therefore reach very high
temperatures. It has been shown from the Cardington tests [12,17] that the bottom flange and web
reach 95% of the peak fire temperature and the top flange, with its greater shielding and proximity to
the heat sink of the concrete slab, remains 150 oC below the peak fire temperature.
Table 60.2
Design Temperatures of Unprotected
Secondary Beam Elements
Bottom Flange Web Top Flange

FHC 2, NWC 850 850 750
FHC 3, NWC 900 900 800
FHC 2, LWC 950 950 850
FHC 3, LWC 1000 1000 900
Notes to Table 60.2

1. All temperatures are oC
2. NWC = normal weight concrete; density ≥ 2300 kg/m3
LWC = light weight concrete; density ≤ 1900 kg/m3
3. FHC = fire hazard category, as given by [5]
The peak fire temperature have been obtained as described in the commentary section CA4.1.5., with
the relationship described above then used to obtain the peak steel beam element temperatures.
These temperatures are a function of the Fire Hazard Category, type of concrete used in the floor
slabs and position of beam element. They are as given by Table 60.2.
The variation of yield stress with elevated temperature for the unprotected secondary beam elements
is taken from EC 3 Part 1.2 [29]. The values are given in Table 60.3 and are those for a strain > 2%,
this being appropriate for the magnitude of deformation developed by the slab panel and unprotected
secondary beam elements in severe fire conditions.
Table 60.3
Relationship Between fysbθ and f ysb20 for
Unprotected Secondary Beam Elements

FHC 2, NWC 0.085 0.085 0.170
FHC 3, NWC 0.060 0.060 0.110
FHC 2, LWC 0.050 0.050 0.085
FHC 3, LWC 0.040 0.040 0.060
Notes to Table 60.3:

1. These values apply to the secondary beam elements away from the connections.
2. These values are input into equations 60.A10.2 to 60.A10.4 through the constant C sb,θ , which is used in equation 60.A14.
A4.1.6 Secondary beam to primary beam connections; bolts and secondary beam web
Based on analyses of the Cardington test temperatures, the maximum bolt temperature,θf ,is taken as
that for the unprotected secondary team top flange, from Table 60.2. This is slightly conservative.
The same temperature is used for the beam web at the connection.
Given the bolt design temperature, the variation of bolt tensile strength with temperature for high
strength structural bolts has been established by UK testing, as detailed in section 4.3.3 of [12]. This
variation is as follows, for bolts in the relevant temperature range:
fufè
= 0.170 - ( θf - 680) 0.5312 x 10- 3 (60.A9)
fu f20
for 680oC < θf ≤ 1000 oC
A4.2 Design adequacy of slab panel; concrete slabs on profiled steel decking
A4.2.1 Yieldline load-carrying capacity of slab panel
(1) Determination of mx
This is developed by the mesh reinforcement, in the x-direction, and by the secondary beam elements,
as shown in Fig. 60.18. Designer judgement is required on the secondary beam contribution when
there are only one or two secondary beams within the slab panel area. The determination of mx is
based on reinforced concrete bending theory, thus:
Rtsx,mesh = Arx,mesh fyrθ, mesh (60.A10.1)

Rtsbx,tf = (tf b f) fysbθ,tf / Ssb (60.A10.2)
Rtsbx,w = ((d - 2tf) tw) fysbθ,w / Ssb (60.A10.3)
Rtsbx,bf = (tf b f) fysbθ,bf / Ssb (60.A10.4)
Rtsx,total = ΣRts from mesh, tf, w, bf (60.A10.5)
erx = [er,mesh Rtsx,mesh + (to + 0.5tf) Rtsbx,tf

+ (to + 0.5d) Rtsbx,w
+ (to + d - 0.5tf) Rtsbx,bf] / Rtsx,total (60.A11)
R tsx,total
ax = '
(60.A12)
0.85 fc ,20 b
mx = φfire [Rtsx,mesh (er,mesh - 0.5ax)

+ Rtsbx,tf (to + 0.5tf - 0.5ax)
+ Rtsbx,w (to + 0.5d - 0.5ax)
+ Rtsbx,bf (to + d - 0.5tf - 0.5ax)] (60.A13)
where:
φfire = 1.0, for the reasons given in section 3.4 of [8]
Arx,mesh = area/m width (mm2/m) of mesh in x-direction
fyrθ,mesh = elevated temperature yield stress of mesh reinforcement from section A.4.1.1 (MPa)
tf,bf,d,tw = secondary beam element dimensions
fysbθ = Csb,θfysb20 (60.A14)
'
fc,20 = ambient temperature concrete 28 day specified compression stress (MPa)
b = 1000 mm
ax = depth of concrete compression stress block generated by Rtsx,total
Rts = elevated temperature tension capacity of the nominated steel element
er,mesh = distance from top of concrete to intersection of slab mesh bars in each direction
(see Fig. 60.18)
= cmesh + dmesh
cmesh = cover from top of concrete to mesh = 30 mm, typically, from NZS 3404 Commentary
Clause C13.2.2 (a)
dmesh = diameter of mesh bar
erx = distance from top of concrete to centroid of tension force, for x moment
(2) Determination of m y
This is developed by the mesh reinforcement in the y-direction, plus the contribution of the deck
trough bars, if installed. Details are as follows:
Rtsy,mesh = Ary,mesh fyrθ,mesh (60.A15.1)

Rtsy,dtb = Ary,dtb fyrθ,dtb (60.A15.2)
Rtsy,total = Rtsy,mesh + Rtsy,dtb (60.A15.3)
[er,mesh R tsy,mesh + (t o - u3,dtb )R tsy,dtb ]

ery = (60.A16)
R tsy,total
Rtsy,total
ay = '
(60.A17)
0.85fc,20b
my = φfire [ Rtsy,mesh(er,mesh - 0.5ay) + Rtsy,dtb (to - u3,dtb - 0.5ay)] (60.A18)
where:
Ary,mesh = area/m width (mm2/m) of mesh in y-direction
Ary,dtb = area/m width (mm2/m) of deck trough bars
fyrθ = elevated temperature yield stress of mesh or reinforcement, from section A4.1
ay = depth of concrete compression stress block generated by Rtsy,total
to = full depth of slab
u3,dtb = distance from centroid of deck trough bar to base of decking
φfire = 1.0
b = 1000 mm
ery = distance from top of concrete to centroid of tension force, for y moment
(3) Determination of mx'
This is the negative moment capacity in the x-direction, per unit length along the y-axis. It is only
applicable at an interior support over a primary beam into an adjacent slab panel, where it is
generated by the tension capacity of the interior support bars. Details of determining mx' are as
follows:
R tsx,isb = Arx,isb fyrθ,isb (60.A19)

ecθ = 11 mm for trapezoidal decking, FHC 2 or FHC 3
= 13 mm for flat soffit decking, FHC 2
= 18 mm for flat soffit decking, FHC 3
mx' = φfire R tx,isb (2he - to - er,isb - ecθ ) (60.A20)
where:
Arx,isb = area of interior support bars, expressed as mm2/m length of interior support bars in the
x-direction
fyrθ,isb = elevated temperature yield stress of the interior support bars, from section A4.1.2
er,isb = distance from top of concrete down to centroid of interior support bar
= cmesh - disb/2
disb = 12 or 16 mm, typically
(4) Calculation of yieldline load-carrying capacity
This is the elevated temperature load-carrying capacity for the actual support conditions, wylθ (ie.
sides 1 and / or 3 developing negative moment, where applicable). It is obtained from the yieldline
equation for a general rectangular slab with either pinned or fixed edge supports, as given by [19],
and shown in Fig. 60.9. The equation is;
6mx ì sX 2
w ylθ = 2
(60.A21.1)
2 
L   Y 2 L   Y
2
 
L2x  x      + 3 ì s  y   - 
 Ly     X   
     Lx   X 
 
where:
w ylè = yieldline load carrying capacity at elevated temperature
µs = mx/my (60.A21.2)
my = positive moment in the y-direction per unit width along the x-axis
X = 1 + i1 + 1 + i3 ≥ 2 (60.A21.3)
Y =2 (60.A21.4)
i1 and i3 are defined in Fig. 60.15
i2 and i4 = 0
A4.2.2 Yieldline load-carrying capacity of simply-supported slab panel
This is determined from equation 60.A21.1, by setting X = Y = 2 (ie. ignoring negative moments along
sides 1 and/or 3). The result is w ylθ,ss .
A4.2.3 Limiting deflection of slab panel
The limiting deflection, ∆max, is the lesser of equations 60.A22.1 and 60.A22.2. It gives the maximum
allowed vertical deflection of the slab panel along line CD (see Fig. 60.17) relative to the adjacent
supports.
4.27 x 10- 4 Lx 2  0.7 fyr20,mesh  3Ly 2

∆1 = +   (60.A22.1)
he,slab  E20 ,mesh  8
 
4.27 x 10-4 Lx2 L
∆2 = + x (60.A22.2)
he,slab 30
where:
all dimensions are in mm
fyr20, E20 are in MPa
∆max = min (∆1, ∆2) (60.A22.3)
A4.2.4 Determination of tensile membrane enhancement
This is undertaken through equations 60.A23 to 60.A43. The process is sequential and builds on the
values of variables already determined. The equations look daunting but are easy to apply
and readily programmable into a spreadsheet. (Alternatively, use the HERA - developed software;
see section 9.1).
 2 
L   L x m y  3m L my 
L = x    ≤ 0.5L
y
+ - x (60.A23)
1 2   L m  m L m  y
  x 
y x y x 

Ly
a= (60.A24)
Lx
L1
n= (60.A25)
Ly
 4na2 (1 - 2n) 
k=  +1 (60.A26)
 4n a + 1 
2 2
1  1   Lx 2  1  L 2 1 1   L 2 
A=   - - 1  ( nLy )2 + x  -   (nLy ) + x  
2
(60.A27)
2  1 + k   8n  2n   4  3  1 + k   4  
 
1  k 2   nLy  2 
2
k  ( nLy )2 + Lx 
B=    - (60.A28)
2  1 + k   2 3 (1 + k )  4 
 
2
Lx
C= (k - 1) (60.A29)
16n
 Ly   Ly nLy 
D =  - nLy   -  (60.A30)
 2  4 2 
1.1Lx 2
b= (60.A31)
8 (A + B + C - D)
 2 ax   2 ay 
gox = 1 -  ; goy = 1 -  (60.A32.1) ; (60.A32.2)
 
 erx   ery 
2gox 2goy
áx = ; αy = (60.A33.1) ; (60.A33.2)
3 + gox 3 + goy
1 - gox 1 - goy
βx = ; βy = (60.A34.1) ; (60.A34.2)
3 + gox 3 + goy
4b  ∆max   n (3k + 2) nk 3 
e1mx =    (1 - 2n) + -  (60.A35)
3 + gox  3 (1 + k )2 3 (1 + k )2 
 erx  
4b  ∆ max   2 + 3k k3 
e2my =   -  (60.A36)
3 + goy  ery   6 (1 + k ) 6 (1 + k ) 
2 2
  
 α b β b2 
e1bx = 2n 1 + x (k - 1) - x (k 2 - k + 1) + (1 - 2n) (1 - α xb - βx b2 )  (60.A37)
 2 3 
 
á yb ây b2
e2by = 1 + ( k - 1) - (k 2 - k + 1) (60.A38)
2 3
e1 = e1mx + e1bx (60.A39)
e2 = e 2my + e2by (60.A40)
(e1 - e 2 )
e = e1 - (60.A41)
(1 + 2a 2 )
wu = w yl θ - w ylθ,ss + w yl θ,ss e (60.A42)
In equations 60.A23 to 60.A42;

L1 = distance from sides 2 and 4 to the intersection of the centre and diagonal yield lines (see
Fig. 60.17 or Fig. 60.19 as appropriate)
e = enhancement in simply supported slab panel load-carrying capacity due to tensile
membrane action
wu = design load-carrying capacity of slab panel when at maximum deflection along yieldline
CD (see Fig. 60.17)
A4.2.5 Check on moment/tension membrane adequacy of slab panel
If wu (equation 60.A42) ≥ w* (equation 60.A1), then panel moment / tension membrane capacity
is adequate.
If wu < w*, then moment / tension membrane adequacy must be increased.
A4.2.6 Determining the shear capacity of the slab panel
This is undertaken over the tributary area shown in Fig. 60.17. Shear capacity is developed
through load transfer from slab to supporting edge beams and also from load transfer from
slab to secondary beams and hence into the primary beams. The shear capacity available from
each mode is now given.
(1) Shear capacity available through the slab
The critical location is SS shown in Fig. 60.12.
vu,slab = φ fire vcdv (kN/m) (60.A43)

dv = 2he - to - er,isb - 0.67ecθθ (mm) (60.A44)
vc = 0.17 fc' (MPa) (60.A45)
φ fire = 0.75/0.85 = 0.89 for shear
where:
vc = as given by NZS 3101 Clause 9.3.2.2
er,isb = as given for equation 60.A20
ecθθ = as given by section A4.2.1 (3); immediately following equation 60.A19 on page
37.
(2) Shear capacity available through the secondary beam to primary beam connection
This is given by equation 60.A46.3, which is the lesser of equation 60.A46.1 and equation
60.A46.2.
Vu,sb-pb = φ fire nb φ Vfn rf x 1.25 (60.A46.1)

Vu,vsb = φ fire φ Vv Csb,θθ,tf x 1.11 (60.A46.2)
Vu,sb = min (Vu,sb - pb ; Vu,vsb) (60.A46.3)
where:
φ fire = 0.80/0.85 = 0.94 for equation 60.A46.1
φ fire = (0.9/0.85 ≤ 1.0) = 1.0 for equation 60.A46.2
nb = no. of bolts in the connections
φ Vfn = design ambient temperature bolt shear capacity, threads included, from eg. [20]
φ Vv = design shear capacity for secondary beam, from eg. [20]
fufè
rf = fuf20
, as given by equation 60.A9 for the temperature given in Table 60.2 for the top
flange element
Csb,θ,tf = as given by Table 60.3 for the top flange element
1.25 = 1/0.8; converting φVfn to Vfn
1.11 = 1/0.9; converting φVv to V v
A4.2.7 Determine design shear on tributary area at the supports
Lx
V*= w ∗ Ssb (60.A47)
2
where:
Ssb = spacing between secondary beams
w* = as given by equation 60.A1
A4.2.8 Check on shear adequacy
If V* ≤ vu,slab Ssb + Vu,sb, then the slab shear adequacy is okay.
If this check is not satisfied, consider either (1) or one or more of (2) and (3) to gain compliance:
(1) design and detail the secondary beams so that their bottom flanges sit inside and above the bottom
flange of the supporting primary beam, eg. as shown in Fig. 60.16; or
(2) increase the concrete strength, fc' , to increase the slab shear resistance, vu,slab; and/or
(3) increase the number and or diameter of bolts in the secondary beam to primary beam
connection to increase Vu, sb-pb, if this is the limiting factor in equation 60.A46.3.
A5 Slab panel Design; Floors Incorporating In-Situ Concrete Slabs on Speedfloor Joists
Supported on Primary Beams
Section A5 follows the same format and approach as section A4. Where details are identical, the
relevant provisions of section A4 are referenced, rather than the provisions being repeated.
As shown in Fig. 60.14, the mesh sits on top of the upstand of the Speedfloor truss, which is
embedded in the concrete slab. This upstand height from the base of the slab is 38mm [14] for both
joist sizes made.
Step 1 : Determine the design FRR
FRR,mesh = 0.8 teq (60.A2)
Step 2: Determine the distances u1, u2 and u3 from the mesh to the slab soffit
u3,mesh = 38mm (60.A48.1)
u1,mesh = u2,mesh = 2 x 38 = 54 mm (60.A48.2)
Using equations 6.2 and 6.3 of [8], γ = 2.30 for u1, u2, u3 as above.
Step 4 : Determine the design temperature of the mesh bars
This uses equation 60.A5 from section A4.1.1, FRR,mesh from step 1 above and γ from step 3 above:
θs = Cs,θ - 350 γ (60.A5)
where:
γ = 2.30
• 900oC for FRR = 30 mins

Step 5 : Determine the elevated temperature design yield stress in the mesh bars, fyrθ,mesh.
This uses equations 60.A6.1 to 60.A6.4 if the mesh is cold-worked to [24] and equations 60.A6.5 to
60.A6.7 if the mesh is hot-formed to [26]; see details in step 5, section A4.1.1.
As shown in Fig. 60.14, these sit on top of the mesh reinforcement.
Step 1 : Determine the design FRR
FRR,isb = 0.8 teq (60.A2)
Step 2 : Determine the distances u1, u2 and u3 from the interior support bars to the base of the slab.
u3,isb = to – cisb – disb / 2 (60.A49.1)
cisb = 25 mm (from [14])

ul,isb = u2,isb = 2 u3,isb (60.A49.2)
Steps 3 – 5 : as for steps 3 – 5, section A5.1.1, using the value of FRR,isb and (u1, u2, u3)isb from steps
1 and 2 above and equations 60.A6.5 to 60.A6.7 for fyrθ / fyr20
known.
A5.1.3 Concrete
The floor slab has a flat concrete base.
For normal weight concrete;
• Temperature = 8100C for FHC 2

• Temperature = 8700C for FHC 3
Following the same approach as described in section A4.1.4, these temperatures are converted into
standard fire test times, being te = 60 mins for FHC 2 and te = 90 mins for FHC 3.
A5.1.4 Speedfloor Joists to primary beam connections
The Speedfloor Joist to primary beam connection is considered to have zero elevated temperature
shear or axial strength.
A5.2 Design adequacy of slab panel; concrete slabs on Speedfloor Joists
This is developed by the mesh reinforcement in the x-direction (see Fig. 60.19), thus:
Rtsx,mesh = Arx,mesh fyrθ,mesh (60.A50)
R tsx,mesh
ax = '
(60.A51)
0.85fc20 b
mx = φfire Rtsx,mesh (er,mesh – 0.5ax) (60.A52)
where:
≥ 5.1 to (mm2/m)
to = thickness of floor slab (mm)
fyrθ,mesh = elevated temperature yield stress of mesh reinforcement from section
A5.1.1 (MPa)
φfire = 1.0
'
fc20 = ambient temperature concrete 28 day specified compressive stress (MPa)
b = 1000 (mm)
ax = depth of concrete compression stress block generated by Rtsx,mesh (mm)
er,mesh = distance from top of concrete to intersection of slab mesh bars in each
direction (mm) (see Fig. 60.14; similar to Fig. 60.18)
= (to – 38)mm
(2) Determination of m y
This is developed by the mesh reinforcement in the y-direction (see Fig. 60.19), thus:
Rtsy,mesh = Ary,mesh fyrθ,mesh (60.A53)
Rtsy,mesh
ay = '
(60.A54)
0.85 fc20b
my = φfire Rtsy,mesh (er,mesh – 0.5ay) (60.A55)
where:
≥ 5.1 to (mm2/m)
fyrθ,mesh = elevated temperature yield stress of mesh reinforcement from section A5.1.1(MPa)
φfire = 1.0
b = 1000 (mm)
ay = depth of concrete compression stress block generated by Rtsy,mesh (mm)
er,mesh = to – 38 (mm)
(3) Determination of m'x
This is the negative moment capacity in the x-direction per unit length along the y-axis (see
Fig. 60.19). It is only applicable at an interior support over a primary interior beam into an adjacent
slab panel, where it is generated by the tension capacity of the interior support bars.
It is determined as follows:
Rtsx,isb = Arx,isb fyrθ,isb (60.A56)
ecθ = 13 mm for FHC 2

= 18 mm for FHC 3
m'x = φfire Rtsx,isb (to – er,isb - ecθ) (60.A57)
where:
Arx,isb = area of interior support bars, expressed as mm2/m length of these bars along the y-axis in
the x-direction
≥ Arx,mesh, required from section A5.2.1 (1)
fyrθ,isb = elevated temperature yield stress of the isbs from section A5.1.2
= cisb + disb/2
disb = 12 or 16 mm, typcially
This uses equations 60.A21, with mx, my and m'x from sections (1), (2) and (3) above.
This is determined from equation 60.A21.1 by setting X = Y = 2 (ie. ignoring negative moments along
sides 1 and 3). The result is wylθ,ss.
As determined from section A4.2.3, but substituting to for he in equations 60.A22.1 and 60.A22.2.
As determined from section A4.2.4, equations 60.A23 to 60.A42, using the relevant values calculated
above for the floor system on Speedfloor Joists.
The end result is wu, from equation 60.A42, which in this instance is the design load-carrying capacity
of the slab panel when at maximum deflection along gridline CD (see Fig. 60.19).
If wu (equation 60.A42 but applied to the Speedfloor system) ≥ w* (equation 60.A1), then slab panel
moment/tension membrane capacity is adequate.
If wu < w*, then moment/tension membrane adequacy must be increased.

This is undertaken over the tributary areas shown in Fig. 60.19. Shear capacity is developed through load
transfer from the slab to the supporting edge beams. Any shear capacity in the Speedfloor Joist to
beam connections under fire conditions is ignored. Given the level of reinforcement required to
ensure that integrity is met, the shear capacity available from the slab will be relatively high and
usually sufficient.
The slab is a solid slab, so the critical location is at the edge of the primary beam flange.
vu,slab = φfire vc dv (kN/m width) (60.A58)
dv = to – er,isb – 0.67ecθ (mm) (60.A59)
vc = 0.17 fc' (MPa)
φfire = 0.75/0.85 = 0.89 for shear
where:
vc = as given by NZS 3101 Clause 9.3.2.2
ecθ = as given by section A5.2.1 (3); immediately following equation 60.A55
A5.2.7 Determine the design shear on the tributary area at the supports
Lx
v* = w* (kN/m) (60.A60)
2
where:
w* = as given by equation 60.A1 (kPa)
Lx = short span of slab panel (m)
A5.2.8 Check on shear adequacy of the slab panel
If v* ≤ vu,slab, then the slab shear adequacy is ok.
If this check is not satisfied, then consider one or both of the following:
(1) increase the concrete strength, fc' , to increase vc; and/or

(2) increase the reinforcement at the edges (ie the edge bars and interior support bars) until vc is
increased through the additional reinforcement in accordance with NZS 3101 [11]
Equation 9-3.
A6 Design of Supporting Beams
A6.1 Scope
The supporting beams are those around the slab panel edges that will remain effectively undistorted in
fully developed fire conditions.
For example, in the slab panels shown in Figs. 60.7 and 60.8, they comprise the primary beams
(interior and edge) and the secondary edge beams.
To ensure that they remain effectively undistorted, they must be shielded from direct exposure to fire
by either:
• passive fire protection; or

• radiation barriers that operate for a suitably long period of time, eg. as detailed in [12, 21]
Application of these provisions is detailed in section A6.2.
A6.2 Application
The design of these beams for the fire emergency condition is as follows:
Step 1: Determine the applied fire emergency design load

This is the load w* from equation 60.A1 applied over the tributary area given by the slab panel design,
plus the beam self-weight and any applied dead load directly on the beams.
The primary interior beams are loaded by the area BCDF from slab panel 1, plus the corresponding
area from slab panel 2, plus the beam’s selfweight. It is either accurate or conservative to design
these beams for a line load given by;
wu,pib = 0.5 w* (Lx1 + Lx2) + wselfweight (60.A61)
The primary edge beams are loaded by the area ACDE from slab panel 1 (see Figs. 60.17, 60.19) plus
the beam selfweight and the weight of any cladding supported by the beam.
The secondary edge beams are loaded by the tributary area ACB or EDF from slab panel 1, plus the
beam selfweight and the weight of any cladding supported by the beam. The slab panel loading is
triangular, varying from zero at the ends to L1 w* at midspan. L1 is as given by equation 60.A23, but
use a minimum value for L1 of 0.5Lx for determination of the slab panel loads on the secondary edge
beams. Note that this loading pattern is considerably different to and more severe than that for
ambient temperature design. Where the secondary edge beams are gravity carrying only, this slab
panel fire emergency condition may determine the beam size, because of the increased area of
tributary loading.
Step 2: Determine the limiting temperature on each supporting beam

This is undertaken in accordance with NZS 3404 Clause 11.5 and normal plastic design philosophy. It
involves calculating the factor rf, which is undertaken as follows:
(1) For beams with simple end connections
∗
Mss
rf = (60.A62)
φfire Mpos
where:
∗
Mss = simply supported design bending moment from the step 1 loads
Mpos = Mrc = midspan nominal bending moment capacity of the composite beam
φfire = 1.0, as introduced via NZS 3404 Amendment No. 1 [22]
(2) For beams with rigid or semi-rigid end connections
 Mss∗ 
rf =   (60.A63)
 φfire Ì 
pos + φfire M neg 

where:
Mpos = Mrc
Mneg = for rigid connections, the support nominal negative moment capacity of the
beam, typically Ms
= for semi-rigid connections, the negative moment capacity of the connection
(eg. see DCB No. 58 for the semi-rigid Flange Bolted Joint)
φfire = 1.0
(3) Determine Tl from NZS 3404 [10] Clause 11.5
(4) For the secondary edge beams, if necessary increase the beam moment capacity so
that Tl ≥ 5500C
Step 3: Determine the extent of protection required to the beam. There are two options
available here.
Option 3.1: Using passive fire protection
(1) Determine the FRR required, in accordance with section A3.2 of this appendix and section 7.4
of DCB Issue No. 59; see p.25 therein.
(2) Select an appropriate material and thickness of insulation required, eg. by using HERA Report
R4-89 [13] and the appropriate product supplier’s design charts. The most cost-effective
material and system should always be used. For beams in interior environments and hidden
from view, use a sprayed cementations coating, or use a board system where the number of
beams requiring protection is small. Relative costings are given in HERA Report R4-96 [23].
Option 3.2: Perform an elevated temperature moment and shear capacity check
This option is particularly suited to the beams of seismic-resisting systems, which are sized for
earthquake and often have a high reserve of strength in fire. It should also be considered for any
beam for which the limiting temperature from step 2 (3) above exceeds 750oC. These members may
not need passive fire protection, however the provisions of NZS 3404 Clauses 11.5 and 11.6 are very
conservative in such instances. A more accurate approach is to calculate the elevated temperature
moment and shear resistance of the beam, as an unprotected member, and to check if this is
adequate, as follows:
Step 3.2.1: Determine the design actions
∗
These are Mss and V*, determined using the loads from step 1.
Step 3.2.2: Determine the design elevated temperature of the beam and connection
components
These are taken as 50 oC less than the design temperatures for the unprotected secondary beam
elements given in Table 60.2. The same temperatures are used for the connection components.
Step 3.2.3: Determine the design elevated temperature moment capacity of the beam
This involves first determining the reduction in yield stress, due to the elevated temperature from step
3.2.2, using Table 60.3 or using Table 3.1 of EC3 Part 1.2 [29] if the appropriate value is not given in
Table 60.3.
The ambient temperature moment capacities, Mpos and Mneg (see step 2 above) are then multiplied by
the reduction factor for the bottom flange to give the elevated temperature moment capacities, Mpos,θ
and Mneg, θ.
Step 3.2.4: Determine moment adequacy through a plastic collapse mechanism check
For a beam with rigid or semi-rigid connections at both ends, this involves satisfying equation 60.A64
∗
(φfire Mpos,θ + φfire Mneg, θ ) ≥ Mss (60.A64)
where:
φfire = 1.0
Step 3.2.5: Check the elevated temperature shear capacity
For beams with rigid end connections, this can be taken as satisfactory.
For beams with semi-rigid or simple connections, check the elevated temperature shear capacity of
the connection, applying the principles given in section A4.2.6(2) with the connection component
temperatures given in step 3.2.2 above. The capacity must equal or exceed V* from step 3.2.1.
Step 3.2.6: Conclusion
If steps 3.2.4 & 3.2.5 are satisfied, the supporting beam may be left unprotected.
A7 Design of Supporting Columns
A7.1 Scope
The supporting columns are required to be protected in order that they remain effectively undistorted
in fully developed fire conditions. This will be through the use of passive fire protection.
A7.2 Application
The design of the columns for the fire engineering condition is as follows:
Step 1: Determine the design structural fire severity (FRR) to use on the columns
This is given by sections 7.5 or 7.6 of DCB Issue No. 59; see page 25 therein.
Step 2: Select an appropriate material and thickness of insulation required
Use published guidance, such as HERA Report R4-89 [13] and the appropriate product supplier’s
design charts.
The most cost-effective material and system should always be used. Where the column is hidden from
view, a sprayed cementations coating is preferred. Where the column is exposed, consider a boarded
system. Boarded systems come in a variation of products and prices, with the price being strongly
influenced by the fixing system. This should be as rapid to assemble as possible.
Commentary to Appendix A
CA1 Commentary on Introduction and Scope
The design procedure is written for application to two systems:
(1) In-situ concrete slabs on profiled steel deck supported on secondary and primary beams.
(2) Concrete slabs on Speedfloor joists. These are closely spaced, cold-formed joists and are
proprietary product, details of which are given in [14]. They are the only system of their type
currently available in New Zealand and the procedure is specifically written around the
characteristics of that product, such as height of beam ribs.
CA2.1 Commentary on definition of slab panel
In a severe fire, the supports of the slab panel must remain effectively undistorted relative to the
peak deformations developed within the slab panel region.
The limiting temperature concept given in NZS 3404 [10] is based on the maximum temperature
reached by an individual (beam) member when at the point of failure under standard fire test
conditions. These test conditions involve unrestrained supports and a load level such that a failure
deflection of beam span /30 (Lb/30) is reached at a limiting temperature of 5500C [13].
When the same beam is placed into a building, with simple supports (such as WP or FE
connections from [6]) and is heated in a natural fire to 5500C, the actual deflection that will be
reached is very much lower, even for a beam carrying the maximum ratio of (design fire emergency
load) to (design load-carrying capacity at room temperature). The range of deflections reached in
this situation have been determined from realistic fire tests, eg. as summarised in [16] – see
especially Tables 5.1 and 5.2 therein, or given by test 1 from [17]. They are no more than Lb/100,
with an expected maximum of Lb/75. These deflections will typically be reached in the interior
beams, edge beam deflections will be lower. Over half of this deflection is due to thermal effects
and is recovered on cooling.
The maximum expected deformation within the slab panel will occur along the yielding length CD,
in Fig. 60.17. This could be as high as Lx/15 (comprising Lx/30 of mechanical effects and Lx/30 of
thermal-induced rotation).
Thus the peak deflections of the slab panel supporting members will be no greater than 1/6th of the
peak slab panel deflections.
CA2.2 Commentary on determining the size of the slab panel
No commentary explanation is needed with respect to Lx.
The lower limit on Ly = Lx is applied principally for ease of application of the design procedure, and
also because it represents a realistic lower limit in most instances. In the rare instance where
Ly < Lx, then the procedure can be applied with the orientation of the dimensions Ly and Lx reversed
from that shown in Figs. 60.17 or 60.19. Alternatively a conservative answer may be obtained by
setting Ly = Lx.
The upper limit on Ly = 30m is used because of the migrating fire behaviour that will occur in large
firecells of multi-storey buildings. This means that only part of a large slab panel will be subjected
to fully developed fire conditions at any one time, thus a limit on slab panel long dimension (Ly) is
reasonable to apply. The same issue was faced in developing the separation distance criteria of
C/AS1 [5]. The BIA Working Group 20 (of which the HERA Structural Engineer was a member)
considered using a 30m maximum emitter width for determining separation criteria was an
appropriate allowance for the migrating fire effect and the same concept and figure is used here.
In practice, Lx = 12 m would be an effective upper limit on the shorter panel dimension, thus
Ly = 30 denotes a panel with Ly/Lx ≥ 2.5. The calculation of wu (see section A4.2.5) is not very
sensitive to Ly/Lx, which means any unconservatism inherent in limiting Ly to 30 m is negligible and
in practice will be more than compensated for by ignoring the benefits of non-uniform fire conditions
and heating of floor components within the slab panel region.
The slab panel load-carrying capacity is developed by two-way action, however, and as Ly/Lx
increases, the advantages of two-way action diminish. At Ly/Lx = 2.5, the yield-line capacity for a
slab panel with mx = my is 1.58 times that for one-way action along Lx alone, while at Ly/Lx = 5 it is
only 1.26 times the one-way capacity. It is therefore recommended that Ly/Lx ≤ 2.5 is used, in
practice. This can be achieved by designing selected secondary interior beams as slab panel
edges, where required. See details in section A2.2. This decision has load-carrying capacity
implications for those beams, which may need to have their strength increased accordingly.
CA3.2 Commentary on design structural fire severity
Note that, in a sprinklered building, a sprinkler reduction factor is not used in calculating teq for this
procedure. This is because the design procedure is based on design for the event of sprinkler
failure and subsequent full fire development.
This procedure is intended for application to multi-storey office buildings and other applications with
FHC of 2 or 3. When these buildings are sprinklered, the probability of a fire reaching full
development in any one building is assessed at 1.2 x 10-5 or less [18]. This is an extremely small
probability; some 150 times less than the probability of a building being subjected to any other
ultimate limit state event [18].
CA4 Commentary on Slab panel Design Method; Floors Incorporating In-Situ Concrete Slabs
on Profiled Steel Sheeting, Supported by Primary and Secondary Composite Beams
CA4.1 Temperatures of slab panel components and associated mechanical properties
In reporting [9] on the ambient temperature tensile membrane test undertaken to verify this design
methodology, Bailey advises that for structural fire severities (ie. time equivalent periods)
exceeding around 30 mins, the elevated temperatures of the mesh reinforcement and the
appropriate reduction in ambient temperature mechanical properties need to be taken into account.
This New Zealand application of [1] is developed for use in office buildings with normal weight
concrete floors, where the structural fire severity will typically be not less than 50 mins and could go
as high as 180 mins. In such instances, it is important that as realistic assessment of the elevated
temperatures of the structural components as possible is made and that appropriate elevated
temperature mechanical properties are used.
Prior to developing this New Zealand application of the BRE slab panel design procedure [1],
HERA has undertaken a broad range of advanced analyses in order to determine the temperatures
of the concrete, decking and reinforcement for a typical slab on profiled steel decking subjected to
a wide range of natural fire conditions. Summary details of this work are presented in DCB Issue
No. 59, December 2000. This has allowed us to realistically determine the temperatures that will
be reached in most of the critical components and to present design requirements, using readily
available design information, that will allow designers to establish these temperatures. That
guidance covers the following components:
• reinforcing mesh within the slab (section A4.1.1)

• additional bar reinforcement (sections A4.1.2, A4.1.3)
• concrete and decking on the fire exposed underside of the slab (section A4.1.4)
A background to the elevated temperature mechanical properties used for these components is
given in CA4.1.1 - CA4.1.3.
As can be seen from Figs. 60.7, 60.8, 60.10, there are more components involved in a slab panel
than the four mentioned above. Background to the temperature/mechanical property requirements
for the rest of those components is now given:
• The trimmer bars and edge bars (see Fig. 60.10) are present to ensure there is continuity of
tension force transfer from the mesh reinforcement across the top of the slab panel supporting
beams and into these beams through the shear studs. They also assist in shear resistance.
However, an explicit calculation of tensile force from these bars is not required, so their
temperature and mechanical properties do not require explicit determination.
• The shear studs on the supporting beams are important to the overall system performance
however their elevated temperature capacity is not required to be determined. Observations
from the Cardington fire tests [17, 1] show that they maintain full shear connection between the
concrete slab and supporting steel beams under severe fire conditions.
• The unprotected secondary beams (Fig. 60.7) reach very high temperatures, however they still
make the dominant contribution to the slab panel positive moment in the x-direction per unit
length along the y-axis. Derivation of the design temperatures and elevated temperature
mechanical properties used for these components is given in CA4.1.5.
• The Speedfloor joists (Fig. 60.8) will also make a contribution to the slab panel positive
moment in the x-direction, however this contribution is more difficult to quantify and hence is
currently ignored. Therefore, for this first edition of the Slab panel design procedure, explicit
determination of Speedfloor joist temperature and mechanical properties is not required.
• Derivation of the temperatures in the bolts of the secondary beam to primary beam connections
and in the web of the secondary beam at the connection to the primary beam is covered in
CA4.1.6.
CA4.1.1 Mesh within the concrete slab; elevated temperature mechanical properties
Having obtained the mesh temperature, the variation of mechanical properties with
temperature needs to be determined. This can be obtained from a number of sources, such
as NZS 3101 [11], however the values given in EC2 Part 1.2 [28] are more appropriate to use,
for the following reasons:
• They differentiate between cold-worked and hot-formed reinforcement, which is desirable, given
that the properties are different and the mesh could be of either sort
• Values are given for strains ≥ 2%, which is appropriate to the magnitude of deformation
developed by the slab panel in severe fire conditions
The relationships for cold-worked bars are given in Table A.4 of [28], while those for hot-formed
bars are given in Table A.3 of [28].
In applying them to this procedure, the cold-worked bar relationship is presented as a set of data
points, with linear interpolation between each point. The hot-formed relationships of Table A.3 can
be expressed in linear equation form, without loss of accuracy, and this approach is used herein.
The cold-worked provisions cover mesh to NZS 3421 [24], while the hot-formed provisions cover
mesh or bars to NZS 3404 [26].
CA4.1.2 Interior support bars; elevated temperature mechanical properties
These bars are hot-formed to [26], hence the variation of mechanical properties with temperature
are taken from Table A.3 of [28].
CA4.1.3 Deck trough bars; elevated temperate mechanical properties
These bars are hot-formed to [26], hence the variation of mechanical properties with temperature
are taken from Table A.3 of [28].
CA4.1.4 Concrete; elevated temperature mechanical properties
These are taken from NZS 3101 [11] rather than EC2, for three reasons:
• The values in [11] have been developed for concretes incorporating New Zealand aggregates,
while the values in [28] are for concretes with European aggregates
• The values in [11] have been used to develop the table in HERA Report R4-82 [8] from which
ecθ is obtained
• Any inherent conservatism in the value of f c'θ has minimal influence on the design capacity
CA4.1.5 Unprotected secondary beam components; temperatures reached and elevated temperature
mechanical properties
The unprotected secondary beam components are exposed to the fully developed fire and reach
correspondingly high temperatures. It is important, in developing this design procedure, to make a
suitable determination of the design temperatures for these elements. The process that has been
gone through to derive the design temperatures given in Table 60.2 is as follows:
Step 1: Determine the maximum average fire temperatures reached, at any time, from
experimental real fire testing, around the secondary beams over an area affecting more than one
beam.
The test used for this determination was the Cardington Demonstration Furniture test, which
generated the highest temperatures of all such tests reported in the literature. This real fire test
involved a 135m2 enclosure, fire load of 46kg/m2 floor area (920MJ/m2) including 20% plastic and
the position, extent of ventilation arranged so as to generate the maximum structural fire security
[17]. The fire generated peak gas temperatures of over 1100oC, with a heat release rate of 40MW.
For a period of around 10-15 minutes, gas temperatures reached an maximum average of around
1000 oC over an area of the enclosure encompassing two supporting secondary beams. Average
temperatures over the enclosure as a whole remained below 1000oC at all times, while spot
temperatures reached as high as 1100oC. See details in Fig. 60.20. The minimum area to which
this slab panel procedure would be realistically applied is to a square of length and width equal to
the secondary beam span, which is 60% of the Demonstration Test enclosure area. Therefore an
appropriate upper bound gas temperature to take, as being applied uniformly over the slab panel
area, for this fire, is 1000 oC. This is used as the peak temperature for FHC 2 and light-weight
concrete (LWC). (The test fire load, at 920 MJ/m2 floor area (80% cellulose, 20% plastic),
corresponds to FHC 2 (800 MJ/m2 floor area) and the concrete used in the floor slabs was LWC,
density = 1900 kg/m3).
Fig. 60.20
Plan View of Cardington Demonstration Furniture Test Fire Showing Gas Temperature Contours at Time of
Peak Temperatures
Note: The dotted lines are the floor support beams; horizontal are secondary beams, vertical primary beams.
Step 2: Extend the result to normal weight concrete (NWC) and to FHC 3 fuel load.
This was undertaken by running the fire model described in DCB No. 59 (see section 3, pages 8-
11) for enclosures with appropriate differences in thermal inertia and fire load. The different values
of enclosure thermal inertia used were b = 1200 J/m2s0.5C for the Cardington test which is
appropriate for the concrete density (1900 kg/m3) used, compared with b = 1700 J/m2s0.5C for NWC
construction. The different fire loads were 800 MJ/m2 floor area for FHC2 and 1200 MJ/m2 floor
area for FHC3.
These results showed the following:
• ∆θg = + 100oC in going from NWC → LWC

• ∆θg = + 70oC in going from FHC2 → FHC3
These values were used to adjust θg = 1000oC for (FHC2, LWC) to the three other cases.
Step 3: Obtain the beam element temperatures from the gas temperatures.
The relationships used are taken from analysis of the Cardington test data and are as detailed in
HERA Report R4-90-DD-Rev 2 [12]. They are:
• beam bottom flange and web; θs = 0.95 x θg

• beam top flange; θs = θg – 150oC
The values so obtained were rounded to the nearest 50 oC, to give the steel beam element
temperatures presented in Table 60.2.
These temperatures apply to the secondary beams away from their ends. At the beam ends
adjacent to the primary beams, even when the primary beams are unprotected, the temperatures
are consistently lower, with the beam web and bolt temperatures being slightly less than the top
flange temperatures given in Table 60.2.
Having obtained the design temperatures for the secondary beam elements, the next step is to
obtain elevated temperature mechanical properties. Given the high temperatures and strain levels
involved, it is important to use published values that are the most appropriate to this application.
The most accurate set of data is that from Poh [31], which covers stress/strain/time characteristics
for grade 250/300 steel beams, for temperatures up to 1200 oC. However, given the development
of this procedure for design rather than as a research tool, it was considered desirable to use data
from an established standard. In this case, EC3 Part 1-2 [29] Table 3.1 was used to give
(fysbθ/fysb20) for each beam element. The results are given in Table 60.3.
CA4.1.6 Secondary beam to primary beam connections; bolts and secondary beam web
Even when the primary and secondary beams are both unprotected, the connection region is
cooler than the regions away from the connections [17]. This is allowed for in the procedure by
applying the beam top flange temperature given in Table 60.2 to the beam web and bolts at the
connection region.
Where the primary beam is protected, which will typically be the case, considerably lower
connection component temperatures will occur, eg. as given in HERA Report R4-DD-Rev 2 [12]
Section 4.5.3.2. This could be used to improve the calculated slab panel shear capacity given
herein, where necessary.
The elevated temperature relationship for bolt tensile strength presented in equation 60.A9 is
based on UK test data, as described in section 4.3.3 of [12]. The data has been derived from tests
on UK high strength structural bolts (equivalent to our property class 8.8 bolts).
CA4.2 Design adequacy of slab panel; concrete slabs on profiled steel decking
CA4.2.1 Yieldline load-carrying capacity of slab panel
Determination of all moment capacities follows standard reinforced concrete theory [19].
For the positive moment capacities (mx and my), the concrete compression block (see Fig. 60.18) is
at the top of the slab and so is taken at ambient temperature concrete strength. The tension force
developed by all components is reduced by elevated temperature as previously described.
The unprotected secondary beam contribution within the slab panel to mx is treated as a line load
by dividing the contribution from each beam by the beam spacing. This is sufficiently accurate
where there are at least three such beams within the panel length, Ly. (Fig. 60.17 shows fire
beams, for example). Where there are only 1 or 2 beams, then this approach may overestimate
the secondary beam contribution and designer judgement will be required to determine if the
contribution needs modifying from that used herein.
While the tension/compression force distribution shown in Fig. 60.18 provides a realistic basis for
determining mx moment for yieldline capacity determination, the strain state leading to these
stresses under severe fire conditions is very different to that which would develop under ambient
temperature conditions. This is because of the complex effects of fire-induced heating on the slab-
secondary beam system. In practice, the unprotected secondary beams will be subject to rapid
heating, leading to compression pre-straining into the inelastic range due to restraint of thermal
expansion of the beam by the slab. This differential heating also causes the slab panel to deform
towards the fire.
With increasing heating and weakening of the system, the buildup of compression strain in the
beam elements slows and then reverses, due to the influence of the applied loading moment-
induced tension on the beam elements. This generates tensile stress in the beam elements
associated with inelastic tensile straining. This condition occurs as the slab panel deformation is
increasing towards its maximum value and is the condition represented by the stress state in
Fig. 60.18. An insight into this complex condition can be seen from looking at the behaviour of the
gravity beams 1 and 2 in [36].
Thus the strain history of the secondary beam connected to the slab via shear studs and subject to
severe fire is complex, with a regime of inelastic compression strain development, followed by
inelastic tension strain development in the midspan region, where the loading-induced positive
moment effect is greatest.
The unprotected secondary beam contribution included herein also assumes the following:
(1) The secondary beams are of uniform cross section. If beams of varying cross section along
their length are used, the secondary beam contribution must be amended (or,
conservatively, ignored). For tapered beams of triangular cross section (minimum at ends,
maximum at centre), use the dimensions at the third point along the beam span.
(2) There are no openings in the webs of these beams.
If there are web openings and they are reinforced, then the web contribution can be
determined as given by equation 60.A10.3.
If there are web openings and they are unreinforced, then either the web contribution can be
ignored or a reduced web area used. This will only be required where the openings are
within the middle two quarters of the secondary beams.
Where more than one source of tension force development exists within the cross section, the
centroid of that force from the top of concrete must be determined. This is erx or ery, given by
equations 60.A11 and 60.A16, respectively. This value is used in determining the tensile
membrane enhancement arising from displacement of the centre of the slab panel relative to the
supports, in equations 60.A35 and 60.A36.
( )
For the negative moment capacity m x' , the concrete compression block is on the fire-exposed
side and is therefore affected by elevated temperature. The loss of concrete strength due to
elevated temperature is accounted for, through the values of ecθ given in section A4.2.1 (3). The
values given have been derived as follows:
(1) The maximum temperatures developed in the fire exposed concrete from all the natural fire
test cases given in DCB Issue No. 59 Table 59.1 have been determined. These
temperatures are listed in section A4.1.4.
(2) (2) The times taken to reach the same temperatures under standard ISO fire curve
heating have been determined; these times are also listed in section A4.1.4.
(3) The tension force that can be developed by the maximum area of interior support bar
reinforcement has been determined, by taking this reinforcement at full yield stress.
(4) The depth of concrete in compression requied to balance this tension force, for the
appropriate standard fire test time, has been determined from HERA Report R4-82 [8]
Table 6.
(5) The resulting value of eccentricity from that tale is the value of e cθ used in the calculations for
m x' . That value accounts directly for loss of concrete strength due to elevated temperatures
(see Fig. 10 of [8] for details).
The diameter of mesh bar used for cold-drawn mesh to NZS 3421 [24], ie. dmesh, ranges from 6mm
to 11.2mm.
Mesh cover is 30mm for slabs on profiled steel deck, as specified by NZS 3404 Commentary
Clause C13.2.2(a).
The additional bar reinforcement shown in Fig. 60.10 sits on top of the mesh reinforcement for
slabs on profiled steel deck.
The equation for yield-line load carrying capacity of a rectangular slab panel, equation 60.A21.1, is
from [19].
CA4.2.2 Yieldline capacity of simply-supported slab panel
The BRE method [1] has been developed for a simply supported slab panel, as it is assumed
(correctly) that mesh reinforcement across any interior supports will fracture under the negative
curvatures developed. Hence the interior support bars are grade 430 deformed bars to [26] rather
than mesh. The tensile membrane enhancement, given by equation 60.A41, has been normalised
with respect to the simply-supported load-carrying capacity [1] and it is therefore applied only to
that capacity, in equation 60.A42. Thus the simply supported load-carrying capacity and the higher
load-carrying capacity developed by including the interior support bar contribution must both be
determined.
CA4.2.3 Limiting deflection of slab panel
The limiting deflection equations are those proposed by Bailey [1]. The first term is the deflection
due to thermal effects; the second term the deflection under applied loading.
The thermal effects are determined from the peak temperature difference between the top and
bottom of the slab. Bailey used 770 oC, based on standard fire tests; we have used 770 oC based
on the thermal analyses under natural fire conditions reported in DCB Issue No. 59.
Bailey comments [1] that, comparing the results of the method with the Cardington tests, there is a
“factor of safety” of around 2.4 in these equations, in terms of the limiting deflection allowed
compared with the deflection necessary to generate the full width crack at mid-span that is taken
[1] as the failure point for slab panel tensile membrane action.
For New Zealand application, an additional limitation on the loading-induced inelastic deflection
that must be applied is that associated with avoiding fracture of the hard drawn mild steel wire
mesh along the positive moment yieldline in the middle of the slab panel. (This is the length of
yieldline CD shown in Figs. 60.17 or 60.19).
Hard-drawn wire mesh to [24] has a dependable minimum specified uniform elongation of only 2%.
For mesh bars spaced at 300mm centres, this is 6mm plastic deformation. HERA has been
involved in large-scale, semi-rigid beam to column joint seismic testing [25] including a floor slab
with D147 mesh, comprising 7.5mm diameter bars at 300mm centres. One outcome of these
seismic tests has been to determine the minimum extension exhibited across a crack containing
the mesh reinforcement, prior to fracture of any of the mesh bars occurring. The minimum
recorded extension prior to fracture at the level of the mesh bars was 5mm.
Using the figure of 5mm and assuming (conservatively) that the total vertical deflection at midspan
across the short span of the slab panel is developed through positive plastic rotation of the yieldline
CD, then the maximum midspan deflection to achieve a 5mm extension for the typical value of
er,mesh is easily determined. For 30mm cover, Lx/30 allows er,mesh ≤ 37.5mm while Lx/25 allows
er,mesh ≤ 31.5mm. Typically, er,mesh = 35mm to 37.5mm, making Lx/30 the appropriate upper limit on
deflection across the short span for mechanically induced plastic rotation of the positive yieldline
CD. This limit is included in equation 60.A22.2 as the second term of that equation. It is potentially
quite conservative, in that it ignores the increase in elongation capability that will occur with
increasing temperature. Given that attainment of Lx/30 will only occur once the temperatures are
above 300 oC, it would be worthwhile researching the elongation that could dependably be applied,
in order to raise this limit.
The second term of equation 60.A22.1 contains the limit on long span deflection conservatively
proposed [1] by Bailey to suppress the mid-span crack across the short span that denotes slab
panel failure. See Fig. 60.1 on page 4 for a diagram of that crack.
The second term of equation 60.A22.1 contains both fyr and E for the mesh, with the ambient
temperature values for each specified. In practice, both these mechanical properties decrease with
temperature and, within the temperature range of 300 - 700oC, the reduction in E is more rapid
than fy. The minimum value of [(fyθ/Eθ)/ (fy20/E20)] for either cold-worked or hot-formed
reinforcement over the 300-700oC temperature range has been determined from Tables A.3 and
A.4 of EC2 Part 1-2 [28] and the ratio of (fyr20,mesh/E20,mesh) used in equation 60.A22.1 has been
increased by that value. The effect is to raise the 0.5 factor given by Bailey [1] to 0.7. The
temperature range of 300 oC - 700oC is that applicable to the mesh of the deformed slab panel;
when the mesh is cooler the deformation will be lower and hence this failure mode will not be
critical.
When calculating ∆max from equations 60.A22, it is found that the thermal and mechanical
contributions to deflection are generally similar. This means that the maximum vertical deflection of
the slab panel at CD relative to the primary interior beams could be Lx/15. The realistic worst case
in terms of negative rotation of the slab over the primary interior beams involves one slab panel at
full (thermal plus mechanical) deflection and the adjacent slab panel at full mechanical deflection
(having been subjected to fully developed fire and in the cool-down stage). Applying the same
approach for bar extension as that used above for the mesh shows that Grade 430 reinforcement
to NZS 3402 [26], which has a minimum specified elongation of 15%, will be able to accommodate
this rotation without fracture, however mesh bars will fracture over the interior supports, as
assumed in [1] and seen in [17].
CA4.2.4 Determination of tensile membrane enhancement
Equation 60.A23 is from [19] and is required to calculate dimension L1. For slab panels with
slightly flexible supports, as is the case in this instance, it is important to determine L1 based on the
critical variables mx, my, Lx, Ly. rather than assume a yieldline angle of intersection with the corners
of 45 o [19].
The derivation of equations 60.A24 to 60.A41 is given in [1], except for notation changes to suit
New Zealand practice and the generalising of the terms to allow for multiple sources of tension
capacity in developing mx and my.
Users should note that there will be instances where equation 60.A36 gives a negative value for
e2my. This is not an error; it simply shows that the enhancement due to displacement of the slab
panel centre relative to the supports has been overestimated for element 1 and this needs to be
compensated for.
CA4.2.5 Check on moment/tension membrane adequacy
If the slab panel moment/tension membrane capacity is not adequate, options for increasing this
capacity include:
(1) Place deck trough bars to increase my.

(2) Increase the mesh reinforcement, noting the restriction on mesh pitch and grade in the
accompanying article.
(3) Increase the size of the supporting unprotected secondary beams
(4) Increase the concrete thickness and mesh cover to increase mx, my (however this also
increases w*).
See section 9.2 of the accompanying article (pages 14, 15 herein) for further guidance on obtaining
a cost-effective solution.
CA4.2.6 Determining the shear capacity of the slab panel
(1) Shear capacity through the slab.
There are five points here to note in the commentary;
(i) As shown in Fig. 60.17, the slab shear check is undertaken along the primary support
beams rather than the secondary support (edge) beams. There are two reasons for
this. First is that the depth of concrete resisting shear is greater onto the secondary
beams (the average depth, he, rather than cover slab depth, 2he-to). Secondly, the
decking itself contributes to the shear resistance onto the secondary edge beams, as
the webs of the deck can develop some shear resistance, even at elevated
temperature, in that direction.
(ii) The loading on the secondary edge beams is triangular rather than uniform, making
the primary support beams more uniformly loaded and more critical for shear.
(iii) The depth of concrete, dv, used to resist shear is measured from the extreme
compression fibre to the centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement [11]. Over the
supports, the centroid of the longitudinal tension reinforcement can be taken as the
centroid of the interior support bars, or edge bars, as appropriate. These sit on top of
the mesh and so increase dv. However, the extreme compression fibre is not at the
fire exposed face, because of strength loss due to heating. For the concrete
temperatures involved, the effective extreme compression fibre can be taken as
0.67ecθ from the heated face of the concrete. This is derived from [8] and the
determination of ecθ.
(iv) For slabs, the minimum concrete contribution is set by NZS 3101 Clause 9.3.2.2 as
0.17 f c' . For a slab on profiled steel deck, this minimum value will apply for any
level of tension reinforcement, so the concrete slab shear contibution is independent
of the actual level of slab bar reinforcement supplied at the supports.
(v) The strength reduction factor for concrete shear in fire, φfire = 0.75/0.85 = 0.89. This
comes from applying φ fire = (φ/0.85) ≤ 1.0, which is being introduced to NZS 3404 [10]
through Amendment No. 1 [22], in conjunction with φc = 0.75 for shear in concrete,
from NZS 3101 [11].
(2) Shear capacity available through the secondary beam to primary beam connection.
The slab and secondary beam are an integral unit, so for the slab to suffer a shear failure at
the primary beams, the secondary to primary beam connection will also have to undergo a
shear failure.
The minimum elevated temperature shear capacity at peak heating can be realistically
assessed as the minimum elevated temperature capaicty of either the bolt group in single
shear or the beam web in shear. Both modes are checked and the minimum capacity
selected; see equations 60.A46.1 to 60.A46.3.
(3) Shear resistance during cool-down.
During the cool-down period, the sides of the slab panel, including the secondary beam to
primary beam connections, are subjected to increasing tension force. However, the
mechancial capacity of these components is also increasing as their temperature decreases.
The shear resistance and integrity will be maintained during this period provided that:
(i) The connections can accommodate the tension force without fracture of the bolts or
connection components, and
(ii) The ability to transfer longitudinal tension force through the slab panel edges into their
supports is not lost.
Connections designed and detailed to HERA Report R4-100 [6] are specifically configured to
avoid fracture under either inelastic rotation or fire-induced tension under cooldown; thus
suppressing failure from (i). One of the important functions of the edge and interior support
bars is to suppress failure from (ii).
CA4.2.8 Check on shear adequacy
Obviously, option (1) is not possible in such instances as where the secondary beams are deeper
than the primary beams, unless the top of steel of each beam is at suitably different levels.
CA5 Commentary on Slab panel Design Method; Floors Incorporating In-Situ Concrete Slabs on
Speedfloor Joists Supported on Primary Beams
Application of the slab panel method to concrete slabs on Speedfloor joists supported on primary
beams follows much the same procedure as for concrete slabs on steel deck supported on
secondary and primary beams. The floor system layout is as shown in Fig. 60.19, the additional
reinforcement shown in Fig. 60.10 also applies.
Minor differences in terms of the position of mesh within the slab and position of additional bar
reinforcement are due to physical differences in the systems, in particular the protrusion of the top
of the Speedfloor joists into the slab and the manner in which the slab is cast. For those unfamiliar
with the Speedfloor system, refer to these details in [14].
There are three major differences between the Speedfloor system and a conventional composite
floor incorporating a profiled steel deck. These are now addressed insofar as they affect the
design procedure:
1.1 Preservation of integrity
Integrity is the ability of the floor slab to resist the passage of flame or hot gasses [5]. For the floor
systems covered by this design procedure, the system will be expected to preserve integrity for the
full burnout period.
With a concrete slab cast onto profiled steel deck, integrity is easily met, even if a full depth crack
appears in the concrete. This is because the decking will seal the base of the crack.
Speedfloor slabs are not cast onto steel decking, but rather onto formwork which is removed after
the concrete has set. They must therefore be reinforced to a level sufficient to ensure that any
cracks which develop full depth through the concrete slab are sufficiently small at their narrowest
point (ie. less than 1mm wide) to satisfy integrity.
In the absence of any guidance available from full-scale fire tests, a level of reinforcement which
will confidently ensure that integrity is satisfied under the deformation levels expected must be
specified. The HERA Structural Engineer recommends a suitable level to be that specified by AS
3600 [27] Clause 9.4.3 for providing “strong crack control” under in-service conditions.
This requires the mesh reinforcement to be placed such that the ratio of reinforcement to gross
concrete area in each direction ≥ 2.5/f y, ie. 3.5 times the minimum reinforcement content specified
by NZS 3101 Clause 7.3.30.1.
When expressed in terms of mm2/m width, this becomes:
Arx,mesh ; Ary,mesh ≥ 5.1 to (60.CA1)
These amounts are shown in section A5.1.
The area of edge bars and interior support bars must be at least equal to the area of mesh.
1.2 Specification of mesh
In order to obtain the required deformation capacity from hard drawn mild steel mesh to NZS 3421,
a pitch of 300mm is required. Hard drawn mesh comes in bar sizes of up to 11.2mm dia, and this
diameter at 300mm centres does not provide sufficient area for either the 75mm deep or 90mm
deep slabs.
This requires dropping the mesh pitch below 300mm, which means that the hard drawn mesh
cannot be used for ductility reasons.
A mesh comprising Grade 430 rebar to NZS 3402 [26] is required; this has sufficient elongation to
accommodate pitches as low as 50mm. Either plain or deformed bar is suitable. The mesh must
therefore be specified as “welded 430 grade rod mesh” to the appropriate rod size and spacing.
For the 75mm deep slab, 382mm2/m of reinforcement each way is required; 8mm bars at 100
centres gives 503mm2/m, which is suitable.
1.3 Specification of edge and interior support bars
The area of these bars must equal the required area of mesh. Given that these are DH12 Grade
430 bars, 300mm centres gives Ar = 377mm2/m which is satisfactory for a 75mm deep slab. It also
satisfies the spacing requirements of ≤ 4 to between bars.
1.4 Justification for achieving integrity through a minimum level of mesh reinforcement
To breach integrity requires the presence of a full depth crack through the slab with a crack width of
over 1mm.
In a slab panel undergoing the degree of distortion required to mobilise tension membrane action,
three patterns of cracks form [9]:
(i) Positive moment cracks due to yieldline moment action. These form on the underside only
and would not compromise integrity.
(ii) Negative curvature cracking due to tension membrane deformation. These form on the
topside only and would not compromise integrity.
(iii) Full depth crack at the centre in the short span. This forms at the time of failure and would
compromise integrity.
In this design procedure, the allowable deflection is limited to suppress (iii), which is the one crack
pattern that would compromise integrity.
Furthermore, the BRE test [9] was on a slab reinforced with only the light anti-crack mesh specified
for composite slabs on profiled steel decking. Providing the greater level associated with strong
crack control to [27] will minimise the crack width due to (i) and (ii) above and preserve integrity for
the slab.
2. Contribution of Speedfloor joists to moment capacity in the x-direction
In this first edition of the design procedure, the contribution of the Speedfloor joists to the
development of mx is not included.
Given the relatively high reinforcement levels currently being specified to preserve integrity (see the
requirements for Arx,mesh and Ary,mesh in section A5.2.1), and the current span limitations of
Speedfloor, there is probably not the same benefit in including the contribution of the joists to mx as
there is with secondary beams. However, the joists will make a contribution which could be
considered in the future. To do so would require knowledge of the following:
(1) Temperatures reached by the joists (the region of joist below the concrete could be taken at
the fire temperature). This could be determined by analysis using SAFIR.
(2) The elevated temperature mechanical properties of the joists for the strain levels involved.
This could probably be determined from published data without further testing already.
(3) If contribution from elements of the joist below the soffit of the concrete slab are to be
included, the deformed shape of the joist cross section in severe fire conditions needs to be
known, so that the centroid of tension resisting elements can be dependably located.
As a start, it would be possible to determine, by SAFIR analysis, the temperature of the joist
element composite with the concrete slab and incorporate that into the slab panel
mechanism, using EC3 [29] to determine the variation of fy with temperature.
The procedure given herein could then be revised accordingly.
3. Resistance of shear at primary beams
The Speedfloor joists are currently not assumed capable of developing any shear resistance under
severe fire conditions and thus assisting in developing shear capacity at the slab panel to primary
beam supports. This is different to a conventional secondary beam and would also be a worthwhile
topic for further research.
CA6 Design of Supporting Beams
CA6.2 Application
Note that the positive moment capacity of the supporting beams is the composite moment capacity,
Mrc. This is because the beams supporting the slab panel must be composite.
As introduced by Amendment No. 1 [22] to NZS 3404, φfire = (φ/0.85) ≤ 1.0, where φ is given by
NZS 3404 Table 3.3(1) or Table 13.1.2(1) as required. For the composite beam or bare steel beam
moment capacity, φfire = 1.0.
When determining the adequacy of the supporting beams, two options are given. These are to suit
the beam conditions that will be encounted in practice.
The first option (option 3.1) involves applying passive fire protection in accordance with traditional
practice. This will typically be required for interior support beams.
The second option is intended for lightly loaded edge beams, especially those that are part of
seismic-resisting systems and which therefore have a high reserve of strength in fire. It takes into
account the cooling effect which occurs at the edge of an enclosure, irrespective of whether that
edge is adjacent to openings or not. This effect is seen in all the Cardington enclosure tests [17]
and is quantified for design purposes, conservatively, in [2]. That recommendation is used in step
3.2.2 herein.
The determination of moment adequacy through a plastic collapse mechanism check, in step 3.2.4,
follows established theory. Further guidance on applying this to different beam support conditions
can be found in section 6.1 of HERA Report R4-82 [8].
For beams with rigid connections, elevated temperature shear capacity is satisfied without the need
for an explicit check. With semi-rigid connections, this will also typically be the case; with simple
connections a check from first principles will be needed, using the minimum of the bolt group
elevated temperature shear capacity and the beam web elevated temperature shear capacity.
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
Auckland,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885
Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 61 April 2001

beginning of the article. review by a number of people following its presentation in
draft form at a series of seminars. The effort and input of
these reviews is greatly appreciated.
Introduction Flexible Joint for Fire

Following the “blockbuster” size and scope of the Separations
February 2001 issue, this issue is much smaller This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
and covers a range of topics. Also, given the Structural Engineer, based on information supplied by Bill
emphasis on fire engineering in the last two Norman, PFP Systems (NZ) Ltd.
issues, that topic is not covered this time around,
although a product for application to prevent fire General
spread is described.
There are several instances where a fire
separation must withstand significant deformation
This issue covers a number of topics including
without compromising its fire separating function.
amendments to previously published connection
design guidance. It presents a connection design
The most common example is across seismic
example, illustrating the use of design concepts
gaps in floors and walls. In this instance, the
published in a previous DCB. It also briefly
separating element must be able to accommodate
describes an innovative steel application in an
reversing earthquake movements across the gap
apartment building.
of 250 mm or more, retaining its fire separating
role during and after the earthquake.
In This Issue Page
A new application is in fire separating walls
Flexible Joint for Fire Separations 1 between firecells on the same floor, where the
floor system above the wall is designed for
Design of Circular Flange Joints in dependable inelastic response in severe fire and
Tubular Structures: Update on 2 the wall is located beneath a region of the floor
Previously Published Guidance slab panel system that is designed to undergo
significant vertical deflection under severe fire
Amendment to Flexible Endplate conditions. The design for this slab panel is given
Connections in HERA Report R4- in DCB Issue No. 60, with the deformation of floor
3 system relative to separating wall shown in
100 Structural Steelwork
Connections Guide Fig. 60.5.
Design of Crane Runway Girders A suitable joint system for either application is
and Monorail Beams: Standard Now 6 now briefly described.
Available
Details of Flexible Joint
Design Example No. 61.1:
Design of a Brace / Beam / Column 9 The joint comprises a ceramic fibre blanket which
Connection in a Braced Steel Frame is pinned with a pin / flat plate washer system to a
galvanized wire mesh. See an example in
Innovative Structural Steelwork: Fig. 61.1. This mesh is then connected via.
Case Study : Scotia Place 21 Dynabolts / flat steel plates to the rigid elements
Apartments on each side of the flexible joint.
References 22
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 61, April 2001
Fig. 61.1
Flexible Joint for Fire Separation
The light-weight joint is designed to accommodate Fig. 61.2 shows the type of joint under
a wide range of building movement situations consideration.
and fire resistance rating requirements. It has
a working temperature of up to 1350 oC and an An overview of the scope and content of the Cao
−/integrity /insulation rating of − /240/240. and Packer paper is presented in DCB Issue No.
46, on pages 17 and 18 therein.
For more details, contact the manufacturer and
supplier of the flexible joint; The paper is written for US application, with the
Bill Norman result that notation and grades of material
PFP Systems (NZ) Ltd presented in [1] are in US terminology. For this
PO Box 26-160 reason, the equivalent New Zealand grades of
Auckland steel and property class of bolt are given on page
Phone 0-9-636 6115 17 of DCB Issue No. 46. The equations and
Fax 0-9-636 6113 design charts are non-dimensional, so that the
different units are not a significant complication.
Use In Inelastic Floor Slab Panel System This is just as well, because efforts to obtain a
version of the paper [1] in SI units have not been
This is the application shown in Fig. 60.5, DCB
successful.
Issue No. 60. In this instance, one side of the
joint will be connected to the floor slab above the
wall, the other side to the top of the wall. Update on Application to CHS Members
Subject to Bending Moment
The separating wall will need to cantilever from
the floor slab below, for example with internal Cao and Packer’s procedure [1] is for bolted joints
SHS (structural hollow section) columns for lateral between CHS members subject to design tension.
support. However, the guidance can be expanded to
circular members subject to moment, through
Any unprotected supporting beams for the floor determining the equivalent tension force
above that cross the fire separation will need generated by the moment.
passive protection for (1.0 x beam depth) each
side of the separation to preserve insulation. In a circular member subject to moment and
responding elastically, 82% of the moment is
Design of Circular Flange Joints transferred by axial force through the top and
in Tubular Structures: Update bottom quadrants. This can be used to determine
on Previously Published an equivalent design tension force to apply to the
top quadrant; the bottom quadrant will transfer the
Guidance moment-induced compression by direct bearing
between the flanges.
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer.
The design tension force for the top quadrant has
Background been given as equation 46.11 in DCB Issue
No. 46. Unfortunately, it is not clear from that
Results of a comprehensive research project into
description that the force determined from
the behaviour of bolted circular flange joints in
equation 46.11 is the tension force applying to the
tension members, along with a design procedure,
top quadrant alone.
have been published in a paper [1] by Cao and
Packer.
Fig. 61.2
Circular Flange Bolted Joint (from [1])
Note: This figure is also shown in DCB Issue No. 46 as Fig. 46.5
That force must be multiplied by 2 to determine This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
the equivalent uniform design tension force Structural Engineer, and Clark Hyland, SSAS Manager and
Nandor Mago, Research Engineer.
( T *joint ) to use in application of the design
procedure and design charts presented in [1]. Introduction and Background
The factor 2 comes from applying the top
quadrant tension force uniformly around the top HERA Report R4-100 Structural Steelwork
half of the section, which is the region in bending- Connections Guide [2] should, by now, be a
induced tension. familiar publication to all Bulletin readers. It
contains tables of pre-engineered and load-rated
Thus the equivalent uniform design tension force connections that comply with NZS 3404 [3].
induced by bending moment, to use when Design objectives, procedures and calculation
applying the Cao and Packer procedure to CHS formulae for each connection type are also
joints subject to bending moment, is given by included, as are a set of engineering drawings for
equation 61.1; each type of connection covered. The most
commonly used flexible and rigid connections are
included, including the flexible endplate (FE)
2 x 0.82 M *
*
Tjoint = *
61.1 connection.
dcq
Fig. 61.3 shows an isometric view of a FE-NC
where: connection (flexible endplate with no cope)
M * = design bending moment at joint between a beam and a column. Some notation
*
dcq = distance between the centroids of the additional to [2] has been added for this article.
top and bottom quadrants. HERA has an policy of encouraging feedback on
all our publications and any queries regarding the
*
This force, Tjoint , is then used in applying the adequacy of published design procedures are
design charts given in Figs. 4 to 7 and section 4.4 thoroughly investigated. Thus, when a query was
of [1]. raised as to the provisions in [2] regarding the
strength of the beam web supporting the flexible
Combinations of moment and axial force can be endplate, an investigation of these commenced.
dealt with by linear interaction of the moment-
induced axial tension force and the direct applied The query related to a difference between the
axial tension force. design provisions for supporting web shear
strength used in [2], and those used in the AISC
publication Design of Structural Connections,
Amendment to the Flexible Fourth Edition [4]. The difference lay in the depth
Endplate Connection Provisions of beam web used to develop the web’s design
shear capacity; in R4-100 the nominal web shear
of R4-100 Structural Steelwork yield stress of 0.6fyw is applied over the full depth
Connections Guide of section web in an uncoped section, whereas in
[4] it is applied over just the cleat depth, di.
460UB67 FE70NC
460UB67 FE70SWC
(70% shear, single web cope)
475HB63 FE70NC
800SB152 FE70NC
The considerations from first principles looked at

the interaction of shear and tension at the top and
bottom of the cleat (points A and B in Fig. 61.3).
The shear arises from the reaction from the

vertical load on the beam. Longitudinal tension
arises from beam end rotation causing out-of-
plane flexure in the endplate. A transverse
hanging tension force is developed in the web at
the bottom of the cleat. Similarly, a transverse
compression force is developed in the web at the
top of the cleat, as the web forces converge on
the endplate at that point.
The finite element analyses modelled a simply

supported length of beam, with FE connections to
supporting faces at each end. These beams were
laterally restrained along the top flange and
Fig. 61.3
loaded with a central point load applying vertically
Flexible Endplate Beam to Column Connection
downwards. The applied load and beam length
FE-NC (from [2]) With Added Notation
were established so that, when the shear from this
load reached the rating for the connection (ie.
This investigation, brief details of which are given
30%, 50% or 70%), the design section moment
below, showed the most accurate determination of
capacity was being developed at midspan. This
design capacity of the web to lie between these
ensured that maximum beam end rotations were
two values.
developed for the given level of applied shear
load.
As a result, changes to the FE design procedure
have been made and are published in
These analyses involved a model with a very fine
Amendment No. 1 [5] to R4-100, along with the
mesh size within the endplate and adjacent length
revised connection design capacities.
of beam, in order to accurately model the
The next section of this article very briefly development and spread of plasticity in and
overviews the research undertaken on this joint. around the connection. Endplate, weldmetal and
This is followed by a general description of the beam materials were modelled as bi-linear
changes to the design procedure and brief inelastic, with the three key input (stress, strain)
mention of the scope of the Amendment No. 1. points for the material plasticity characteristics
being:
Brief Overview of Research Undertaken
• (0; 0)
A two-pronged approach was employed, namely: • (fy,design ; ε y = fy / E)
• (fu,design ; ε u = fu / E)
• First principles consideration of the applied
stress state in the web, taking account of the where:
vertical shear, the anticipated longitudinal and fy,design = specified minimum yield stress to [3]
transverse axial forces and combinations of fu,design = specified minimum tensile strength
these considered appropriate
The applied load was applied in increments up to
• Detailed finite element analyses of 7 different
1.3 x the anticipated design shear capacity of the
FE connection types, covering differences in
joint, in each instance, so that the development
beam size, no-cope / single cope / double
and spread of plasticity approaching, at, and
cope and level of applied shear, to review /
beyond the design shear capacity of the joint
modify the design model. The seven
could be determined.
connection types analysed were:
Fig. 61.4 shows the ultimate limit state deformed
180UB16 FE30NC (30% shear, no cope) shape and stress distribution within the joint for a
400LB38 FE50NC (50% shear, no cope) FE-NC connection to a beam. The direction of
600LB60 FE70NC (70% shear, no cope) applied shear force on the beam at the support is
as shown in Fig. 61.3, forcing the beam • The interaction of vertical shear and
downwards relative to the endplate. longitudinal tension in the beam web is most
significant at the top of the cleat - ie. at point A
in Fig. 61.3. The longitudinal tension arises
from out-of-plane flexure in the endplate due
to rotation of the beam end under vertical
loading.
The design shear capacity associated with the

block shear mechanism described above is
associated with localised inelastic demand on the
web. To study the behaviour through to failure, an
experimental testing programme is being
developed for undertaking later this year.
The effect of these design procedure changes is

to downrate the design shear capacity of a
number of FE connections from those given in [2].
Changes to Design Procedure

There have been three changes made in the
amendment [5] to the procedure published in
R4-100. These changes are as follows:
(1) The design shear capacity of the beam web

is now based on block shear action, with
the depth of the web block being the cleat
depth and the width being 20 mm. This is
explained in diagrammatical form in [5].
(2) The longitudinal web tension developed

adjacent to the top of the cleat by the
endplate in out-of-plane flexure is based on
the overstrength flexural action, using a
Fig. 61.4 factor of (1.2/0.9). The 1.2 is the material
Finite Element Analysis of FE-NC Connection, variation factor from NZS 3404 [3] for grade
Subjected to Applied Shear Sufficient to Local 250/300 steels of Australia / New Zealand
Plastic Deformation of the Web origin. Previously it was based on design
flexural action.
The results of the FE analyses showed the
following: (3) The combination of transverse (vertical)
shear and longitudinal tension from (2) is
• The shear capacity of the beam web adjacent used to check the beam web capacity at the
to the cleat is greater than that associated top of the endplate (point A in Fig. 61.3)
with developing only the shield yield stress and to size the weld between the endplate
over the depth of the cleat (as used in [4]). and beam web.
• A better design model for determining the This caters more effectively for the three cases
shear capacity of the beam web adjacent to that will give rise to this out-of-plane flexure in the
the cleat, where the web extends past the endplate, namely:
cleat at both top and bottom, is given by block
shear action of a rectangle of web extending • Beam end rotation under maximum
20 mm into the beam from the beam face. vertical loading
The vertical design stresses on this block of • Beam to column joint inelastic rotation
web are shear yielding on the sides and axial under severe earthquake loading
tension / compression yielding on the top & • Inelastic rotation and cooling-induced
bottom. pull-in of unprotected beams away from
their supporting member, under severe
• In the web immediately below the cleat, ie. at fire conditions (see DCB No. 60).
point B in Fig. 61.3, critical actions are vertical
The effect of these changes has been to downrate
shear and hanging tension.
a number of the FE connection design capacities
published in [2]. In general terms, the changes achieving 70% of the design shear capacity of
are as follows: the steel beam require an increase in cleat
length from that specified in [2].
(i) The NC (no cope) connections are most • For connections selected on the basis of the
affected. published design shear capacity, a specific
comparison of new versus old capacity will
(ii) The most adversely affected connections
need to be made.
are those for beams with webs less
than 6 mm thick in the smaller UB range
Designers who have any questions about the
and in the Steltech LB and FB range. In
amended procedure are welcome to contact Clark
some of these, the new design capacity is
Hyland or Charles Clifton at HERA. However,
as low as 0.67 x the old design capacity.
they should also note the following:
(iii) The connection tables published in [2, 5]
• The design capacities and FE analyses are
are organised into percentages of the beam
based on minimum specified material
design shear capacity - ie. 30%, 50% and
strengths; in practice the average strengths
70%. In addition, the actual design shear
are 1.19 x the minimum specified values
capacity of each connection is given. In all
instances published in the original report, • The beams with high shear demand (ie. the
the actual connection design shear capacity 70% shear capacity series) tend to be shorter
span members and less commonly used.
has been in excess of the relevant
percentage of beam shear capacity and this
situation is retained with the revised Design of Crane Runway
connections. Some connections have had
their cleat lengths slightly increased to
Girders and Monorail Beams :
achieve this. Standard Now Available
Thus, designers who have selected a connection This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
on the basis of the proportion of beam shear
capacity, as recommended by [2, 5] to resist the Introduction and Scope of Article
ultimate limit state design actions from [6], will find
that the revised connection capacities are still For the design of cranes, two standards are
satisfactory, albeit with longer cleats in a minority referenced from NZS 3404 [3] for the general and
of instances. specific design requirements. These are AS 1418
and NZS/BS 2573.
Scope and Content of Amendment No. 1
The AS 1418 series is easily the most
This amendment is set out in the same format as comprehensive and modern of the two, although
that of [2]. the NZS/BS 2573 series is referenced by the
Power Crane Association of New Zealand.
The new design criteria are incorporated into the
Design Features, Design Procedure and Design The design of the crane system itself (crane rail,
Formulae sections of the Amendment [5]. In crab, hoist and operating system) is typically
addition, a new section is added showing the undertaken by specialist design engineers
block shear mechanisms for each FE connection working for the crane manufacturers.
sub-type (NC, SWC, DWC).
However, cranes must be supported on a system
The connection design tables are presented in the which, in the case of cranes in buildings,
same format as those of the original report. comprises crane runway girders or monorail
beams. These supporting systems are generally
The amendment replaces all the current Section designed by the building designer.
Vlll of R4-100 [2] except for the connection
drawings (which have not changed). Users The design of both crane runway girders and
should simply replace that section with the monorail beams has been the subject of much
amendment for design of new connections. debate. This has not been helped by the age of
the existing design guidance on each item; that for
For checking the adequacy of existing crane runway girders [7] was published in 1983
connections, there are two situations: and for monorail beams [8] in 1978. Both of these
predate limit states design and the current
• Connections selected from [2] on the basis of generation of structural design standards.
achieving 30% or 50% of the design shear
capacity of the steel beam will still achieve Recognising this, the Joint Standards Australia /
this. Connections selected on the basis of Standards New Zealand Committee ME-005
Cranes set about developing a standard covering duty runways. These definitions are given in
design of both systems. This process generated Clauses 1.5.7 and 1.5.4 of [10] respectively and
a draft for comment in 1997. The draft received a are critical to the subsequent design requirements
mixed reception and generated much debate, for the runway girder.
along with a strong move to sort out the divergent
views and produce a final document. An excellent An important point is made in clause 1.5.9, which
paper [9] summarising the status of this debate, is that the term runway girder is used throughout
as of mid-1998, was presented at the 1998 [10] to denote both runway girders and monorail
Australasian Structural Engineering Conference in beams unless specifically stated otherwise. The
Auckland, October 1998. same practice is used here.
The long process of resolving these issues was Section 2: materials

completed at the end of 2000 and AS 1418:18
(Design of) Crane Runways and Monorails was The provisions relating to materials are tied into
published [10] in February 2001. Although AS 4100 [12], which are the same as the
produced by a Joint Committee, it has been requirements of NZS 3404 [3] in that regard.
published as an Australian Standard by mutual
consent. The over-riding reason was its Section 3: classification of crane runway
relationship with the AS 1418 series of crane girders
standards, in particular AS 1418:1 [11], which
presents the general requirements for crane This section links into Section 2 of AS 1418 1 [11]
design / classification and which, as mentioned for determining the classification for the runway
earlier in this introduction, is referenced from girders. It then provides specific guidance on
NZS 3404. altering the classification for cases specific to
crane runway girders rather than applying to
AS 1418:18 [10] is one of the most keenly awaited cranes in general, such as with two or more
Australian Standards, in terms of its potential for cranes running on the same runway system.
application in New Zealand and its provision of
up-to-date guidance on a topic of some Section 2 of AS 1418.1 [11] determines the
contention. It is written in conjunction with either classification on the basis of the utilisation class
the permissible stress or the limit states methods and load spectrum, in the same manner as for the
of design. crane. The former relates to the frequency of use
and the latter to the spectrum of loads carried by
This article provides an introduction to the new the crane. For the designer of crane runway
Standard. systems, this information should be supplied
by the crane supplier / principal. If Appendix A of
The section below covers the scope and content AS 1418.18 has been completed, then the
of AS 1418:18. It is the principal section of this classification is calculated from that data. If not,
article. then the crane runway designer can use Appendix
D of AS 1418.1 [11] to derive this classification.
This is followed by guidance on the use of
AS 1418:18 in conjunction with the New Zealand The classification of the girder is very important in
Steel Structures Standard. Then there is brief terms of defining it as a light duty runway or a
coverage of the relevance of existing design heavy duty runway. Most applications will be light
guidance in relation to the new Standard. duty, but this must be calculated.
Section 4: loads and load combinations

The article ends with some of the important
design considerations that crane runway girder or This section specifies the loads and load
monorail beam designers need to consider when combinations to consider, again in conjunction
using AS 1418:18 and AS 1418:1. with Part 1 [11]. Guidance is given for two
situations, namely:
Scope and Content of AS 1418:18 • When all the necessary data is available from
the crane manufacturer
Section 1: scope and general • When this data isn’t available (use Appendix
B of Part 18 to determine the interim design
This presents the general requirements relating to criteria).
scope and application. It makes the important
point that the Standard is written for use in This section covers derivation of loads for the
conjunction with loads and classifications from crane runway and supporting structure, including
AS 1418.1 [11]. cases such as:
• Two or more cranes on one runway system
A very important distinction is made between light • Multiple crane bays
duty runways (crane runway girders) and heavy
The load factors to apply for limit state design are Sections 5.8 to 5.11 cover supports, box girders,
given in Clause 4.4.4. compound girders, latticed girders and details for
end stops.
Section 5: design of runway girders
Section 5.12: monorail beams
This is the core section of the Standard. It covers
the following: This section gives the specific design and
detailing requirements for monorail beams,
Section 5.2: forms of construction covering:
• types of beams
• Simply supported, continuous and cantilever • design of bottom flange and web elements
girders • supports
• curved beams
Section 5.3: application of crane loads
Section 5.13: serviceability
• Placing of the wheel train to generate design
actions This section gives the limits on vertical and lateral
• Where to apply the wheel loads to the crane deflection for the:
runway girder cross section (covers vertical • runway girder
and lateral loads and differentiates between • supporting structure
light and heavy duty runways).
• Torsion requirements (for heavy duty runways Section 6: verification of fatigue life
only).
This section gives the fatigue design
Section 5.4: methods of analysis requirements, covering:
• what structural classes require fatigue design
Linear elastic analysis is required. Loads are to • load condition and equivalent cycles
be placed so as to generate most unfavourable • method to use (eg. AS 4100 / NZS 3404)
effect (guidance is given).
Section 7: crane rail and rail accessories
Section 5.5: verification of (static) strength
adequacy This section provides general guidance on the
crane rail and fixing system selection. It is
This very useful section lists the critical locations suggested that the requirements be read in
where static strength checks should be made. conjunction with the guidance given on pages
Fatigue checks are covered in Section 6. 18 - 20 of DCB Issue No. 47 regarding Crane
rails: materials and attachment systems.
Section 5.6: method of design
Section 8: fabrication and erection
This section allows either permissible stress or
limit state design. There is a stipulation that This section calls up the fabrication and erection
whichever approach is adopted is then used requirements of Section 14, 15 of AS 4100
exclusively, except where directed by the (which are equivalent to those of Section 14, 15 of
Standard. NZS 3404).
This section also specifies the different Specific tolerances additional to crane runway
requirements for light duty runways (Clause 5.6.2) girders are given, such as:
and heavy duty runways (Clause 5.6.3). The • out of level across a bay
latter requirements are considerably more • out of level between girder ends
onerous, as the effects of torsion from rail
eccentricity and lateral loading must be Section 9: inspection and maintenance
considered.
This section covers:
Section 5.7: detailed design of girder webs
• scope of inspection
and flanges
• frequency of inspection
This clause, in conjunction with Appendix D, gives • critical areas / components to inspect
the specific design requirements for the flanges
and web. The provisions are well presented and Appendices
appear straight-forward to use.
There are four, the titles of which and status
(normative / informative) are as follows:
Appendix A: design information required provisions of AS 1418:18 Clause 5.12 use the
(normative) basic approach and principal equations from [8],
Appendix B: interim load criteria in the absence of which therefore still provides an effective
definitive crane data (informative) commentary and background.
Appendix C: determination of torsion effects
(normative; required for heavy duty In both cases, however, AS 1418:18 can be used
runways only) for detailed design without recourse to [7, 8], so
Appendix D: horizontal loadings applied to light the above two paragraphs will be relevant only for
duty runways (normative). designers who are familiar with these two
publications and who want to know how they
Use in Conjunction with The Steel Structures relate to the new Standard [10].
Standard
Section 2.3.3 of HERA Report R4-80 [14]
AS 1418:18 [10] is written for application with presents guidance on crane-induced structural
either AS 4100 [12] for limit states design or loadings for limit state design. The four loading
AS 3990 [13] for permissible stress design. classifications given therein are compatible with
the nominal load spectra given in Table 2.3.3 of
For limit states design, NZS 3404 [3] can be AS 1418.1 [11]. The general description of
directly substituted for AS 4100 [12]. Appendix Q loadings to apply to the structure is still relevant,
of NZS 3404 lists the correspondence between however the load factors for ultimate limit state
AS 4100 and NZS 3404 in terms of clause, design should be as specified in AS 1418.18 [10]
equation, section, table or figure, for just such Clause 4.4.4 rather than from [11] or [6].
applications.
Important Design and Detailing
For permissible stress design, AS 3990 [13] is Considerations
simply the now - superseded AS 1250-1981 with a
new cover. These are briefly stated as follows:
Given that many of the permissible stress • Determine the crane rail, attachment system
requirements of AS 1418:18 are actually and type of crane runway girder member to
expressed as permissible loads or actions, use
another option for designers who are familiar with • Determine the form of runway girder
NZS 3404 and wish to use that Standard is to construction to use (simply supported or
apply NZS 3404 through Appendix P. Appendix P continuous)
of [3] is a “filter” which adapts the provisions of • Determine if the girder is light duty or heavy
NZS 3404 into a working or permissible load / duty, as this affects the design requirements
action format. • Check that the strength and serviceability
(deflection) limits are met.
Previous DCB Advice in Relation to
AS 1418:18
Design Example No. 61.1:
There are only two items of previous DCB Design of a Brace / Beam /
guidance relating to crane runway girder design.
Column Connection in a Braced
The first item is in DCB No. 37, pp.9 - 10, on Steel Frame
vertical deflection limits for crane runway girders.
That is superseded by Section 5.13 of the new This design example has been prepared by G Charles Clifton,
HERA Structural Engineer.
Standard [10].
The second item is in DCB No. 47, pp. 18 - 20, on
Crane rails: materials and attachment systems. DCB Issue No. 56, June 2000, contains two
That guidance is still relevant and expands on articles relating to design of brace / beam /
Section 7 of [10]. column connections, such as would be used in an
eccentrically braced frame (EBF) or a
Relevance of Existing Design Guidance concentrically braced frame (CBF). The first
article, on pages 2 - 5 of that Bulletin, covers
Crane runway girders [7] contains a mix of proportioning design actions from the braces into
general and specific technical guidance. The the supporting members of the connection. The
former is still applicable, however the latter is now second article, on pages 5 - 11 therein, presents
superseded by [10]. design concepts for brace / beam / column
connections in an EBF or CBF seismic resisting
Monorail beam design [8] contains principally system.
technical guidance. The monorail − specific
At the time of writing those articles, it was advised followed by design checks on the collector beam
that a connection design example for this type of to column connection in Section 5.
connection would be presented in planned
seismic design seminars, however these have not Section 6 covers design checks on the column to
been possible to date due to other commitments determine whether or not column stiffeners are
of higher priority. required. Section 7 performs the necessary
checks on the beam.
Therefore, it has been decided to present a fully Section 8 calculates the additional moment
worked design example for this type of connection required to be imposed on the column due to
in this issue of the DCB. design actions from the connection.
This design example uses the design guidance Section 9 summarises the joint details.
presented in DCB Issue No. 56 and applies it to a
brace / beam / column connection in the two The connection detail is made consistent,
storey EBF shown in Fig. 61.5. wherever practicable, with the provisions of HERA
Report R4-100 [2] and utilises that report to
The EBF example was originally from an actual reduce the designer effort required. It also utilises
building in 1994 which was used in the readily available material property data, eg. from
development of the EBF seismic design the Design Capacity Tables [16]. The third
provisions presented in HERA Report R4-76 [15]. important publication used in the design is SCI
Publication No. 207/95, Joints in Steel
Construction, Moment Connections [17]. The role
of the latter publication lies in calculating tension
capacities of the endplates, based on flexural
yieldline action. Guidance on its use in that
regard is given in DCB No. 56; see especially
Appendix A56 on pages 29 - 32 therein.
2. Input Data
The initial angle between the brace and collector

beam, based on the brace passing through the
work point (WP) is:
3.5
θinitial = tan−1 = 52.3o
2.7
The capacity design derived brace design axial
forces, determined using equation 11.7 from [15],
are as follows:
Fig 61.5
Braced Frame With Location of Brace / Beam /
com = - 58 − 622 = - 680 kN (compression)
*
Nbrace,
Column Connection Identified for Design
Example 61.1
ten = - 58 + 622 = 564 kN (tension)
*
Nbrace,
Notes to Fig. 61.5
For the joint under design, the member sizes and grades are:
• Brace 200UC46, Grade 300
The vertical reaction force from the collector beam
• Column 200UC60, Grade 300 into the column is as follows:
• Collector beam / active link 310UB46, Grade 300
com = - 41 + 46 = + 5 kN (acts upwards)

*
Rbrace,
The steel grade used in that design was 250; the
grade used now is 300 and the design actions
ten = - 41 − 46 = - 87 kN (acts downwards)
*
have been increased accordingly to keep the R bracec,
example more realistic.
Sign conventions for these input actions are as
Input data for the design example is presented in defined in DCB Issue No. 54, pp.1 and 2. The
Section 2 and in Fig. 61.5. signs are not used in this example except
where necessary to show direction of line of
The initial selection of connection components is force.
covered in Section 3.
The -58 kN in the brace and -41 kN in the
Design checks on the brace to column and beam collector beam are the compression and shear
connection components are covered in Section 4, forces generated by the gravity loads (G + Qu).
The variable sign components are the seismic - When repositioning the brace from its initial line to
induced forces (± 46 kN). make the connection more compact and cost-
effective, reposition so that the bolt layout on the
Note that the seismic-induced shear component in endplate not connected to the gusset plate is as
the collector beam to column is opposite in sign to shown in Fig. 61.6. Points to note in this regard
the seismic-induced axial force in the brace; for are:
more details on why this is so see Section 11 of
[15]. (1) The clear dimensions above and below the
bolt group on this endplate should be
3. Initial Selection of Connection similar. (These are the two dimensions
Components shown as >= af in Fig. 61.6).
(2) The mitred corner of the brace web should
This follows the recommendations on page 8 of lie close to the initial line of the brace.
DCB No. 56. Refer also to Fig. 61.6 below, which
corrects an error on layout in Fig. 56.3, as is now 3.2 Estimate of bolts required
described in Section 3.1.
brace, com = 680 sin 52.3 = 538 kN (vertical)
* o
Vinitial,
3.1 Correction to connection layout advice
given in DCB Issue No. 56
brace, com = 680 cos 52.3 = 416 kN
* o
H initial,
The connection layout advice given in DCB Issue (horizontal)
No. 56, Fig. 56.3, contains an error in application
of the R4-100 dimensions to the bolt arrangement (The larger brace axial force, N *brace, com , is used
and endplate dimensions between the brace
in this estimate)
and the column. The error has been corrected in
Fig. 61.6, which presents the advice on initial
connection layout that should be followed.
Fig. 61.6
Brace / Beam / Column Bolted Endplate Connection Guidance For Connection Layout
Notes to Fig. 61.6
(1) This figure replaces Fig. 56.3 from DCB No. 56, correcting an error in that figure
(2) Notes (1) - (6) from Fig. 56.3 should be read in conjunction with the above figure.
*
Vinitial, For gusset plate, target thickness
538
nbolt, brace - column = brace
= = 4.05
φ Vfn 133 ≈ tw,brace x 0.30 / 0.25 = 7.3 x 0.3/0.25 = 8.8 mm
φVfn for M24 8.8 = 133 kN, from [16]. The adjustment is for the difference in grade of
web to grade of gusset plate.
As the vertical design force will reduce slightly due
to the proportioning of brace actions into the beam Choose a 10 mm thick grade 250 gusset plate.
and column, try 4 M24 8.8 bolts between brace
and column. 3.4 Connection layout for brace to column
and beam
*
Hinitial, 416
nbolt, brace - beam = brace
= = 3.13 As θinitial > 45o, offset the brace upwards from the
φ Vfn 133
initial centreline position, so that the majority of
the mitred end frames into the column face, as
Try 4 M24 8.8 bolts between brace and beam. shown in Fig. 61.6.
3.3 Endplate and gusset plate thicknesses Use the guidance on layout shown in Fig. 61.6
for brace to column and beam and the notes in section 3.1 above to determine
the connection layout.
For endplate from brace to column, use the next
available plate thickness above the brace flange For an M24 bolt, from [2] this layout:
thickness.
ae1 = 45 mm
tf,brace = 11 mm ⇒ choose tep, brace - col = 12 mm. Sg = 90 mm
af = 65 mm
For endplate from brace to beam, use next plate
thickness higher ⇒ choose tep, brace - beam = 16 mm. This leads to the connection layout shown in Fig.
61.7. The layout is such that the mitred corner of
Endplate grade is 250. the brace web lies just above the initial centreline
of the brace.
Fig. 61.7
Connection Layout for Design Example 61.1
3.5 Connection between collector beam and 105 *
ten =
*
column H C, Nbrace, ten = + 143 kN
414
105 *
com =
As advised in Note 4 to Fig. 56.3, make this a *
H C, Nbrace, com = - 172 kN
modified MEPS - 4 connection from [2]. 414
 127 + 154  *
com = 
*
VC,  Nbrace, com = - 462 kN
Components are sized initially for an MEPS - 4  414 
30/15 connection - see layout details from [2].
 127 + 154  *
ten = 
*
The top of endplate is flush with top of beam; use VC,  Nbrace, ten = + 383 kN
a butt weld between these two components.  414 
The signs denote direction of force.
t ep, beam - column = t i from [2] = 16 mm
4.1.2 Actions from beam into column
Bolts are 4 M20 8.8. There are two cases to consider for the beam to
column connection, namely:
3.6 Modifications to component sizing for
constructability Case 1: Brace in compression
Make all endplates 16 mm thick. As shown in Fig. 56.1, DCB Issue No. 56, the
brace in compression generates a horizontal
Make all bolts M24. compression component against the column of
*
H C, com . This is trying to push the column away
This gives one endplate thickness and one bolt from the beam and must be resisted by a
size throughout. horizontal tension component of the same
magnitude acting between column and beam,
4. Design Check on Brace to Column and along the beam centreline and through the beam
Brace to Beam Connections to column connection.
4.1 Proportioning design actions on the The brace in compression also generates a
connection downwards compression component against the
beam of VB,* com . This is another applied vertical
4.1.1 Actions from brace into beam and into
column load on the beam, which generates a vertical
compression force on the column, through the
This uses the procedure presented on pages 3 beam to column connection.
and 4 of DCB Issue No. 56; the aim being to place
the line of action of the brace forces transmitted The actions are:
through the connection back through the work
point, as initially assumed in the analysis and as (1.1) Horizontal component from beam into
shown in Fig. 61.5. column
brace, com = - HC, com = 172 kN (tension)
* *
H beam,
Determining dimensions (see Fig. 56.1, DCB No. (1.2) Vertical component from beam into column
56 and Fig. 61.7):
brace, com = VB, com
* *
Vbeam,
α = 16 + 73 + 65 + 90/2 = 199 mm = - 253 kN (downwards)
β = 16 + 66 + 90/2 = 127 mm R *brace com , from section2,
eB = db/2 = 307/2 = 154 mm = + 5 kN (upwards)
eC = dc/2 = 210/2 = 105 mm *
Vtotal, brace, com = - 253 + 5
= - 248 kN (downwards)
r= (199 + 105)2 + (127 + 154)2 = 414 mm
Case 2” brace in tension
 199 + 105  *
*
H B, com =  Nbrace, com = - 499 kN
 414  The brace in tension generates a horizontal
*
tension component against the column of H C, ten .
 199 + 105  *
H *B, ten =   Nbrace, ten = + 414 kN This must be resisted by a horizontal compression
 414 
component of the same magnitude through the
154 *
VB,* ten = Nbrace, ten = + 210 kN beam to column connection.
414
154 * The brace in tension also generates an upwards
VB,* com = Nbrace, com = - 253 kN
414 tension component against the beam of VB,* ten ,
which in turn generates an upwards tension force
on the column, through the beam to column
ten = 383 kN (for 4 bolts)
*
VC,
connection.
ten = 143 x 1.4 = 200 kN (for 4 bolts)
*
H C,
The actions are: (The 1.4 factor is to allow for prying; see item 3 (ii)
on page 10 of DCB No. 56).
(2.1) Horizontal component from brace into
column 2 2
 VC,* ten   HC,
* 
  + ten 
≤ 1.0 is required
 φVfn   φNtf 
brace, ten = - HC, ten
* *
H beam,    
= - 143 kN (compression)  383 x 0.25 
2
 200 x 0.25 
2
(2.2) Vertical component from beam into column   +  = 0.56 < 1.0 √ OK
 133   234 
The 4 M24 bolts are satisfactory.
brace, ten = VB, ten
* *
Vbeam,
= 210 kN (upwards) 4.2.2 Adequacy of endplate
* Design actions are:

Rbrace,ten , from section2,
= - 87 kN (downwards) *
HC, ten = 143 kN
ten = 383 kN
*
VC,
brace, ten = 210 - 87
*
Vtotal,
= 123 kN (upwards) (Flexural resistance to H *C, ten will be critical.)
4.1.3 Checking moments about work point The dimensions for yieldline based tension
from brace actions into beam and capacity determination are given in Fig. 61.8.
column
This is not an essential part of the design

procedure, but is included to illustrate that the
proportioning of the brace input actions into the
beam and column in the manner described in
DCB Issue No. 56 and implemented in section
4.1.1 above does achieve the input brace forces
passing through the work point (WP).
If this is the case, then taking moments about the

WP should give ΣMwp = 0, ie.:
H C* (eB + β ) + HB* eB - VC eC - VB (eC + α ) = 0
Inputting the values for the brace in compression

(largest brace force) gives
ΣMwp = - 0.24 kNm ≈ 0
4.2 Checking adequacy of bolts and

endplate from brace to column
Fig. 61.8
4.2.1 Adequacy of bolts Dimensions for Brace to Column Endplate
Tension Capacity Determination
Case 1: shear due to compression brace force Notes to Fig. 61.8:
(1) The endplate width of 250 mm is from [2] for a MEPS
com = 462 kN (ignoring sign)
*
VC, connection to a 200UC46.
(2) A 5 mm fillet weld is assumed between brace web and
ΣφVfn = 4 x 133 = 532 kN > VC,
*
com √ OK endplate, as this is the minimum size possible and the
smaller the weld size, the lower the tension capacity.
Thus m = 41 - 0.8 x 5 = 37 mm.
Case 2: combined shear and tension due to (3) The bolt gauge (distance between bolts in a row) is
tension brace force taken as Sg, from [2].
The effective yieldline length, Leff, is given by φVC,ep ≈ 0.9 x 0.83 x 16 x 225 x 0.250 x 2
Case 3, left-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17]. = 1345 kN
φVC, ep >> VC,* ten or VC,
*
com √ OK
0.7 bf,brace = 0.7 x 203 = 142 mm
Sg = 90 mm < 0.7 bf,brace. Thus; Endplate is adequate in shear and in tension;

combined shear and tension check is not
Leff = Max (248/2; (232 - 248/2)) + 90/2 required.
= 124 + 45 = 169 mm (value for 1 row of
bolts) 4.3 Checking adequacy of bolts and
endplate from brace to beam
Leff,ii = 4m + 1.25e = 4 x 37 + 1.25 x
80 4.3.1 Adequacy of bolts
= 248 mm
Case 1: shear due to compression brace force
Leff,iii = αm1 = 2πm1 = 232 mm
com = 499 kN (ignoring sign)
*
HB,
m1 = 37 mm
m2 = max (65; 66) = 66
ΣφVfn = 4 x 133 = 532 kN > VB,* com √ OK
λ 1 = 0.32 
 α , from Fig. 2.16 of [17], = 2π Case 2:combined shear and tension due to
λ 2 = 0.56
tension brace force
Leff, for 2 rows of bolts, = 2 x 169 = 338 mm
ten = 210 x 1.4 = 294 kN (for 4 bolts, maximum prying)
*
VB,
ten = 414 kN (for 4 bolts)

Calculation of endplate tension capacity, using *
HB,
step 1A, page 18 of [17]:
2 2
 HB,
*   VB,* ten 
 ten 
+  ≤ 1.0 is required
2
Leff t ep 0.9 x 250  φVfn   φNtf 
φMp = = 4.87 kNm    
4 x 106 2 2
Leff = 338 mm  414 x 0.25   294 x 0.25 
  +  = 0.70 < 1.0 √ OK
 133   234 
Mode 1
4 φM p 4 x 4.87 The 4 M24 bolts are satisfactory.
φPr,1 = = -3
= 526 kN
m 37 x 10
Mode 2
φPr,2 =
( )
2 φM p + n ΣPt'
m+n
2 x 4.87 + 60 x 10-3 x 4 x 234

= = 679 kN
(37 + 60) x 10-3
n = min (nendplate ; ncol flange )
 250 - 90   210 - 90  
n = min  ;   = 60
 2   2 
Mode 3
Fig. 61.9
φPr,3 = ΣPt' = 4 x 234 = 936 kN Dimensions for Brace to Beam Endplate Tension
Capacity Determination
φHC, ep, ten = φPr,1 = 526 kN > HC,

*
ten = 143 kN
Note to Fig. 61.9
90 10
* This dimension, m = m1 = - - 0.8 x 8 = 33 mm
Horizontal tension capacity of endplate is easily 2 2
adequate.
4.3.2 Design adequacy of endplate φVB, ep, ten = φPr,1 = 438 kN > VB,* ten = 210 kN √ OK
Design actions are:
Vertical tension capacity of endplate is adequate.
VB,* ten = 210 kN Check on horizontal shear capacity.
*
HB, ten = 414 kN
φHC,ep, shear ≈ 0.9 x 0.83 x 16 x 273 x 0.250 x 2
= 1631 kN
The dimensions for yieldline based tension
capacity determination are given in Fig. 61.9
φHC, ep, shear >> HB,
* *
ten or HB, com √ OK
The effective yieldline length is determined from
Case 1, right-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17] for the Endplate is adequate in shear and tension.
inner row of bolts and Case 2, right-hand side of
that table for the outer row of bolts. 4.4 Brace and gusset plate adequacy in
shear and axial force
 232  232   90
Leff ,inner row = Max  ;  207 -  + = 161mm
2   2
4.4.1 Adjacent to column face
 2 
This involves checking the cross section of brace
Leff,ii = 4 x 33 + 1.25 x 80 = 232 mm shown in Fig. 61.8 for combined shear and axial
Leff, iii = αm1 = 2πm1 = 207 mm capacity. The critical case is for the brace in
e = 80 mm compression.
m1 = 33 mm
m2 = 65 mm 203 x 11
λ1 = 0.29 A*braceface,col = + 221x 7.3 = 5265 mm 2
cos 52.3
  α, from Fig. 2.16 of [17] = 2 π
λ2 = 0.58 221 = length of mitred web
 232  90 φVbraceface, col ≈ 0.9 x 0.83 x 0.6 x 0.32 x 5265 = 755 kN

Leff , outer row = Min  e x1 ; + = 90 mm
 2  2 φNs,braceface,col ≈ 0.9 x 5265 x 0.320 = 1516 kN
ex1 (from [17]) = ae1 = 45 mm
2 2
Leff,both rows = 90 + 161 = 251 mm  VC, *   HC, * 
 com  + com  ≤ 1.0 is required
 φVbraceface,col   φNs, braceface, col 
Calculation of endplate tension capacity, using    
step 1A, page 18 of [17]
2 2
 462   172 
2   +  = 0.37 + 0.01= 0.38 < 1.0 √ OK
φMp =
251x 16 x 0.9 x 250
= 3.61 kNm  755   1516 
4 x 106
4.4.2 Adjacent to beam face
Mode 1
4 x 3.61 This involves checking the cross section of the
φPr,1 = = 438 kN brace and gusset plate shown in Fig. 61.9 for
33 x 10-3
combined shear and axial capacity. The critical
case is for the brace in compression.
Mode 2
2 x 3.61+ 38 x 10-3 x 4 x 234
φPr,2 = = 603 kN A*braceface, beam =
203 x 11
+ 60 x 7.3
(33 + 38) x 10-3 cos 52.3
n = min (nendplate ; nbeam flange ) + 200 x 10 x 0.26/0.30= 5714 mm 2
 250 - 90   166 - 90   The 0.26/0.32 adjusts for the grade 250 gusset
n = min   ;   = 38 plate, normalising the area to an equivalent area
 2   2  of grade 300 steel.
Check n > min. edge distance, NZS 3404 Table
9.6.2. As the area is greater than that from 4.4.1 and the
n = 38 mm > 1.25df = 30 mm √ OK applied forces are similar, this face is satisfactory
by comparison with Section 4.4.1.
Mode 3
φPr,3 = ΣPt' = 4 x 234 = 936 kN
4.5 Check of gusset plate against buckling in This intersection is shown in the closeup in Fig.
compression 61.6 and 61.7 and occurs at the mitred corner of
the beam web.
This check is as given on page 10 of DCB No. 56,
involving the slenderness ratio of the unsupported The vertical endplate is extended half way down
edge, bgp, shown in Fig 61.7. past the horizontal endplate.
bgp  250  Make the welds between the endplates the same
≤ 40   is required size as the endplates to beam web weld - ie. 6
t gp  fy 
  mm FW.
275  250 
= 27.5 ≤ 40   = 39 √ OK 5. Design Check of Collector Beam to
10  260 
  Column Connection
4.6 Design of welds between brace, This check is first undertaken using the equivalent
endplates and gusset plate moment and shear check of DCB No. 56
equations 56.10 and 56.11 in conjunction with the
4.6.1 Welds between brace flanges and published connection design moment and shear
endplates capacity of R4-100 [2].
These are butt welds. Refer to Note (3), Fig. 56.3 Because that simple check fails in shear, in this
of DCB Issue No. 56 for caution on the weld detail instance, a more detailed check involving
not being prequalified to AS/NZS 1554.1 [18], due checking the adequacy in shear, tension and
to the angle between brace and endplate being combined actions is then made.
outside of the prequalified range and how to
account for this. 5.1 Check using equivalent moment and
shear
4.6.2 Welds between brace web and endplate
These are double sided fillet welds. In H C* = Hbeam,
*
brace com (section 4.1.2,case 1.1) = 172 kN
accordance with page 10, DCB Issue No. 56,
these should be sized to develop the design HC* (di - ae1 - af ) x 10-3
tension capacity of the brace web, so as to
= 172 (340 - 15 - 100) x 10 -3 = 38.7 kNm
accommodate global design actions plus any
di = 340; ae1 = 15; af = 100 from [2]
localised increase in tension action generated
around the bolts.
com (section 4.1.2, case 1.2) = - 248 kN
*
Vbrace,
v* = 0.9 x 0.5 x fyw,brace tw,brace = 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.32
x 7.3 = 1.05 kN/mm From page 151 of [2]:
φvw for a 6 mm category SP FW, from [16],
= 0.98 kN/mm φMcon for MEPS - 4 30/15 = 79 kNm > 38.7 √ OK
This is 7% overstressed - accept √ OK φVcon for MEPS - 4 30/15 = 185 kN < 248 X NG
Use a 6 mm FW each side between brace web Need to check capacity from first principles, as the
and endplate. design moment is lower and the shear higher than
that assumed in [2], plus the bolt size used is
4.6.3 Welds between gusset plate and larger, which increases the capacity.
connected elements
5.2 Checking adequacy of bolts
The gusset plate connects between the brace and
endplate. Using the same approach as in Section 5.2.1 Connection subject to compression and
4.6.2: shear
v* = 0.9 x 0.5 x fygp tgp = 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.26 x 10 This is generated by the brace in tension case -
= 1.17 kN/mm see Section 4.1.2 Case 2.
φvw for an 8 mm category SP FW, from [16]
brace, ten(section 4.1.2, case 2.1) = - 143 kN (comp)
= 1.3 kN/mm *
Hbeam,
Use an 8 mm FW each side to gusset plate.
brace, ten (section 4.1.2, case 2.2) = 123 kN (upwards)
*
Vtotal,
4.6.4 Welds between two intersecting
endplates The compression force is transferred by direct
bearing.
ΣφVfn = 4 x 133 = 532 kN > Vtotal
*
√ OK 0.7 bf,beam = 0.7 x 166 = 116 mm
Sg = 90 mm < 0.7 bf, beam. Thus:
5.2.2 Connection subject to tension and shear
 252  252   140
Leff = Max  ;  238 -  + = 196 mm
This is generated by the brace in compression
 2  2   2
case - see Section 4.1.2 Case 1
(value for 1 row of bolts)
brace, com (Section 4.1.2, Case 1.1) = 172 kN (tension)
*
Hbeam,
brace, com (Section 4.1.2, Case 1.2) = - 248 kN (downwards )

*
Vtotal, Leff,ii = 4 x 38 + 1.25 x 80 = 252
Leff,iii = αm1 = 2πm1 = 238
The signs are ignored for the rest of this section. m1 = 38 mm
m2 = max (70; 73) = 73.
2 2 λ 1 = 0.32 
 Vtotal,
*   H* x 1.4   α , from Fig. 2.16 of [17],
 brace, com 
+  beam,brace, com ≤ 1.0 is required λ 2 = 0.62
 φVfn   φNtf 
    = 2π
The 1.4 factor allows for prying effects Leff, for 2 rows of bolts, = 2 x 196 = 392 mm.
2 2
 248 x 0.25   172 x 1.4 x 0.25  Calculation of endplate tension capacity, using
  +  = 0.28 < 1.0 step 1A, page 18 of [17], gives:
 133   234 
√ OK
φMp = 5.65 kNm
Bolts are adequate. φHbeam, ep, ten = φPr,1 = 610 kN > Hbeam
*
= 172 kN
5.3 Checking adequacy of endplate Horizontal tension capacity of endplate is easily

adequate.
5.3.1 Adequacy of endplate in tension
5.3.2 Adequacy of endplate in shear
The dimensions for yieldline based tension
capacity determination are shown in Fig. 61.10. φVbeam, ep ≈ 0.9 x 0.83 x 16 x 325 x 0.250 x 2 = 1942 kN
φVbeam, ep >> Vtotal,

* *
brace, com or Vtotal, brace, ten
Endplate is adequate in shear and in tension or

shear and compression; combined check for
shear and tension is not required.
5.4 Checking adequacy of beam web
The collector beam web must be able to transfer

the design shear force into the endplate.
*
Vbeam =Vtotal,
*
brace, com = 248 kN
φVv , from Table 5.2 - 5 of [16], = 356 kN > Vbeam

*
OK
Fig. 61.10
Dimensions for Beam to Column Endplate 5.5 Checking adequacy of welds between
Tension Capacity Determination beam and endplate
Note: 5.5.1 Beam flange to endplate weld
1. The connection layout is a modified MEPS - 4 detail
2. The modification relates to terminating the top of the For the MEPS connections in [2], this weld is
endplate flush with the beam top flange. sized to develop the design tension capacity of
3. The dimensions af, ae1 from [2] are for the M24 8.8 bolt the beam flange, which will be satisfactory in this
size used.
application. However, the need to make the
endplate flush with the top of beam necessitates a
The effective yieldline length, Leff, is given by
butt weld connection between the endplate and
Case 3, left-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17].
beam top flange.
Thus the weld details are: 199 90
Leff = + = 144 mm
2 2
• beam top flange : BW
• beam bottom flange : double sided FW, (Value for 1 row of bolts)
twf = 10 mm
Leff,ii = 4 x 31 + 1.25 x 60 = 199 mm
5.5.2 Beam web to endplate weld
This is sized to develop the design tension Leff, for 2 rows of bolts, = 2 x 144 = 288 mm
capacity of the beam web, thus accommodating
high local tension forces from the bolts acting on
the endplate. Leff tC2 φ fyc 288 x 14.22 x 0.9 x 300
φMp = = = 3.93 kNm
4 4 x 106
v * = 0.9 x 0.5 fyw, b t w,b = 0.9 x 0.5 x 0.32 x 6.7 = 0.96 kN/mm
4 x 3.93
φPr,1 = = 507 kN
φv w for a 6 mm category SP FW, from [16], = 0.98 kN/mm 31 x 10- 3
Use a 6 mm FW instead of the 5 mm FW from [2].
By comparison with the previous tension capacity
6. Check Adequacy of Column Flange to calculations, mode 1 will give the lowest design
Accept Input Connection Forces tension capacity.
Without Stiffeners
φNcol, ten,brace = 507 kN > Ncol,
*
ten,brace = 143 kN
6.1 Unstiffened tension capacity check
As shown in Fig. 61.7, the column flange is Column flange has adequate unstiffened tension
subject to design tension actions from the capacity, irrespective of the level of design axial
endplate to the brace and the endplate to the force in the column. (This is because the
beam. maximum level of design axial force possible in
the column, at 0.7φNs for a category 2 column in
ten from brace = HC, ten = 143 kN
* * an EBF (Table 12.8.1 from [3]), generates a value
Ncol,
of η = 0.81. When φNcol, ten, brace is multiplied by
ten from beam = Hbeam,brace, com = 172 kN
* *
Ncol, *
0.81, it is still greater than Ncol, ten, brace . Thus the
6.1.1 Check for column flange unstiffened influence of axial force is not critical).
tension capacity at brace bolt group
level 6.1.2 Check for column flange unstiffened
tension capacity at beam bolt group
The dimensions for yieldline based tension level
capacity determination are shown in Fig. 61.11.
The effective yieldline length at the beam
will be greater than at the brace, making
φNcol, ten, beam > φNcol, ten, brace. The latter is greater
ten, beam = 172 kN, so the former will also
*
than N col,
be greater and hence will be satisfactory.
6.2 Unstiffened compression capacity check
This can be checked very quickly using the

tabulated design web capacities from [16] and a
bearing length equal to the depth of endplate in
contact with the column.
bb = 266 mm (see Fig. 61.8)
φRbb
for 200UC60, from Table 5.2-6 of [16],
bb
Fig. 61.11 = 2.08 kN/mm
Dimensions for Determining Column Flange φRbb = 2.08 x 266 = 553 kN > Ncol,
*
com,brace
Unstiffened Tension Capacity
com,brace = HC, com (Section 4.1.1) = 172 kN
* *
Ncol,
The effective yieldline length, Leff, is given by
Case 1, left-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17].
7. Check Adequacy of Beam to Accept Mode 1
Input Connection Forces Without
Stiffeners 4 x 2.54
φPr,1 = = 507 kN = 307 kN
33 x 10-3
7.1 Unstiffened transverse tension capacity
check on beam flange Mode 2
The adequacy of the endplate between brace and
2 x 2.54 + 38 x 10-3 x 4 x 234
beam to resist the design tension forces has been φPr,2 = = 572 kN
determined in Section 4.3.2. (33 x 38) x 10-3
The adequacy of the beam flange to resist the n = min (nendplate ; nbeam flange) = 38 mm
same force (VB,* ten = 210 kN ) must now be
checked. This starts with the unstiffened capacity φVB, beam, ten = φPr,1 = 307 kN > VB,
*
ten = 210 kN
check.
Unstiffened beam flange capacity to resist
The effective yieldline length is determined from transverse (out-of-plane) tension is adequate.
Case 1, left-hand side, Table 2.6 of [17] for the
row of bolts furthest away from the beam end (the 7.2 Unstiffened transverse compression
far row) (see Fig. 61.7) and Case 2, right-hand capacity check on beam web
side of that table for the bolts nearest the beam
end (the near row). This can be checked quickly using the tabulated
design web capacities from [16] and the bearing
Leff,ii = 4 m + 1.25n = 4 x 33 + 1.25 x 38 length for web yielding and web buckling given by:
= 180 mm
90 6.7 bbf = bs + 2.5 tfb = 273 + 2.5 x 11.8 = 303 mm
m = - - 0.8 x 11.4 = 33 mm bs = 73 + 65 + 90 + 45 = 273 mm
2 2
bb = bbf + db / 2 = 303 + 307/2 = 456mm
(6.7 = twb; 11.4 = beam root φRbb
for 310UB46, from Table 5.2-5 of [16],
radius) bb
= 0.740 kN/mm
 t fb - Sg   166 - 90 
n =   =
  = 38 mm *
 2   2  φRbb = 0.740 x 456 = 337 kN > VB,com = 253 kN
p = Sg = 90 mm *
VB,com = 253 kN compression
ex = distance from bolt row closest to (section 4.1.1)

beam end to end of beam
= 73 + 65 = 138 mm φRby
for 310UB46 = 2.41 kN/mm
bbf
180 90
Leff, far row = + = 135 mm
2 2 φRby = 2.41 x 303 *
= 730 kN > VB,com
Leff, near row =

The beam has adequate unstiffened transverse
 180  90
min  138; + = 90 + 45 = 135 mm compression capacity.
 2  2
7.3 Unstiffened longitudinal tension
Leff, both rows = 135 + 135 = 270 mm capacity check on beam flange
Calculation of unstiffened beam flange tensions This is a check against the beam flange
capacity, using step 1A, page 18 of [17]: undergoing local yielding from the horizontal input
force from the brace. Critical case is under brace
270 x 11.82 x 0.9 x 300 compression, which puts the beam top flange into
φMp = = 2.54 kNm tension. Critical location is under the far row of
4 x106 bolts from the beam end.
t fb = 11.8 mm φNt = min (φAgfy; φ0.85Anfu)
= min (529; 452) = 452 kN
fyfb = 300 MPa φAgfy = 0.9 x 166 x 11.8 x 0.300
= 529kN
φ0.85Anfu = 0.9 x 0.85 x (166 - 2 x 26) x The line of Rmax *
= edge of column flange. The
11.8 x 0.440 = 452 kN connection is a semi-rigid connection, hence the
100 mm eccentricity specified by Clause 4.3.4.2 of
*
The critical design action is HB, com = -499 kN [3] is not required to be considered.
com > φNt,min but < φNt,fy . As the calculation
*
HB,
This moment is distributed into the column above
does not include web contribution, accept this and below the connection in accordance with
slight undercapacity. √ O.K. NZS 3404 Clause 4.3.4.3.
8. Calculation of Additional Moment into 9. Conclusion

Column
The joint details are as follows:
8.1 General
As described on pages 4-5 of DCB Issue No. 56, • Endplates are 16 mm thick
because of the proportioning method used in the • Gusset plate is 10 mm thick
brace / beam / column design (see also the • Bolts are M24 8.8 / TB mode
moment balance check in section 4.1.3), there is • Weld sizes are as given in sections 4.6 and
no design moment transferred into the column 5.5.
from noding eccentricity.
Dimensions are as shown in Figs. 61.7 and 61.11.
Thus, the only design moment transferred into the
column from the connection is that due to the Innovative Structural Steel
collector beam shear force, R*.
Case Study : Scotia Place
8.2 Calculation of moment magnitude Apartments
*
Rmax = Rbrace
*
ten (see section 2) = - 87 kN (downwards )
*
M ecc = Rmax
*
ec = 87 x 0.105 = 9.1 kNm (ignoring sign) Introduction
One of the aims of the DCB is to present case

studies of buildings or other structures that
incorporate the innovative use of structural steel.
Examples have been presented in past issues of
the DCB.
This issue continues the theme, with details of a

unique 14 storey apartment building that features
the combination of timber and steel.
The method of presentation of this case study is

also unique, in that the majority of information is
referenced to a paper on the building presented in
one of the (at times) opposition’s publications.
The building in question is the Scotia Place

apartments, in central Auckland.
The paper in question is entitled Scotia Place - A

Case Study of High-Rise Construction Using
Wood and Steel [19], published in the New
Zealand Timber Design Journal. It is written by
Mark Moore, Structural Designer with Holmes
Consulting Group. To obtain a copy of the paper
see the accompanying order form.
The building comprises 12 levels of steel framing

Fig. 61.12 (gravity and lateral) supporting glue-laminated
Scotia Place Apartments From North -East timber floors and dry wall construction, supported
on a basement of concrete floor slab and masonry
wall construction.
General Description of the Building Scope of Paper
The design and construction aspects very briefly

mentioned above are presented in more detail in
Moore’s paper [19]. This covers:
• Introduction
• Structural form
• Basis of design
• Design considerations specific to the wood
floor
− Including forming a rigid diaphragm for
earthquake
− Adding damping for wind serviceability
performance
− Meeting acoustic separation requirements
− Allowing for differential movement between
timber and steel
• Comparison to concrete floor solution
The Scotia Place apartments show, in a very good

manner, the advantages that can be gained by
combining steel gravity and lateral framing with
timber floor construction. The result has been a
cost-effective, solution to inner city apartment
living that warrants wider application.
Fig. 61.13
Floor Plan, Steel Framing (from [19]) References
It has a small floor plate and only a single means 1. Cao, J and Packer, J A; Design of Tension
of internal access, with an external fire escape Circular Flange Joints in Tubular Structures;
which has been made into a prominent Engineering Journal, First Quarter, 1997, pp.
architectural feature, as shown in Fig. 61.12. 17-25
The gravity system comprises laminated timber 2. Hyland, C; Structural Steelwork Connections
floor planks, 65 mm thick, spanning onto Guide; HERA, Manukau City, 1999, HERA
supporting steel gravity beams and gravity Report R4-100.
columns. The lateral load resisting system
comprises four concentrically braced steel frames, 3. NZS 3404:1997, Steel Structures Standard;
as shown in Fig. 61.13. These are inclined to the Standard New Zealand, Wellington.
principal axes and so each frame acts in both
directions. 4. Hogan T and Syam A; Design of Structural
Connections, Fourth Edition; Australia
Designing to meet the Building Control System Institute of Steel Construction, North Sydney,
acoustic performance levels (see pp. 2-14 of DCB Australia, 1994.
Issue No. 57 for detailed coverage of these levels)
was one of the most difficult considerations to 5. Hyland, C; Amendment No1 to Structural
address. Part of this involved hiding all steelwork Steelwork Construction Guide; HERA,
behind linings, which were also shown through Manukau City, 2001.
specific Fire Engineering Design to provide
sufficient radiation shielding not to require specific 6. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
passive fire protection to the steel members. and Design Loadings for Buildings; Standards
New Zealand, Wellington.
The end result is a unique, light-weight apartment
building, featuring the appearance of laminated 7. Gorenc, BE; Crane Runway Girders;
timber. It combines the structural and aesthetic Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
benefits of laminated timber with the strength and North Sydney, Australia 1983.
stiffness of structural steel to create the country’s
tallest commercial or residential building not using 8. Monorail Beam Design; BHP Ltd, Melbourne,
concrete in the floors. Australia 1978.
9. Wilyman, K and Kelly, B; Recent
Developments in the Design of Crane Runway
Girders; 1998 Australasian Structural
Engineering Conference, Auckland, 1998,
Volume 2, pp 875-882; Structural Engineering
Society of New Zealand, Auckland, 1998.
10. AS 1418.18; 2001, Cranes (Including Hoists

and Winches) Part 18: Crane Runways and
Monorails; Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia.
11. AS 1418.1 : 1994 (Plus Amendment No1 :

1997), Cranes (Including Hoists and Winches)
Part 1 : General Requirements; Standards
Australia, Sydney, Australia.
12. AS 4100 : 1998, Steel Structures; Standards

Australia, Sydney, Australia.
13. AS 3990 : 1993, Mechanical Equipment :

Steelwork ; Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia.
14. Clifton, G C; Structural Steelwork Limit State

Design Guides Volume 1; HERA, Manukau
City, 1994, HERA Report R4-80.
15. Feeney M J and Clifton G C; Seismic Design

Procedures for Steel Structures; HERA,
Manukau City, 1995, HERA Report R4-76.
16. Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel,

Third Edition, Volume 1 : Open Sections;
Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
Sydney, Australia, 2000.
17. Joints in Steel Construction: Moment

Connections; The Steel Construction
Publication P207.
18. AS/NZS 1554.1:2000, Structural Steel

Welding Part 1: Welding of Steel Structures;
Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
19. Moore, M; Scotia Place - A Case Study of

High-Rise Construction Using Wood and
Steel; NZ Timber Design Journal, Issue 1,
Volume 10, 2000.
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City
Auckland
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885
Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 62 June 2001

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the
beginning of the article.
Introduction The publication of R4-100 has expanded the

This issue covers a range of topics, from design opportunities for designers and specifiers of
for fire through design for durability to evaluation structural steelwork to reduce their design time
of older buildings. Also mentioned in the and resource requirements and produce more
introduction are brief comments on a range of cost-effective structural steel solutions. A further
topical issues. significant expansion of these opportunities is
afforded to quantity surveyors, architects,
Don’t Forget To Renew Your Subscriptions designers and engineers through the development
of the On-Line Connection Guide, an interactive
DCB readers are reminded that this is the last version of R4-100 which is accessed via the
issue covered by the current year of subscription. internet. The On-Line Connection Guide offers:
Those wishing to continue receiving the DCB will • simplified scheduling
need to renew their subscriptions for 2001/2002. • quick and easy access to a comprehensive
This can be achieved by paying the invoice which connection database – larger than is currently
will be sent shortly. in [1]
• detailed drawings of all connections including
Back Orders and Ringbinders are Available plates, bolts and welds.
• ability to download detailed information on the
Special ringbinders are available for storing the most commonly used steel connections.
DCB at a cost of $10.00 (excl. GST) each; to
Those interested in accessing this valuable
order, see the attached order form.
resource should register for this through:
A complete set of back issues from No. 1 to No.
http://www.hera.org.nz/
62 is available in two DCB ringbinders. For price
and to order, see the attached order form. In This Issue Page
Individual copies of any issue of the DCB are
Revised SPM Software for Design of 2
available at one sixth the cost of an annual
Floor Slab Panels for Severe Fire
subscription. If a particular issue is wanted,
Attack
contact the HERA Information Centre.
Corrosion of Steel in Ground:
Online Connections Guide 6
Update on DCB No. 46 Guidance
HERA Report R4-100 Structural Steelwork
Connections Guide [1] should, by now, be a Allowance for Microclimatic Effects
When Determining the Design 8
familiar publication to all Bulletin readers. It
contains tables of pre-engineered and load-rated Corrosivity Category
connections that comply with the Steel Structures
Standard [2]. Design objectives, procedures and Revisions to FBJ Design Procedure 16
calculation formulae for each connection type are
also included, as are a set of engineering Appraisal of Old Building Steelwork 18
drawings for each type of connection covered.
The Guide covers the most commonly used References
19
flexible and rigid connections.
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 62, June 2001
NZS 3404 Amendment No. 1 Plain - (all sizes will be withdrawn)
The much heralded Amendment No. 1 to Deformed 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 32mm,
NZS 3404 is now available. This Amendment [3] (this means that sizes 6mm, 8mm,
is presented in a carefully structured format to 10mm, 12mm, 16mm & 40mm will be
facilitate rapid incorporation into the Standard, withdrawn)
rather than the traditional “cut and stick” format of
previous Amendments. SEISMIC 500
Plain 10mm, 12mm, 16mm, 20mm
Those users of NZS 3404 who have completed (this means that size 25mm will be
and returned the amendment notification address withdrawn)
form to Standards New Zealand and for whom
that address is still valid should have received Deformed 10mm, 12mm, 16mm, 20mm, 25mm,
their copy from Standards New Zealand by now. 32mm
Any user who has not received a copy must (40mm will be rolled and supplied
obtain one. This can be done through HERA; see against specific orders of at least 100
details on the attached order form. There is no tonnes)
charge for this Amendment, thanks to funding
st
from SCI-NZ and individual companies. From 1 April 2002:
Datasheet on Flexible Joint for Fire For SEISMIC 300 & SEISMIC 500, only the sizes
Separations as mentioned above will be available.
There are instances where a fire separation must For SEISMIC 430, the entire range will be
withstand significant deformation without withdrawn.
compromising its fire separating function.
Examples of this have been given on pages 1, 2 For further information, contact
of DCB Issue No. 61, along with details of a Rajiva Kumar
suitable new product. Product Development Manager
Fletcher Building Steel Makers
A datasheet on that product is available from the Tel : 09-270 4381
manufacturer and supplier of the flexible joint. He Fax : 09-276 1232
is Bill Norman at Passive Fire Protection
Systems (New Zealand) Ltd, phone 0-9-636 6115, Revised SPM Software for
fax 0-9-636 6113.
Design of Floor Slab Panels for
Rationalisation of Reinforcing Bar Sizes Dependable Inelastic Response
The material supply standard for reinforcing bar in to Severe Fire Attack
New Zealand has been NZS 3402: 1984 [4]. As
Background to Program
part of the programme of standards upgrading
and with Australia, this standard has now been DCB Issue No. 60 presents a detailed design
superseded by AS/NZS 4671:2001 [5]. procedure which takes account of the inelastic
reserve of strength available from a composite
The principal New Zealand supplier of reinforcing concrete floor slab supported on unprotected
bar, Pacific Steel Ltd, is taking this opportunity to secondary beams or joists in severe fires.
rationalise sizes and grades available. This is to
be undertaken in two stages, details of which are The scope and background to this procedure is
given below: presented in the first part of that Bulletin, with the
detailed procedure presented as Appendix A.
st
From 1 October 2001 only the following will be
available: Brief mention is made in that Bulletin of a free-to-
use program that was available, at that time, on a
SEISMIC 300 (ie. the new grade, to [5]) “use at your own risk basis”. An example of the
Plain 6mm, 10mm, 12mm, 16mm, 20mm input for the first version of that program was
(this means that sizes 8mm, 24mm, given as Table 60.1 therein.
25mm, 28mm & 32mm will be
Since DCB Issue No. 60 was published, that
withdrawn)
program has undergone extensive further
Deformed 10mm, 12mm, 16mm, 20mm 25mm, development and a much more concise and
32mm polished version, termed the SPM Program, is
now available. Details of the revisions made are
SEISMIC 430 (ie. the old grade, to [4]) briefly presented below, followed by advice on
how to obtain and install a copy.
Fig. 62. 1
Example of Input Screen for SPM Program
Fig. 62. 2
Example of Output Screen for SPM Program
This is followed by guidance on applying the SPM Acknowledgment
program to different types of composite floor
systems other than those involving steel decking The HERA Structural Engineer would like to
and secondary beams. Application to concrete acknowledge the excellent work of Robert
slabs on steel decks supported on secondary Schmid, undergraduate engineering student from
beams follows the procedure as is fully described the Fachhochschule Ravensbury – Weingarten,
in DCB No. 60. who is currently on Industrial Study Leave at
HERA. Robert has developed the SPM Program.
Features of Revised SPM Program
Use of the SPM Program For Slab Panels
Extensive improvements have been made to the With Speedfloor Joists
first release. These include:
The Slab Panel Method presented in Appendix A
• A single program for set-up and installation of DCB No. 60 is written for application to either
with the installation routine now in English. concrete slabs cast onto steel decking supported
(The first version had the installation routine in on unprotected steel secondary beams or
German, as the program has been written and concrete slabs supported by Speedfloor Joists.
compiled by a German student currently
working at HERA) Section A4 of DCB No.60 covers the first
application, while section A5 covers the second.
• Much improved windows for data input and While the general provisions are the same in both
slab panel calculations. These are shown in cases, there are some significant differences in
Figs. 62.1 and 62.2, respectively the detailed application. These differences are
discussed in the commentary section CA5, on
• Much improved format for printing out of data pages 56-58 of DCB No. 60.
and for saving files
When the SPM Program was developed, it was
• Creation of a specific SPM icon for generated written for application to concrete slabs on steel
calculation files and the ability to load and run deck supported on secondary beams. However,
these files simply by double-clicking on the user feedback has shown that it is easily adapted
filename icon, as is done for most commercial to Speedfloor systems. This is done by treating
applications the floor slab as a solid slab, with the
reinforcement modelled as mesh. Details on how
• Correction of some minor errors in the original to do this are as follows (read in conjunction with
program, operating windows and printed Figs. 62.1 and 62.2)
output
(1) Calculation and input of the fire data follows
• The structural fire severity (fire data) can now standard practice
be entered either through the enclosure
characteristics (height of firecell, vertical (2) As noted in section CA5.1.2 of DCB No. 60,
openings, floor area, FHC, thermal inertia) or the reinforcement must be of Grade 430 to
through a user-specified time equivalent NZS 3402 [4] or the new Grade 500
value. Fig. 62.1 shows the latter option, with a reinforcement to AS/NZS 4671 [5]. If supplied
structural fire severity of 90 mins. as welded mesh, then plain bars should be
used; if supplied as individual bars,
How to Obtain the Program deformed bar must be used. Either way the
“hot-formed” option for mesh type must be
The SPM Program is available as a single selected.
executable file entitled SPM_07_01. It is 1.56 Mb
in size. It will operate in all Windows systems (3) The mesh or reinforcement cover, cmesh, is
from Windows 95 onwards. calculated from equation 62.1.
Those wanting a copy, which will be sent cmesh = to – 38 – dmesh (62.1)

via email, should contact Charles Clifton at
structural@hera.org.nz. where:
The program can be installed simply by double- cmesh = cover from top of concrete to top of
clicking on the icon & following the instructions. It the upper-most layer of
will be sent with a sample calculation file, being reinforcement (mm)
the design example presented in DCB No. 60.
to = slab thickness, either 75 mm or 90
mm, as specified in the Speedfloor
Design Manual [6]
38 = height of embedment of joist top (7) Speedfloor systems [6] require negative
flange into concrete slab (the reinforcement over the internal primary beam
intersection point of the two layers supports; these bars become the interior
of reinforcement is at this point, as support bars, as shown in Fig. 60.14. The
shown in Fig. 60.14, DCB No. 60) Speedfloor manual [6] requires these bars to
have 25 mm cover and this is incorporated
dmesh = diameter of the mesh bars or of the into the design procedure, in sections A5.1.2,
individual bars used (mm). A5.2.1 (3) and Fig. 60.14. These bars sit on
top of the upper layer of mesh reinforcement.
The design example shown in Figs. 62.1 and
62.2 is for a 75 mm thick slab, with 10 mm The SPM Program also treats the interior
diameter reinforcement, giving a cover to the support bars as sitting on top of the upper
mesh of 27 mm. This cover is from the top of layer of mesh reinforcement, as shown in
concrete to the top of mesh – ie. as defined Fig. 60.11 and section A4.2.1 (3). For this
on page 36 of DCB No. 60. reason, the height of these bars is controlled
by the mesh cover, which is why there is no
(4) The minimum quantity of reinforcement requirement to input a cover to the interior
supplied in each direction (ie. the bar diameter support bars in the SPM Program.
and bar spacing in the x, y directions) is
dictated by the need to provide “strong crack For a 75 mm thick Speedfloor slab, the SPM
control” in order to prevent integrity failure as Program positions the interior support bars
the slab deforms. The minimum area of within 3 mm of where they would be if placed
reinforcement in each direction required is at the recommended 25 mm cover, thus the
given by equation 60.CA1 of DCB No. 60 and negative moment generated by these bars is
the background to this limit is given in section effectively correctly calculated. For a 90 mm
CA5 1.1. For a 75 mm thick slab, Ar,min = 382 thick slab, the SPM Program considers the
2
mm /m in each direction. bars at 15 mm lower than they would be in
practice, thus the calculated negative moment
(5) Zero values should be entered for the is conservative.
secondary beam input, except for the
secondary beam spacing, where 1 should be The design example shown in Figs. 62.1, 62.2
used. does not include interior support bars. The
slab panel edge conditions for sides 1 and 3
The reason for the zero inputs is because the are therefore set as simple.
contribution of the Speedfloor joists is ignored
in the SPM design procedure, as detailed in (8) Deck trough bars cannot be placed in a
section CA5 2 of DCB No. 60. Speedfloor system, hence all input entries for
these should be set to zero.
Because of this, the shear capacity of the slab
panel is determined for the concrete alone, as (9) For the reasons described in (5) above, the
detailed in section A5.2.6. The design shear number of bolts in the secondary beam to
capacity is calculated on a kN/m width basis. primary beam connection should be set to
The check for shear adequacy for the zero.
Speedfloor system is given by section A5.2.8,
while that for a secondary beam system is With these modifications, the SPM Program will
given in section A4.2.8. The SPM Program determine the adequacy of a Speedfloor system
uses the secondary beam system check. To to carry an applied load, w * , under specified
make that equal to provisions for the
Speedfloor system, the contribution to shear severe fire conditions.
from the secondary beams, Vu,sb, must equal
zero and the value of Ssb equal 1. The former The inelastic load-carrying capacity of these slabs
can be significant, as shown by the design
is achieved either by setting the ambient
temperature design shear capacity of the example. Remember that this capacity ignores
secondary beam to zero or by setting the any contribution from the exposed area of the
Speedfloor joists. This design example involves a
number of bolts in each secondary beam to
slab panel 75 mm thick, supported on Speedfloor
primary beam connection to zero (both are
joists spanning 6 m between primary beams and
done in Fig. 62.1). The latter is achieved by
with a long dimension, Ly, of 10 m. The structural
setting Ssb = 1.
fire severity is 90 mins, which is at the upper end
(6) The slab panel inputs follow normal of what would be required for a FHC = 2 purpose
practice; he,slab = to . See Figs. 60.14 and group [7] in a building with normal weight concrete
floors. The applied load of 5.8 kPa is also at the
60.19 for this application.
upper end of that which would be required in
practice. Reinforcement is DH 10 bars to [4] at This will result in lower amounts of reinforcement
200 centres both ways. required to support the fire emergency design
load than are needed through the use of HERA
The results (Fig. 62.2) show the slab panel has Report R4-82 [8].
adequate moment/tension membrane capacity
and adequate shear capacity. Corrosion of Steel in Ground:
As a final point regarding reinforcement content Update on DCB No. 46
and layout, from Fig. 60.19 of DCB No. 60 it can Guidance
be seen that the reinforcement in the x-direction is
parallel to the Speedfloor joists. If this
Introduction and Background
reinforcement comprises individual bars and if the
joist spacing is close to, or equal to a whole
Steel piles offer a very cost-effective piling
number multiple of the bar spacing (eg. joist
solution for a wide range of applications.
spacing of 1.23 m centres – the standard value –
However, up to recent times they have been
and bar spacing of 0.2 m centres) then the area of
under-utilised in New Zealand, in part because of
the Speedfloor joist that is integrally cast into the
concerns over their susceptibility to corrosion and
slab can be considered as effective reinforcement
how to account for this in design. In order to
in place of the bar that would otherwise be put
provide guidance on this very important issue,
there. This offers a way of reducing the number
HERA has published design long-term corrosion
of individual bars required in the x-direction. The
rates for steel piles in DCB Issue No. 46, October
embedded joist steelwork effective in bending will
1998. This guidance covers steel piles buried in
always exceed that available from an individual
natural soils exhibiting a wide range of natural soil
DH10 or DH12 bar, even allowing for the
conditions and in different types of filled ground.
differences in yield stress and temperature
between the embedded joist steelwork and the
The principal research references used to derive
bar.
the design data presented in DCB Issue No. 46
are a paper by Ohsaki entitled Corrosion of Steel
Use of the SPM Program For Flat Slab Panels Piles Driven in Soil Deposits [9] and a report by
Romanoff entitled Corrosion of Steel Pilings in
Follow the same procedure as for the slab panel Soils [10]. The former describes tests on steel
on Speedfloor joists. piles driven into a wide variety of natural soil
deposits in southern and central Japan. The latter
Flat slabs cast onto removable formwork will need describes inspections on steel piles at 19
reinforcement for “strong crack control” to locations around the USA.
suppress potential integrity failure.
At the time of writing the DCB No. 46 guidance,
Use of the SPM Program for Slabs Cast onto the HERA Structural Engineer was not aware of
Steel Decking But With No Secondary Beams any studies conducted on corrosion rates of piles
buried in New Zealand soils. However, the fact
This situation may arise where the decking spans that data was available on a wide range of
between supporting blockwork walls, for example, Japanese soils and USA soils and the results
and is propped during construction so that the showing the insensitivity of pile corrosion rates to
required clear span can be achieved. Clear spans soil conditions gave confidence that the results
of as much as 6 metres can be achieved in this would be applicable to piles in New Zealand soil
way. conditions.
With reference to Fig. 60.17 of DCB No. 60, this Since then, in promoting the availability of this
would involve no secondary beams spanning design guidance to the profession, the HERA
across the dimensions Lx, with the slab panel Structural Engineer has been advised of, and
supported on the four sides by walls or primary obtained copies of, two papers presenting studies
beams. on the corrosion of mild steel plates in some New
Zealand soils. These papers are Corrosion of
In this instance, the SPM Program can be used in Mild Steel Plates in Some New Zealand Soils [11],
the normal manner for a secondary beam published in 1970 and Corrosion of Mild Steel
application, except that all the secondary beam Plates in Some New Zealand Soils After 20 years
inputs are set to zero apart from Ssb = 1. Interior [12], published in 1983. Both were written by
support bars can be used over internal supports H R Penhale of the DSIR in Lower Hutt.
and deck trough bars can be used. The number However, these studies were constructed to
of bolts in the secondary beam to primary beam determine corrosion rates in steel pipe
connection should be set to zero. applications, rather than steel pile applications.
The environments around the two types of
steelwork are very different; steel pipes are buried • The findings are also in agreement with UK
horizontally at shallow depths in disturbed, often findings (papers are referenced from [12]).
highly aerated soil, while steel piles are buried
vertically, through a range of depths and soil The key finding, in terms of this article, is the
conditions, typically in undisturbed soil. second to last one given above – namely that the
New Zealand soils show a similar if slightly lower
Romanoff has also conducted extensive studies corrosivity for buried steel plates and hence pipes
on the corrosion rates of buried plates [13] as well than USA soils.
as buried piles [10] and made comparisons of the
two sets of results. These comparisons show that Although these studies were for corrosion rates of
the corrosion rates and nature of attack are very buried steel plates rather than steel piles, they do
different in the two situations and are much more establish a link between the corrosivity of New
severe in the case of the buried plates or Zealand and American soils for this application.
pipes [13]. This link shows the New Zealand soil corrosivity to
be slightly less than the American soil corrosivity.
It is worthwhile comparing the buried plate
corrosion rates for New Zealand soils from This link increases the confidence in applying the
[11, 12] with those for USA soils from [13]. The USA steel pile corrosion rate studies from [10] to
results give an indication of the differences that New Zealand conditions, as has been done in
may apply to the corrosion rates of steel piles DCB No. 46.
between New Zealand and USA soils.
Design Guidance on Corrosion Rates for
Comparison of Steel Plate Corrosion Rates in Steel Pipes
New Zealand and USA Soils
As stated by Romanoff in [10], the corrosivity of
The New Zealand studies [11, 12] covered 33 soil the soil environment to steel plates and pipes
types ranging from sand to clay and peat. Soil pH buried to shallow depths in disturbed soil is very
ranged from 3.3 to 8.3. Soil resistivity ranged much greater than that to steel piles, especially
from 430 ohm - cm to 94,800 ohm - cm. Wet piles buried in undisturbed natural soils. The
densities ranged from 0.86 g/mL to 1.88 g/mL. severity of the former means that applied
The range of these variables was similar to that corrosion protection to the external surface of
undertaken by Romanoff for both plates [13] and buried steel pipes in trenches will typically be
piles [10]. Corrosion rates in the New Zealand necessary, while for piles a design corrosion rate
studies were determined and presented for 2.5, 6 will typically be applied over the specified design
and 10 years exposure in [11] and for 20 years life of the structure supported by the piles, to
exposure in [12]. determine a sacrificial thickness of material to be
used for durability considerations. Suitable design
Penhale’s conclusions after the 20 years study corrosion rates for steel piles are given in DCB
[12] were that No. 46.
• There is little or no statistical significance For steel pipes, designers should obtain [11, 12]
between the observed corrosion rate and any and use the results presented therein to
of the soil properties mentioned above determine the design corrosion rates. The 20
year results [12] are most valuable in this regard.
• The most corrosive soils were those having
low resistivity or strongly leached acid clay These results show the mean rate of uniform
soils with medium to rapid drainage. corrosion loss for the most corrosive soils was
However, there is not a strong correlation around 0.030 mm/steel surface/year, while the
between corrosion rate and acidity mean rate of pitting attack was 0.140 mm/steel
surface/year. As previously stated, the most
• The least corrosive soils are water-logged, corrosive soils were soils with low resistivity or
slow draining soils highly acidic, drained clay soils.
• The results are in agreement with Romanoff’s Slight to moderate rates of uniform attack
findings [13]. Some of the American results (average 0.015 mm/steel surface/year) without
show distinctly higher corrosion rates than the much pitting occurred in waterlogged soils.
New Zealand results, however the American
soils include a high number of low-resistivity Very low rates of uniform attack (average 0.008
soils. Table 5 from [12] gives a comparison of mm/steel surface/year) occurred in dry sandy and
average rates of corrosion for the different gravelly soils in areas of low rainfall.
studies
Comparing these rates of attack with the
design corrosion rates for steel piles, given in
DCB No. 46, show the latter to be considerably (2.4) Select an appropriate corrosion protection
lower in undisturbed natural soils, but higher in system to meet the environmental
uncontrolled fill above the permanent water table, requirements of 2.2 and 2.3, based on cost,
which is a situation more akin to the buried pipes. performance and any client-specified
factors such as colour and appearance.
The incidence and magnitude of pitting attack is
also much lower in steel piles than steel pipes [10] The design life is readily determined from the
and the importance of pitting attack on the NZBC [14], being typically 50 years. It may be a
performance of steel piles is also less. longer period as directed by the client.
Allowance for Microclimatic The relationship between the first year corrosion
rate and the long-term corrosion rate is given on
Effects when Determining the pages 5,6 of DCB No. 46; see especially Table
Design Corrosivity Category for 46.1 therein. That means that, provided the first-
year corrosion rate can be realistically
Structural Steel in Exterior determined, then either the thickness of sacrificial
Atmospheric Conditions steelwork to be designed for (in the case of
unprotected steelwork) or the appropriate
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA corrosion protection system can be selected.
The first year corrosion rates for mild steel,
Introduction galvanized steel and aluminium coupons have
been determined for many sites around New
The general procedure used in design of Zealand, by BRANZ, with results from 168 sites
steelwork for durability when exposed to exterior published in [15]. The test specimens for this
atmospheric conditions is as follows: study were arranged in racks, an example of
which is shown in Fig. 62.3, with these racks
(1) For unprotected structural steelwork positioned and oriented so as to be representative
(carbon–manganese steel) of the general environment (ie. the
macroenvironment) at the test site.
(1.1) Determine the design life
(1.2) Determine the long-term site-specific

corrosivity category, on the basis of :
• macroclimate, plus any
• microclimatic effects
• changes in corrosion rate during design
life
(1.3) Determine the thickness of sacrificial

steelwork required.
(1.4) Determine the design capacity of the

residual member/system, at the end of its
design life, and ensure that it is equal to or
greater than the design actions.
Fig. 62.3
(2) For protected structural (carbon– Test Rack for Corrosion Rate Determination of
manganese) steelwork Steel Panels (from [15])
(2.1) Determine the design life Hyland and Enzensberger have performed multi-
variable regression analyses on the BRANZ data
(2.2) Determine the site-specific corrosivity so as to present the macroenvironmental
category, which is derived from the first corrosion rate as a function of the significant,
year corrosion rate for the steel material. readily available site location and meteorological
This rate is determined from the: data.
• macroclimate, plus any
• microclimatic effects Their paper [16], which was written for and
presented at ASEC98, presents six equations,
(2.3) Determine the time to first major relating to different distances from the sea coast,
maintenance required for the protection each of which gives the predicted first year mild
system steel corrosion rate as a function of:
• The average annual daily temperature Other effects either listed in [17] or noted from
• The 9.00 am time of wetness observation of existing steelwork are:
• The annual rainfall. • steel to concrete interfaces (see Fig. 62.5)
• effect of acidic/alkaline fallout
This meteorological data is readily available from • effect of sulphur dioxide; eg. through pollution,
NIWA, which means that [16] can be used to geothermal activity or discharges such as
predict the first year corrosion rate for unprotected chimneys (see Fig. 62.6).
structural steel for any location in New Zealand
outside of known heavy industrial, coal burning or It is very important in designing for durability that
geothermal areas. Eight of the BRANZ test sites the macroclimatic effects and the microclimatic
[15] were located in heavy industrial or coal effects are determined as accurately as
burning areas, with a further 11 sites located in practicable. That is because the design outcome,
geothermal areas. For these locations, the in terms of performance and cost, is directly
differences between the predicted and actual dependent on these choices.
corrosion rates are given in [16].
AS/NZS 2312 [17] gives six atmospheric
Therefore, for any site in New Zealand, the first classifications, which are based broadly around
year corrosion rate for structural steel, due to the the five atmospheric corrosivity categories
macroclimate at that location, can be determined. from ISO 9223 [18]. The draft replacement of
AS/NZ 2312, as of March 2000 [19], has aligned
In addition to the macroclimate, the local the corrosivity categories directly to the ISO
environmental effects (or microclimate) produced categories. However, the description of each
by the erection of a structure or installation of category in both the current standard [17] and the
equipment need to be taken into account. This is proposed draft replacement [19] is too general to
because these factors can cause a significant allow the macroclimate to be determined for a
local acceleration in the corrosion rate. The most particular site. Hence the role of [16], which
commonly occurring microclimatic effects, from allows the site macroclimate to be determined and
AS/NZS 2312 [17], are: hence the appropriate atmospheric classification
for that macroclimate from [17, 19] to be selected,
(1) Areas remaining damp for an extended for sites not closer than 0.5 km to the sea.
period
(2) Unwashed surfaces – ie. exposed to Guidance on allowing for some microclimatic
atmospheric contaminates, notably coastal effects is given in DCB No. 46 and 47. In terms of
salts, but protected from cleansing rain. allowing for the influence of shaded areas and
(see Fig. 62.4) unwashed surfaces, it allows for these through
modifying the 9.00 am time of wetness and the
rainfall parameters given in equations (1) and (6)
of Hyland and Enzensberger’s paper [16].
Fig. 62. 4 Fig. 62. 5

Effect of Unwashed Surfaces on Corrosion Rate: Effect of Steel/Concrete Interface Corrosion
Site 400m From Sea, Prevailing Wind Off Land
Quantifying The Influence of Unwashed
Surfaces
Principal Factors
The principal atmospheric pollution contribution

to corrosion in New Zealand is airborne salinity
[15, 16], ie. chloride ions. This effect is greatest at
the seacoast and decreases at a rapid, non-linear
rate with increasing distance from the seacoast.
The influence of atmospheric chlorides on the
washed surface first year corrosion rate for mild
steel shows clearly in the BRANZ test results [15]
and in the design equations presented in [16].
The rate at which the chloride influence on

washed surfaces diminishes with increasing
distance from the seacoast depends to a limited
extent on whether the prevailing or common wind
direction at the site is off the sea or off the land.
(The terms prevailing and common wind are
defined in NZS 3101 [20] and their directions are
given therein for the country and for specific major
metropolitan areas.) The influence is not
Fig. 62.6
significant enough to have been incorporated into
Effect of Sulphur Dioxide/Acidity
the design equations of [16] as a regression
Note to Fig. 62.6: the effect is shown through the rust spots
variable, with the result that those equations
(dark spots) in the galvanized internal gutter. An explanation slightly (up to 10%) underestimate the
is given on page 16 herein. experimentally recorded washed surface
corrosion rate for sites near the open seacoast
In accordance with HERA’s policy of ongoing and subject to prevailing or common winds
review and evaluation of our published design blowing off the sea and slightly overestimate the
procedures, the adequacy of the DCB No.46 experimentally recorded rate for sites near the
guidance on allowing for microclimatic effects has seacoast but subject to prevailing or common
been considered by the HERA Structural winds blowing off the land.
Engineer. This consideration has been based on
“engineering observation” of the performance of a The experimental test racks comprise an upper
range of existing buildings rather than a rigorous washed surface and a lower partially washed
scientific study. surface, as shown in Fig. 62.3. Thus the results
from these racks also incorporate a degree of
This has shown that the guidance relating to unwashed influence, especially in locations of low
allowance for shaded surfaces (that of setting the rainfall. However, a surface which is completely
time of wetness parameter to 1.0) is reasonable. protected from rain washing, such as beams
As stated on pages 6 & 7 of DCB No. 46, that under a bridge, will be subject to greater
guidance is applicable to surfaces that are only unwashed effects and evidence from observations
shaded, not surfaces that are permanently wet or around New Zealand show that the influence of
covered with debris. The adjustment of the time- prevailing or common wind direction relative to the
of-wetness parameter to allow for shaded areas is adjacent seacoast is significant on unwashed
also within the validity range for that parameter surfaces, as well as the nature of that seacoast
given in [16]. (open sea or sheltered bay). The chlorides act on
unwashed surfaces through chemical action and
The allowance for unwashed surfaces given on by increasing the time of wetness on the surface
page 6 of DCB No. 46 does not take into account through hygroscopic action.
the influence of the prevailing wind on chloride ion
build up and the recommendation to set the When quantifying the influence of these factors,
annual rainfall parameter, Ra, to zero is also recourse has been made to guidance from
outside the validity range for rainfall from [16]. For existing standards and evidence from buildings.
both those reasons, the HERA Structural This has been correlated with the estimated first
Engineer’s study concentrated on ascertaining the year corrosion rate for mild steel surfaces in, and
adequacy of the allowance for unwashed areas. immediately adjacent to salt water applications,
Quantifying this effect is covered in the next which can be obtained for mild steel from
section, followed by revised design considering the design long-term corrosion rate
recommendations for allowance for unwashed for various applications given in DCB Issue No. 46
surfaces. in conjunction with the relationship between
design long-term corrosion rate and first year • Distance from seacoast and type of seacoast
corrosion rate given in Table 46.1 of DCB Issue • Direction of prevailing wind relative to site and
No. 46. The resulting design recommendations seacoast
for allowance for unwashed surface effects are • Openness of environment (to ensure as far as
then presented. practicable the only microclimatic effect that is
important is the unwashed surface effect)
Guidance from standards • Condition of the unwashed and washed
surfaces – both must be in an actively rusting
AS/NZS 2312 [17] and the currently proposed condition so that the differences in state of the
draft replacement [19] both require microclimates unwashed and washed surfaces can be
to be considered, but do not provide guidance on directly compared.
the extent of their influence, beyond saying that it
“can be significant”. Fortunately (at least within the context of this
study), the HERA Structural Engineer has found a
BS 5493:1977 [21] provides explicit guidance for number of good candidate buildings, within the
unwashed areas, which are termed exterior range of locations and environmental conditions
sheltered atmospheres. This advice, given in desired. These are:
Table 3, Part 5 of [21] is that:
• Distances of 0.5 km to 20 km from the
• For sacrificial systems, the thickness of bare seacoast
or sealed metallic coatings should be • Prevailing winds off the open sea (principally
increased by about 25% around the Wanganui region) and off the land
• For barrier systems, the systems should be at (Howick/Pakuranga region of Auckland and
least as good as for the washed conditions, the Napier region of Hawke’s Bay)
with preference for the more water-resistant • All cases where the buildings are not shaded
systems by trees or adjacent buildings
• All cases where there is no apparent source
BS 5493 is currently in the process of being of geothermal, coal burning or other local
replaced by BS EN standards. The appropriate pollution effects.
standard for corrosivity classification is
BS EN ISO 12944-2 : 1998 [22]. This gives only These have been visual observations only.
general advice, stating that an appreciation of the Before giving the general results of these
microenvironment is essential, giving examples as observations, two examples of the buildings
undersides of bridges and sunny/shady sides of a studied are covered in some detail.
building.
The first building is a house located in Howick, on
Thus, of all the relevant standards listed above, Auckland’s east coast. Fig. 62.7 shows the view
only [21] provides quantifying advice on the effect looking towards the sea, which is 0.5 km away.
of unwashed areas. The next source of guidance The seacoast is semi-sheltered (the Waitemata
comes from observations of buildings. Harbour) and the prevailing wind direction is from
the land towards the sea (approximately in the
Observation from buildings direction in which Fig. 62.7 was taken).
In selecting buildings from which to observe the
influence of unwashed surfaces, the following
factors are important:
Fig. 62.7
View from Howick House Looking Towards Sea
Fig. 62.8 Fig. 62.9
Unwashed And Semi-Washed Faces of Close-up of Semi-Washed West Face
Balcony Column, Howick House Of Balcony Column, Howick House
The relevant steelwork comprises light RHS In the HERA Structural Engineer’s estimation, the
columns supporting a deck/carport on the north multiplier of 1.25 for unwashed surfaces
side. Figs. 62.4, 62.8 and 62.9 show aspects of recommended by [21] would conservatively cover
the unwashed south face of these columns and this effect in this instance.
the washed/semi-washed surfaces of the west
and east faces. Fig. 62.5 shows corrosion at the Visual observations of a range of buildings at
steel/concrete interface of one column. varying distances from the seacoast in this region
(ie. where the prevailing wind is off the land) show
The painted surfaces shown in these pictures are that the unwashed effects become minimal at
over 20 years old and no maintenance has been distances of less than 5 km from the adjacent
undertaken on them. The rust percentages range (eastern) seacoast.
from under 25% on the least corroded of the
washed surfaces to over 75% on the most The second example covered herein is a
corroded unwashed surfaces. On the unwashed woolstore in Wanganui. This building was built
surfaces there is no visible flaking of rust and
negligible pitting attack.
Fig. 62.10 Fig. 62.11

Wanganui Woolstore (WW), General View WW, General View
From South East From South West
Fig. 62.12
WW, Washed Surface of Fig. 62.13
Angle Steelwork, East Face WW, Washed/Unwashed
Surfaces, West Face
Fig. 62.15
Fig. 62.14 WW, Unwashed Truss
WW, Unwashed Surfaces, Steelwork, East Side
East Face Of Building
during the early 1960’s and has not undergone on the seacoast are visible to the left of the
any obvious maintenance since the late 1970’s building from the viewpoint from which Fig. 62.10
and possibly earlier. The building is located was taken, although they don’t show up in that
0.5 km from the open seacoast and 0.3 km from photo. Along the south side of the building, which
the tidal Wanganui river mouth. (An open fronts onto a now disused railway siding,
seacoast is one with continuous surf). It is fully are examples of washed steelwork (Fig. 62.12)
exposed to the prevailing westerly winds blowing and washed/semi-washed/unwashed steelwork
off the sea. (Figs. 62.13, 62.14). On the east side of the
building, which is sheltered from the prevailing
Figures 62.10 and 62.11 show two general views westerly quarter winds, is unwashed truss
of the south and east sides of the building, which steelwork supporting a canopy (Fig. 62.14).
contain the steelwork of interest. The sand-dunes
Visual observation of this steelwork shows that: with the paint showing between 25% and
50% rusting in the adjacent washed
(1) All paint surfaces have significantly broken regions.
down
Visual observations of a range of buildings at varying
(2) Breakdown of the paint on the washed distances from the seacoast in the Wanganui
steelwork is similar on both the west and region show that the unwashed effects on
east facing surfaces (ie. the surfaces facing surfaces facing into the prevailing wind and
into and away from the prevailing wind). exposed to it are of no greater magnitude than
That on the surface facing away from the those of the Howick House steelwork for locations
prevailing wind (Fig. 62.12) is marginally 5 km from the seacoast and that these effects are
greater. negligible for locations further than around 10 km
(3) Unwashed effects are most significant on from the seacoast.
the unwashed surfaces facing into the
prevailing wind and on the western side of Comparison with first year corrosion rate for
the canopies (Fig. 62.13, near steelwork). steelwork on the seacoast
Unwashed effects are noticeably less
significant on the unwashed surfaces facing The maximum severity of unwashed effect for
away from the prevailing wind and either steelwork right on the open seacoast will be
away from the western side of the canopies similar to that experienced by steelwork in the
or on the eastern side (Fig. 62.14). splash and marine atmospheric zones. The
design long term corrosion rate for steel in
(4) Unwashed effects are minimal on the truss such environments is given by DCB No. 46 as
steelwork supporting the canopies on the 75 µm/surface/year. (See article on Design Long-
sheltered eastern side of the building Term Corrosion Rates for Steel Piles : Steel Piles
(Fig. 62.15). in Water : Splash and Marine Atmospheric Zones
on page 4 therein). Combining this with the
(5) In terms of a visual comparison between reciprocal of the long-term corrosion rate multiplier
the unwashed effects on the Wanganui given in Table 46.1 of DCB No. 46 gives a first
Woolstore (WW) building steelwork and that year corrosion rate of 75/0.6 = 125 µm.
of the Howick House (HH) presented
above, the following observations can be The predicted first year macroenvironmental
made: corrosion rate for the WW building, from [16], is
38 µm. This is applicable to washed surfaces
(i) The HH unwashed surface effects located at 0.5 km from the seacoast. This lies in
are slightly less than those on the ISO Zone C3 [18], 52% of the way between the
WW unwashed surfaces facing east
lower end of that zone (25 µm) and the higher end
(Fig. 62.14)
(50 µm).
(ii) The HH unwashed surface effects are
similar to those for the WW unwashed Hyland and Enzensberger’s equations [16] are
truss steelwork on the sheltered east valid to 0.5 km from the seacoast. For steelwork
side of the building (Fig. 62.15) 0 km from the seacoast, the recommended
practice is to the next most severe ISO category.
(iii) The WW unwashed effects on the In this case, that is ISO Category C4 and the
surfaces facing into the prevailing wind appropriate first year corrosion rate for a washed
and on the windward side of the surface is 52% of the way between the lower end
canopies (Fig. 62.13) are noticeably of that zone (50 µm) and the higher end (80 µm).
more severe than those on the HH This gives a value of 66 µm.
steelwork.
Applying the proposed multiplier of 1.75 for
(6) In the HERA Structural Engineer’s unwashed effects given above gives a value of
estimation, the unwashed effects on the 1.75 x 66 = 116 µm for an unwashed surface 0 km
most severely affected surfaces of the WW from the seacoast in Wanganui. That is slightly
building would be appreciably greater than less than the value of 125 µm derived from the
those allowed for through a multiplier of design long-term rate for steel in splash zones,
1.25 on the washed surface corrosion rate which is appropriate.
and he recommends a factor of 1.75 for
these surfaces. In the most corroded This provides an alternative check as to the
locations shown in Fig. 62.13, the paint has validity of the 1.75 multiplier proposed for
completely disappeared and the surface unwashed surfaces exposed to a prevailing or
has rusted to an estimated rust grade C common wind and which are located within 0.5 km
from BS 7079: Part A1 [23]. This compares from an open seacoast (ie. with continuous surf).
Revised Design Recommendations for (4) For locations in (1) and (2) wind regimes
Allowance for Increased Corrosion on but where the unwashed surface is on a
Unwashed Surfaces of Structural Steelwork building face sheltered from the prevailing
or common wind direction, use the values
These recommendations take the form of a from (3).
multiplier to be applied to the design first year
corrosion rate determined for washed surfaces. Allowance for Shaded Locations
The rate for washed surfaces should be obtained
from [16] for sites 0.5 km or greater from the If using equations (1) to (6) of [14], set the time of
seacoast. For sites 0 km from the seacoast, wetness parameter, W9am, to 1.0.
determine the rate for 0.5 km, determine where
within the appropriate ISO corrosivity category The space immediately adjacent to the steelwork
[18, 19] this rate lies then use the corresponding should be kept clear of vegetation to allow good
rate from the next highest corrosivity category. natural drying conditions to prevail. Also,
(See above for an example). steelwork should be kept further than 300 mm
clear of the ground and 2000 mm clear of running
Make allowance for shaded locations through water, wherever practicable.
adjusting the time of wetness value as specified in
the next section. Then apply the following Use Good Detailing to Eliminate Permanently
multiplier, Cuw, to the calculated first year Wet Areas and Debris Traps
corrosion rate to allow for unwashed effects.
This comes down to clean and simple detailing to
(1) For locations where the prevailing or avoid traps where debris and water can lie for
o
common wind (see [20]) is within ± 60 C of extended periods. Guidance on suitable detailing
blowing from an open seacoast towards the for many common applications is given in Fig. 4.1
site and the unwashed surface is exposed of AS/NZS 2312 [17].
to that wind direction;
The effect of debris and water is to keep the
Cuw = 1.75 for sites ≤ 0.5 km from the surface wet, which can lead to localised corrosion
seacoast rates in excess of those allowed for the shaded
Cuw = 1.25 for sites 5 km from the locations allowance above.
seacoast
Cuw = 1.0 for sites ≥ 20 km from the Avoid Dissimilar Metal Contact and Contact
seacoast With Timber
(2) For locations where the prevailing or Both these effects can cause considerable
common wind direction is as for (1) but the localised increases in the corrosion rate. Contact
seacoast is not an open surf beach (eg. with timber is particularly severe, because the
Wellington Harbour, Waitamata Harbour) timber will absorb moisture and keep the steel
and the unwashed surface is exposed to surface wet and salts used in the treatment of
that wind direction; timber for external conditions will attack the steel.
If the steelwork has to support timber members,
Cuw = 1.75 for sites 0 km from the separate them with a damp proof course
seacoast extending at least 6 mm beyond the face of the
Cuw = 1.5 for sites 0.5 km from the timber in contact with the steel.
seacoast
Cuw = 1.0 for sites ≥ 5 km from the This effect is evident in the Howick House
seacoast steelwork supporting the balcony, but is not
severe enough, in that instance, to show up in
(3) For locations where the prevailing or Figs. 62.8 or 62.9.
common wind direction is from the site
either parallel to or blowing towards the Use Appropriate Detailing for Steel to
seacoast; Concrete Interfaces
Cuw = 1.5 for sites 0 km from the This is one of the more significant microclimate
seacoast effects and is covered in DCB No. 47, pages 1-3.
Cuw = 1.25 for sites 0.5 km from the
seacoast An example of its greater severity than the
Cuw = 1.0 for sites ≥ 5 km from the unwashed influence on steelwork located close to
seacoast the sea and where the prevailing wind is off the
land can be seen from comparing the extent of
corrosion in Fig. 62.5 with that in Fig. 62.9; these
Revisions to the Flange Bolted
are from the bottom and top, respectively, of the Joint Design Procedure
same column.
Structural Engineer and John Butterworth, Senior Lecturer at
Special Cases the University of Auckland, Department of Civil and Resource
Engineering.
The above recommendations will adequately cater
for microclimatic effects at the majority of sites in Background
New Zealand.
HERA and the University of Auckland are
All the standards mentioned previously in this engaged in a long-term research project aimed at
article mention special case situations where the developing innovative new forms of semi-rigid
microclimatic influences may be different to those joints for moment-resisting steel framed seismic-
covered by the above recommendations. The resisting systems (MRSFs). These joints are
most comprehensive guidance on this is given in intended to remain rigid up to the design level
Appendix B of BS EN ISO 12944 – 2 [22]. ultimate limit state earthquake moment, eg. as
derived from NZS 4203 [24], then to allow rotation
One example, which can occur in localised to occur between the beam and the column, when
regions, is where sources of significant this design moment is exceeded. The joint is then
atmospheric pollution other than chloride content designed and detailed to withstand the expected
occur. The most common regional examples in inelastic rotation associated with the design level
New Zealand occur in geothermal and industrial / ultimate limit state earthquake with negligible
high coal burning regions. These are identified damage, such that minimum or no repair is
and quantified in [16]. necessary when the MRSF has been subjected to
that magnitude of earthquake. Finally, the joint is
However, a similar effect can occur in very expected to be able to withstand greater levels of
localised areas on a particular building where inelastic rotation, associated with more severe
polluted run-off can accumulate. An example is events, without catastrophic failure, instead
shown in Fig. 62.6 and comes from the HERA undergoing at worst a gradual loss of moment
Structural Engineer’s house roof! capacity with increasing cyclic rotation demand
beyond the design severe seismic level.
The problem shows in the localised patches of
rust in the galvanized internal gutter, that was 6 Of the five joint types that have been researched
years old at the time the picture was taken. to date for this project, two joint details have
emerged as preferred options for the beam to
The cause is runoff from the roof to the left, which column connections of MRSFs. These are the
is situated directly below the chimney. A fire is lit Flange Bolted Joint (FBJ) and the Sliding Hinge
almost every night over the winter months and the Joint (SHJ).
smoke from this deposits acidic contaminants and
sulphur dioxide rich contaminants on the roof. On The development work on the FBJ is essentially
rainless nights this contaminated water completed and design, detailing provisions for the
condenses on the roof, runs down and collects in joint and for MRSFs containing the FBJ have
the gutter and then evaporates the next day, been presented in DCB No. 58, October 2000
leading to a build-up of contaminants in specific Issue.
locations.
The focus of research has now switched to the
The effect has been easily overcome by sanding SHJ. Design concepts for the SHJ were
back to bare metal and coating with a cold- presented in DCB No. 59 and these have since
galvanizing spray. Monitoring of the location in been expanded into a full design procedure for
the two years since the repair shows the sacrificial both the joints and the MRSF containing the
zinc layer still in place. joints.
This illustrates a major advantage with steel and Numerical integration time-history analyses of trial
the use of sacrificial corrosion protection. frames has commenced.
Because steel corrodes from the outside, any
regions of unexpectedly high localised corrosion There are quite a number of aspects of SHJ joint
are readily noticed on routine maintenance, easily and system design that are the same or similar to
rectified and monitored for ongoing satisfactory FBJ joint and system design. Developing the SHJ
performance. This is very difficult to do for details has therefore involved an in-depth
materials that corrode from the inside. evaluation of the FBJ design provisions contained
in DCB No. 58.
This process has uncovered some minor revisions Revision to section 3.10.1 : calculate
that need to be made to the FBJ connection horizontal design force/unit length of weld
design procedure presented in section 3, pages 7
–16 of that Bulletin. These revisions are Change to make
presented below.
Replace equation 58.29 on page 13 with a new
It has also confirmed that the MRSF system equation, thus:
design provisions incorporating the FBJ are OK as
written. These system design provisions are  3 M * x 103 0.9 t wp fy, wp 
presented in section 4, pages 16-20 of DCB *
v wh = Min  wh
;  (58.29)
No. 58. 
 ( )
d wp
2
2 x 10 3 

Revisions to the Design and Detailing where:

Provisions for the FBJ
*
M wh = design moment from equation 58.20, in
The revisions give the section number and page
reference from DCB No. 58, the changes to be kNm
made and the reasons for the changes. They also dwp = web plate depth, in mm
show the impact of these changes on the design twp = web plate thickness, in mm
example presented in section 5, pages 20-23 of fy,wp = yield stress of web plate in MPa
DCB No. 58.
Reason for change
Revisions to section 3.8.8: check shear
adequacy of web plate The first expression is the original equation 58.29
with the 2 in the numerator increased to 3. This
Change to make changes the determination of moment-induced
stress in the weld group from a plastic to an
Add a factor of 2 to the design shear force in elastic distribution. The elastic distribution is more
equation 58.25 on page 13, DCB No. 58, to read. accurate, given the position of the web bolts on
the web plate and the resulting mechanism of
* moment transfer from beam to web plate.
φVvn,wp ≥ 2 Vwv (58.25)
However, the weld need not be stronger than is
Reason for change required to develop the design tension yield
capacity of the plate. That level of weld strength,
There are two rows of web bolts, each of which in conjunction with NZS 3404 Clause (9.7.3.10.3)
resist half the vertical shear force. The design requirement that fuw > fu (weld metal tensile
*
shear force, Vwv , calculated in equation 58.16 and strength ≥ web plate tensile strength), will ensure
used in determining the number of web bolts that general web plate yield can develop instead
needed in one row represents only half the of weld failure. This is the second expression on
vertical design shear force that the web plate must the right hand side of the revised equation 58.29.
resist.
Impact of change on design example
*
v wh is calculated in section 5.2.24 on page 22.
The vertical design shear force (on one row of The revised calculation becomes
bolts) is 116 kN, see section 5.2.10 on page 21.
The design shear capacity of the web plate is *  3 x 112 x 103 0.9 x 12 x 260 
v wh = min  ; 
379 kN, see section 5.2.19 on page 22.  450 2 2 x103 
 
= min (1.66 ; 1.40) = 1.40 kN/mm
The original design check is given in section
5.2.20 on page 22. With the above revision it now Revision to section 3.10.2: calculate vertical
becomes: design force/unit length of weld
*
φVvn,wp = 379 kN > 2 Vwv = 2 x 116 = 232 kN Change to make
√ OK.
Remove the 2 on the denominator of equation
*
Thus the revision has no impact on the FBJ in the 58.30 and correct v wh so that the equation reads;
design example.
*
Vwv design and construction practices have been
*
v wv = (58.30) drawn.
d wp
An overview of this publication is given in DCB
Reason for change No. 39, December 1997. However that review is
very brief and does not outline the scope of this
Same as for the revision to equation 58.25, very useful publication. Hence this article
namely that the weld must resist the vertical shear provides more detail.
from both rows of web bolts.
Summary of SCI Publication 138.
This publication [25] gives guidance on the
* appraisal of existing iron and steel structures. It
v wv is calculated in section 5.2.24 on page 22. It deals mainly with building structures in cast and
doubles from 0.13 kN/mm to 0.26 kN/mm. The wrought iron, and in steel up to 1968. An
* * historical account of the manufacture of these
increase in both v wh and v wv increases the
combined design force/unit length of weld, given materials and their use in building construction is
by equation 58.31, to provided, in order to highlight differences in
design, forming, fabrication, and connection
methods as compared with present-day practice.
*
v w, (
wp = (1.40 ) + (0.26 )
2
)
2 0.5
= 1.42 kN/mm Guidance on appraisal strategy is accompanied
by reviews of relevant material properties, defects,
The original 8 mm leg length category SP fillet and methods of investigation of the existing
weld has a design shear capacity of 1.30 kN/mm, structure. The assessment method offers a three-
which is not now adequate. Increasing the weld stage approach to calculations for checking
leg length to 10 mm gives structural adequacy, and also considers adequacy
* in fire. Load testing is discussed as a
φvw = 1.63 kN/mm > v w, wp √ OK
complementary method of checking structural
adequacy. The three final sections consider
The clearance requirements of section 3.2.6 are methods of structural repair, strengthening and
still OK for a 10 mm leg length fillet weld between replacement, fire protection, and corrosion
web plate and column flange. protection. References and a Bibliography are
provided. Three Appendices list principal sources
Revised Software Available of available information, provide background
details of the historical development of column
The excel spreadsheet containing the FBJ design analysis, and summarise current research on
example for a 10 storey building has been revised structural cast iron.
to incorporate these changes. A copy is available
on a “use at your own risk” basis; email Charles Overview of Contents
Clifton for this, which will be sent via return
attachment. SCI Publication 138 covers the following:
• History and manufacture of iron and steel

th th
− 18 to 20 centuries
Appraisal of Existing Building − back to pre-medieval times
Steelwork: Excellent Guidance
• Iron and steel in building construction
Available − structural form
− members and connections
This book review has been written by G Charles − original design methods and (UK) building
Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer. regulations
Introduction • Appraisal strategy
Over the last two months, the HERA Structural • Properties of structural iron and steel
Engineer has received six requests for the − cast iron
properties of steelwork in existing buildings, dating − wrought iron
back to the early 1900’s. An excellent source of − steel before 1906
guidance is available through HERA in the form of
− steel since 1906
an SCI Publication entitled Appraisal of Existing
− stainless steel
Iron and Steel Structures [25].
− steel castings
That publication is written for UK practice, from − effect of fire on material properties
which most of New Zealand’s early steelwork
• Defects and deterioration
− common defects 8. Barber, D J;Calculation of the Fire Resistance
− distortion, cracking and fracture of Composite Concrete Slabs With Profiled
Steel Sheet Under Fire Emergency
• Identification of properties Conditions; HERA, Manukau City, 1994,
− identification, measurement, testing HERA Report R4-82.
• Structural assessment 9. Ohsaki, Y; Corrosion of Steel Piles Driven in

− approach and strategy Soil Deposits; Soils and Foundations, Vol. 22,
− loadings No. 3, 1982, pp. 57-76.
− modelling for analysis
10. Romanoff, M; Corrosion of Steel Pilings in
− load testing
Soils; National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, USA, 1962, NBS Monograph 58.
• Assessment of fire performance
− “deemed to satisfy” approach 11. Penhale, H R; Corrosion of Mild Steel Plates
− fire engineering design in Some New Zealand Soils; New Zealand
Journal of Science, Issue No. 14, June 1971,
• Repair, strengthening and replacement pp 336 – 353.
− structural adequacy during alterations
− repair of sections 12. Penhale, H R; Corrosion of Mild Steel Plates
− replacement of sections in Some New Zealand Soils After Twenty
− connections between new and existing Years; New Zealand Soil Bureau Publication
members 1065, 1984.
• Corrosion protection 13. Romanoff, M; Underground Corrosion;

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
• References and research USA, 1957, NBS Circular 579.
− principal sources of practical and
documentary information to assist the 14. NZBC:1992, New Zealand Building Code;
appraisal process Building Industry Authority, Wellington.
− background on column assessment
− research on structural cast iron. 15. Duncan, J R and Cordner, R J; Atmospheric
Corrosion Rates Over Two Years Exposure at
156 Sites in New Zealand; IPENZ
References Transactions, Vol. 18, No. 1/GEN, November
1991.
1. Hyland, C W K ; Structural Steelwork
Connections Guide, Incorporating 16. Hyland , C W K and Enzensberger, M;
Amendment No. 1; HERA Manukau City, Prediction of Site-Specific Steel Corrosion
1999/2001, HERA Report R4-100. Rates in New Zealand to Assist Coatings
Selection; ASEC98, Auckland, 1998, Vol. 2,
2. NZS 3404:1997, Steel Structures Standard; pp. 835-842, SESOC, Auckland, 1998.
17. AS/NZS 2312:1994, Guide to the Protection of
3. Amendment No. 1 to NZS 3404:1997; Iron and Steel Against Exterior Atmospheric
Standards New Zealand, Wellington. Corrosion; Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
4. NZS 3402:1989, Steel Bars for the
Reinforcement of Concrete; Standards New 18. ISO 9223:1992, Corrosion of Metals and
Zealand, Wellington. Alloys – Corrosivity of Atmospheres –
Classification; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
5. AS/NZS 4671:2001, Steel Reinforcing
Materials; Standards New Zealand, 19. Draft Replacement of AS/NZS 2312:1994,
Wellington. Guide to the Protection of Structural
Steelwork by the Application of Corrosion–
6. Speedfloor Design Manual; Speedfloor Resistant Coatings; Standards New Zealand,
Holdings Ltd, Auckland, 2001. Wellington, February 2000 issue.
7. C/AS1: 2001, Approved Document for NZBC 20. NZS 3101:1995 (incorporating Amendments 1
Fire Safety Clauses C1, C2, C3, C4; Building and 2, 1997), Concrete Structures Standard;
Industry Authority, Wellington. Standards New Zealand
21. BS 5493:1977, Code of Practice for Protective
Coating of Iron and Steel Structures Against
Corrosion; BSI Standards, London, England.
(Now superseded by BS EN ISO 12944)
22. BS EN ISO 12944–2:1998, Paints and

Varnishes–Corrosion Protection of Steel
Structures by Protective Paint Systems – Part
2: Classification of Environments, BSI
Standards, London, England.
23. BS 7079: Part A1: 1989, Preparation of Steel

Substrates Before Application of Paints and
Related Products, Part A1: Specification of
Rust Grades and Preparation Grades of
Uncoated Steel Substrates and of Steel
Substrates After Overall Removal of Previous
Coatings, BSI Standards, London, England.
24. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design

and Design Loadings for Buildings; Standards
25. Bussell, M; Appraisal of Existing Iron

and Steel Structures; The Steel
Construction Institute, Ascot, England, 1997,
SCI Publication 138.
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
Auckland,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 63 August 2001

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the beginning of the
article.
Introduction The issue starts with some minor points arising

from articles in previous issues and guidance on
The HERA Steel Design and Construction Bulletin connection design before going on to present the
(DCB) commenced publication with Issue No. 1 in above article. It closes with brief articles on two
July 1994. The aim of the DCB has been to publications of interest that are available from
present material of medium-term to long-term HERA.
interest to structural steel designers / specifiers /
constructors. Originally published eleven times Errata in DCB No. 61, Design Example No.
per year concurrently with HERANews, in mid- 61.1
1998 it was changed to a bi-monthly format and
made available on a subscription basis. The Pages 9-21 of DCB No. 61 present a detailed
reason for the first change was to allow each design example on a brace/beam/column
issue to be larger, so as to be able to cover more connection in a braced steel frame. That design
in-depth material per issue. The second change example uses the concepts developed in DCB
was to recover some of the direct production No. 56 for that type of connection, and applies
costs, as the DCB is a significant undertaking for these concepts to the detailed design of a
HERA. brace/beam/column connection which is part of a
two storey eccentrically braced frame.
The issue marks the beginning of the DCB's
seventh year. Over that time, the use of structural Unfortunately, the design example presented
steel has increased considerably, both in terms of therein contains some minor errors. These are
the range of applications and the quantity used. identified on the next page and readers are invited
The scope of the DCB has similarly expanded to to make the changes in their existing copies. Any
cover the growing range of structural steel topics new copies of that issue (DCB No. 61) obtained
of interest to readers. This six year period has from HERA (as of mid-August 2001) have had
also seen significant changes and developments these errors corrected.
in the range of standards and design guides for
structural steel.
In This Issue Page
At the beginning of the DCB's seventh year, it is
therefore a good time to take stock of the past six Design of Circular Flange Joints
3
years and to provide and overview/summary of - Another Update
what has been published to data in the Bulletin.
This forms the main topic for this issue. It is more
What's in the DCB to Date? 4
than just a contents listing, in that it:
• Presents the material under major topic Overview of Design Aids for
headings of interest, such as "design for 15
Structural Steel, from AISC
earthquake", "design for serviceability limit
state conditions", etc.
Maximising the Use of Steel in
16
• Provides a status report on which articles Basements
are still current and which have been
superseded and by what. References 17
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 63, August 2001
Details of the errata in DCB No. 61 are as follows: 0.83 = non-uniformity factor, from [1],
taken as for a rectangular plate in
Page 15, left-hand column, half way down, shear
change the expression for φMp to read:
tw = 6.1mm for the 310 UB 40 collector
2 beam
Leff tep 0.9 x 250
φMp = = 4.87 kNm
4x106 Lcon = 73 + 65 + 90 = 228 mm
(see Fig. 61.7, DCB No. 61)
(The correction involves tep → tep
2
) The combined resistance is:
Page 17, right-hand column, just below half way φR = φNt + φVweb = 452 + 199 = 651 kN
*
down, correct the value of Vbrace, com compared
φR > HB,
*
com = 499 kN
with φVcon from 258 kN to 248 kN.
*
Page 20, section 7.2. A mathematical error has HB, com = critical design action (see top of
been made in calculating bb, which has a minor left hand column, page 21, DCB
flow-on effect. The first change starts half way No. 61).
down the right-hand column of text, to read thus;
Thus the combined shear and tension resistance
bb = bbf + db/2 = 303 + 307/2 = 456 mm of the beam web is greater than the design action
from the brace. √ O.K.
φRbb = 0.740 x 456 = 337 kN > VB,* com = 253 kN
Revision to the Rationalisation of
Reinforcing Bar Sizes and Riedbar Sizes
VB,* com = 253 kN compression (section 4.1.1)
Page 2 of DCB No. 61 contains advice on the
rationalisation of reinforcing bar sizes available
φRby = 2.41 x 303 = 730 kN > VB,* com from Pacific Steel Ltd. That advice was received
from Rajiva Kumar of Fletcher Building Steel
(The second mistake, which has been corrected Makers and has been disseminated around the
above, is that VB,* com was incorrectly called industry.
φVB,* com in the original text). Since the time DCB No. 62 was published,
feedback from the industry to Pacific Steel Ltd has
None of these errors change the outcome of the resulted in two minor additions to the advice given
design example. therein. These additions are to the SEISMIC 300
range (ie. Grade 300E to AS/NZS 4671 [2]). They
Footnote to DCB No. 61, Design Example are as follows:
No. 61.1, Section 7.3 • In plain bar, 25 mm will be added, making
the available range 6 mm, 10 mm, 12 mm,
In that design example, the unstiffened
16 mm, 20 mm and 25 mm
longitudinal tension capacity check on the beam
• In deformed bar, 28 mm will be added,
flange (see section 7.3) just fails in theory,
making the available range 10 mm, 12 mm,
however the result is accepted because the
16 mm, 20 mm, 25 mm, 28 mm and 32 mm.
answer is very close and the calculation does not
include the contribution from the web in shear. Pacific Steel have also modified the
standardised lengths for Riedbars. The
As can be seen from Fig. 61.7, this check is standard lengths of Riedbar to be produced
against the incoming compression force from the and stocked by them will be as follows:
brace causing a block shear/tension failure in the
top corner of the collector beam. This failure • 12 mm and 16 mm dia bar - 9 metre lengths
involves tension action through the flange, as • 20 mm, 25 mm and 32 mm dia. bar-12
described in DCB No. 61, plus shear resistance metre lengths.
through the web along the base of the root radius.
For further information, contact:
Only the former is considered in section 7.3 of
Design Example 61.1; the latter is readily Rajiva Kumar
determined to be: Product Development Manager
Fletcher Building Steel Makers
φVweb = φ0.6fyw 0.83twLcon = 199 kN Tel : 09-270 4381
Fax: 09-276 1232 or visit their website at:
0.6fyw = shear yield stress of beam web www.steelreinforcing.co.nz
Design of Circular Flange Joints Design Procedure
in Tubular Tension Members: The design procedure applies to a CHS member

Further Update on Previously Fig. 63.1.
Published Guidance The two sections are welded to a flange plate at

each end, with the endplates bolted together with
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA 4 or more equally placed bolts, positioned as
Structural Engineer
shown in Fig. 63.1
Background
The endplate thickness, tep, is given by equations
A method for design of bolted circular flange joints 63.1 and 63.2
in tubular tension members has been introduced
and referenced from DCB No. 46, with an update 2 N t*
in DCB No. 61. The USA paper giving details of t ep ≥ (mm) (63.1)
φf yep π f3
the method is available from HERA. The
procedure involves use of non-dimensionalised
design charts to obtain the endplate thickness, where:
number and size of bolts. While that procedure is N t* = design tension force on members (N)
comprehensive, it requires the use of several non- φ = 0.9 (from NZS 3404 [1])
dimensional charts. fyep = yield stress of endplate (MPa)
f3 = as given by equation 63.2
A simpler procedure is presented in the CIDECT
Design Guide for Circular Hollow Section Joints f3 = 28.57c3 – 17.47c2 + 6.59c + 1.26
Under Predominantly Static Loading [3]. Although (63.2)
that procedure is more restricted in application, its where:
scope covers most uses that would be made of
this type of connection. c =
(d o - t i ) , 0.2 ≤ c ≤ 0.8 (63.2)
(d o - ti + 2el )
Details are presented in section 5 of [3]. Because
there are some differences in notation between do = outside diameter of tube (mm)
CIDECT [3] and New Zealand practice [1], the
design procedure is repeated below, with the ti = wall thickness of tube (mm)
basis of the design procedure following. e1 = clear distance from tube to centre of bolt
hole (see Fig. 63.1)
The dimension e1 should be kept as low as

possible to minimise prying action; a range of 2df
to 2.5df is recommended by [1, 3]; (df = bolt
diameter), but the clearance between the
hardened washer from AS/NZS 1252 [4] and the
weld should be at least 5 mm.
The number of bolts required, nf, is given by
 1 1 
N t* 1 - + 
nf ≥  f 3 f3 . ln (r1 / r2 )  (63.3)
0.67φN tf
where:
N t* = design tension force (kN)

r1 = (do/2 + 2e1)
r2 = (do/2 + e1)
ln = natural logarithm
φNtf = design tension capacity of bolt (kN) from

NZS 3404 Clause 9.3.2.2
nf ≥ 4 required
Fig 63.1
Circular Flange Joint Covered by Bolts must be evenly spaced around the
Design Procedure circumference.
Commentary to and Limits on Procedure Design Example
The procedure is taken from Japanese Determine the endplate thickness and number of
recommendations (reference (29) from [3]). bolts required for a circular flange bolted joint
between two 406 x 9.5 ASTM A106 Grade B CHS
The mode of failure is flexural yielding of the members carrying N t* = 2400 kN tension.
flange plates. Tensile failure of the bolts is
suppressed. An allowance for prying forces equal
The endplate grade is 250.
to 1/3 of the total bolt force at the ultimate limit
state is included. The procedure is suitable for
Start with assumed bolt size of M30.
use in connections resisting loads up to the
design tension capacity of the tube.
From R4-100[5] page 299,
The procedure is suitable for CHS of up to grade
e1 = af = 65 mm for an M30 bolt
350, endplate steel of grade 250, 300 or 350 and
e2 = ae1 = 55 mm for an M30 bolt
property class 8.8 HSFG bolts to [4] (or stronger).
The bolts should be tightened to the Tension
Calculating endplate thickness from equation
Bearing (/TB) mode. The minimum number of
63.1;
bolts required is 4.
The bolts are spaced at (360/nf,actual) degrees c =

(406 − 9.5) = 0.75
spacing around the endplate. The values of e1, e2 (406 − 9.5 + 2 x 65)
used should be selected from HERA Report R4-
100 [5] for the appropriate bolt diameter. The f3, from equation 63.2, = 8.52
MEPS connection detail should be used; e1 ≡ af
from [5] and e2 ≡ ae1 from [5]. 2 x 2400 x 103
tep ≥ = 28.2 mm
The dimensionless function f3, equation 63.2, is a 0.9 x 250 π 8.52
curve fit to the parameter f3 given as Fig. 32 from
[3]. This curve fitting exercise is shown in Fig. 63.2. fyep = 250 MPa
Finally, the above procedure is for a bolted joint in Use a 28 mm thick plate – 1% under thickness √ O.K.
a member subject to axial tension. If instead the
member is subject to moment, resulting in Calculating the number of bolts required from
moment-induced tension, calculate the equivalent equation 63.3;
tension force generated by the design moment  1 1 
2400 1 - +
from equation 61.1 of DCB No. 61.  8.52 8.52 ln (333/268)
nf ≥ = 13.7
0.67x373
r1= 406/2 + 2 x 65 = 333
10
r2= 406/2 + 65 = 268
φNtf = 373 kN for M30 8.8 bolt
8 Use 14 M30 8.8/TB bolts equally spaced at

3 2
y = 28.568x - 17.466x + 6.59x + 1.2564
(360/14) = 26o
What’s in the DCBs, from Issue

6
f3
4
No. 1 to Issue No. 62
Structural Engineer
2
Introduction and Scope

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
As has been stated at the beginning of this Issue,
c
the DCB is now entering its seventh year of
publication, with 62 issues already produced.
Those issues contain information of medium-term
Fig. 63.2 and long-term use to steel designers/specifiers
Parameter f3 for Use in Design Procedure and constructors. Much of the material presented
therein is still current, however some material in
earlier issues has been superseded by revision to
that material in later issues or by other published HERA Report R4-99 [7]. That specification was
information. published in November 1998 and is still current.
At the beginning of each calendar year a contents Inspection and quality

listing has been produced, covering items
published in the previous year. A contents listing An inspection regime for bolts in bolted
for all back issues, up to and including Issue connections is given in DCB Issue No. 46
No. 59, December 2000, is available on the HERA pp. 8-10. It covers snug tight and tensioned bolts.
web site under:
A paper on quality control of metal spray coatings
www.hera.org.nz./sdcb.html is overviewed and referenced from DCB No. 20,
pp. 5.
However that listing is in alphabetical order, rather
than being grouped by design topic. It also gives The role of the Territorial Authority in enforcing
no indication of the status (eg. current, weld quality is addressed in DCB No. 40, pp.4-5.
superseded) of any topic.
Ensuring that on-site quality control is achieved
The purpose of this article is to present details of for welded shear studs and for intumescent paints
what’s in the DCBs from Issue No. 1 to Issue is covered in DCB No. 44, pp. 3-7. Further
No. 62 that has current status. It will, where coverage of the inspection of shear studs which
relevant, identify those items which are no longer are installed by stud welding equipment that
current and advise what they have been records the weld cycle parameters (the most
superseded by. advanced stud welding machines have this
capability) is given in DCB No. 52, pp. 7-9.
The details presented in this article are grouped
under the following general topics of benefit to An inspection regime for the non-destructive
designers; examination of welds in a given project is
presented in DCB No. 44, pp. 2-3.
• Contractual issues and queries
• Design examples, design queries and Design Examples, Design Queries and Design
design concepts Concepts
• Design for durability
• Design for earthquake There are a large number of design examples and
• Design for fatigue design queries presented in the 62 issues of the
• Design for fire and behaviour in fire DCB. There are also design concepts given for a
• Design for serviceability range of applications. Those which are still current
• Design of specific types of structures are listed below, in chronological order, with the
design examples listed first.
• Design of connections
• Design of structural hollow section
Design examples cover the following:
members and connections
• Design of members not listed elsewhere • Design example 6.1, in DCB No. 6, pp. 1-2,
• Design of non-ferrous metals covers design for moment of a solid
• Innovative and economical steel design rectangular flat plate loaded about the
• Material properties and availability x-axis.
• Publications
• Research results • Design example 17.1, in DCB No. 17, pp. 5-
• Steel Structures Standard, NZS 3404 8 covers design of a single angle truss
• Composite construction chord member to NZS 3404 [1]. The
• Miscellaneous items example, written for the 1992 edition of
NZS 3404, is however still relevant. This
Use of this format means that some items are example replaces the single angle design
referred to more than once, however it example in DCB No. 3, pp. 1-3 and
significantly increases the useability of the amendment in DCB No. 3, pp. 3-4.
information presented.
• Pages 2-5 of DCB No. 17 present the
Contractual Issues and Quality design concepts and background to single
angle member design.
Specifications
• DCB No. 24, pp. 3-5, covers the design of a
DCB Issue No. 44 presents an overview of the monosymmetric beam comprising a tee
HERA Specification for the Fabrication, Erection section with CHS bottom chord which is
and Surface Treatment of Structural Steelwork, subject to wind uplift.
horizontal cantilever canopy flat plate rib Design queries and concepts cover the
beam for major axis bending following:
• DCB No. 40, pp. 6-8, covers the ultimate • DCB No. 1, pp. 2-3, addresses the question
limit state design of a cantilever column as to whether local wind pressure
carrying a vertical axial load. The purpose coefficients from NZS 4203 [9] need be
behind this example is to illustrate applied to elements of cladding for design
application of NZS 3404 [1] for second- for serviceability limit state wind conditions.
order effect determination and subsequent
member design. • DCB No. 1, p. 3, covers how the torsion
constant and warping constant are
• DCB No. 41, pp. 7-9, covers calculation of calculated for a monosymmetric I-section
the lifting capacity of a spreader beam. with lipped compression flanges.
This is one of the more challenging
applications of the beam member moment • DCB No. 4, p. 5, covers how the effective
capacity (lateral buckling) provisions. section modulus of a half round steel
section carrying water is calculated.
• DCB No. 51, pp. 16-22 presents two fully
worked beam to column MEP connection • DCB No. 5, p. 6, covers calculation of Zey
design examples. These utilise the material for an I-section which is symmetrical about
in HERA Report R4-100 [5] as well as the y-axis.
performing all the additional checks
required on the column section. They • DCB No. 7, p. 4-5, covers a restraint query.
should be read in conjunction with DCB No. However this and all other restraint queries
52, pp. 13-16, which introduce an improved up to DCB No. 34 have been superseded
method of panel zone doubler plate by HERA Report R4-92 [10].
reinforcing and apply it to the MEP design
examples from DCB No. 51. See also DCB • DCB No. 16, pp. 3-4, covers the
No. 57 for a detailed article on panel zone determination of α m factors for segments
design and detailing that supersedes all unrestrained at one end and subject to a
previous articles on this topic. load pattern not covered by NZS 3404
Table 5.6.2. The expression for α m
• DCB No. 55, pp. 2-15, presents a very presented on page 4 has been incorporated
detailed design example and commentary into the program MemDes [11].
on the design of a cold-formed, thin-walled
single angle truss chord member subject to • DCB No. 29, pp. 5-6, covers determination
combined compression and bending. The of the design tension capacity of plain,
angle is formed from 3 mm thick cold bent round reinforcing bar members. The
plate and the design is to AS/NZS 4600 [8]. concepts presented therein are still
applicable to reinforcement produced to
• DCB No. 58, pp. 20-23, presents a detailed AS/NZS 4671 [2], although the minimum
design example on the semi-rigid Flange specified strengths have changed.
Bolted Joint (FBJ). DCB No. 62, pp. 16-18,
presents errata to the FBJ procedure
• DCB carrying a design tension force, Nt* ,
contained in DCB No. 58; these are minor.
as shown in No. 49, pp. 1-4, presents
• DCB No. 61, pp. 9-21, presents a detailed advice on member moment capacity
design example for a brace/beam/column determination for segments of portal
connection in a braced steel frame (EBF or frames. This supersedes advice given in
CBF). This uses the design concepts articles on this topic in DCB Nos. 22 , 23
presented in DCB No. 56. and 25.
• DCB No. 60, pp. 9-15, presents application • DCB No. 54, pp. 1-3, presents the
of the Slab Panel Method for the design of convention on signs for member and
floor slabs incorporating unprotected applied actions (moment, shear, axial force)
secondary beams in FHC 2 and FHC 3 adopted, as of February 2000, for all
situations. DCB No. 62, pp. 2-6, presents subsequent HERA publications.
more data on application of this method.
• DCB No. 55, pp. 18-28, presents a detailed
background to the concepts involved in
determining the shear stud design shear
capacity for shear studs used in composite
construction. This should be used to
determine the shear stud capacity for • DCB No. 20, pp. 1-2, presents general
applications that are not covered by guidance on selecting the appropriate
NZS 3404 [1]. environment for corrosion protection of
external structural steelwork.
• However, for shear studs used on beams
supporting precast hollowcore concrete • DCB No. 20, pp. 2-5, covers allowance for
slabs, the guidance given in DCB No. 45, corrosion of unpainted beam top flanges in
pp. 8-11, can be used, but only for car parking buildings.
hollowcore units of up to 250 mm deep.
Read the DCB No. 45 article in conjunction • DCB No 36, p. 6, covers galvanizing of
with the article entitled Welded Shear Stud HSFG bolts.
Capacity With Hollowcore Floor Slab Units:
Reappraisal of Published Design Criteria, • DCB No. 41, pp. 1-5, presents an article on
from HERANews March 2000 [12]. single coat Inorganic Zinc Silicate paints.
• DCB No. 52, pp. 18-28, covers the lateral • DCB No. 46, pp. 2-6, presents design long-
restraint and load bearing capacity in the term corrosion rates for steel piles, with
support regions of continuous beams. follow-up material in DCB No. 62, pp. 6-8.
• DCB No. 54, pp. 26-27, presents the • DCB No. 46, pp. 5-7, presents design
concept of using rigging to restrain member corrosion rates for long-term exposure of
buckling of long, isolated columns in unprotected structural steel to exterior
compression. atmospheric conditions. The guidance in
that article on allowance for microclimatic
• DCB No. 19, pp. 7-8, presents the general effects has been superseded by DCB
design principles for composite No. 62, pp. 8-16.
connections.
• DCB No, 46, pp. 18, presents a short article
• DCB No. 56, pp. 2-5, presents a method for on the use of steel with no applied
proportioning design actions from the corrosion protection in benign interior
braces into the supporting members of environments.
brace/beam/column connections. This
supersedes guidance in DCB No. 47. • DCB No. 47, pp. 1-3, presents detailing
requirements for steel to concrete
• DCB No. 56, pp. 5-11, presents design interfaces in exterior environments. This
concepts for brace/beam/column references back to DCB No. 46 as required.
connections in braced steel frame seismic-
resisting systems. • DCB No. 49, pp. 7-14, covers the durability
of car parking buildings, with follow-up
• DCB No. 56, pp.11-20, presents design material in DCB No. 56, p.25.
concepts for moment-resisting column
baseplate connections in seismic-resisting • DCB No. 51, p. 8, overviews a coatings
systems. guide for steel bridges.
• DCB No. 58, pp. 1-20, presents design • DCB No. 51, pp. 12-14, provides guidance
concepts for connections and systems on assessing the remaining structural
using the semi-rigid Flange Bolted Joint capacity of corrosion-damaged steel
(FBJ), followed by a design example. Refer beams, with an update in DCB No. 52, p. 4.
also to DCB No. 62, pp. 16-18, for revisions
to the design procedure. • DCB No. 52, pp. 5-7, introduces the
changes to the galvanizing standards and
• DCB No. 59, pp. 26-32, present design gives a list of galvanizing baths available in
concepts for the semi-rigid Sliding Hinge NZ, as of October, 1999.
Joint (SHJ).
• DCB No. 62, pp. 8-16, provides detailed
Design for Durability guidance on allowing for microclimatic
effects such as unwashed surfaces.
A wide scope of design guidance for durability is
covered, as noted below. This is presented in Design for Earthquake
chronological order, covering those articles which
are still current. The principal source of design for earthquake is
HERA Report R4-76 [13]. It was published in
1995 for application with the 1992 edition of
NZS 3404. However, the changes required to use seismic axial force in columns of tension
it in conjunction with NZS 3404: 1997 [1] are braced CBF seismic-resisting systems.
minor. Details of these changes are given in the
useful set of notes entitled Tips on Seismic • DCB No. 40, p.4, presents the most recent
Design of Steel Structures [14], which are empirical equations for preliminary
overviewed in DCB No. 56, p.28. These tips are determination of seismic-resisting system
also now included in each new copy of R4-76. fundamental period of vibration.
The items relating to design for earthquake • DCB No. 36, p.6, presents an extreme
covered in the DCB and which are additional to upper limit on seismic design actions for
the material covered by [13, 14] are as follows connectors and connection components.
(presented in reverse chronological order); These should be used where the system is
such that the minimum design actions
• Design of connections and systems using specified by NZS 3404 Clause 12.9.2 would
the Flange Bolted Joint is covered in DCB be obviously excessive for the system.
No. 58, pp. 1-20 and DCB No. 62, pp.16-
18. • DCB No. 24, pp. 7-8, present the revised
expressions for determining the post-
• DCB No. 57, pp. 14-28, covers design and buckling compression capacity of CBF
detailing of panel zones in moment- braces that are given as Equations
resisting beam to column connection. That C12.2.3(1) and C12.2.3(2) in NZS 3404 [1].
supersedes all earlier DCB articles on panel
zone design and detailing. • DCB No. 19, pp. 6-7, covers design of
single-brace concentrically braced framed
• DCB No. 56, pp. 2-5, covers design systems. (These are not covered in R4-76
concepts for proportioning design actions [13] but the provisions from that report are
from the braces into the supporting easily adapted for their use).
members of brace/beam/column
connections. • DCB No. 18, pp. 1-10, present guidelines
for assessing the seismic performance of
• DCB No. 51, pp. 14-23, covers design of pre-1975 moment-resisting steel framed
MEP connections for seismic-resisting buildings. These guidelines are currently
systems. See also DCB No. 57 for revised being incorporated, in part, into a new
panel zone design criteria. document on this topic being prepared by a
NZSEE Study Group for the BIA.
• DCB No. 50, pp. 20-26, covers general
concepts and derivation of design actions • DCB No. 8, pp. 1-6, DCB No. 9, pp.1-4, and
for connections in seismic-resisting DCB No. 10, pp.1-3, present reports on the
systems. This includes specific guidance Great Hanshin (Kobe) Earthquake of
on design actions for column bases of January, 1995.
MRFs, EBFs and CBFs, material which is
not covered in R4-76 [13]. Design for Fatigue
• DCB No. 49, pp. 15-19 and DCB No. 50, • The DCB to date has not provided direct
pp. 5-7, cover issues relating to P - ∆ guidance on design for fatigue, but instead
response and design of steel seismic- has referenced good sources of design
resisting systems. guidance. Details are as follows:
• DCB No. 47, pp. 20-21, presents details of • DCB No. 57, pp. 28-30, provides coverage
a cost-effective X-braced, tension only CBF of three sources of fatigue design guidance
system with site welded strap braces. covering welded construction in general
and welded hollow section joints in
• DCB No. 46, pp. 16-17, presents details of particular
a cost-effective V-braced CBF system with
site welded braces. • DCB No. 32, p.4, references a report
available from HERA on the fatigue testing
• DCB No. 45, p.16, covers derivation of Cs of riveted bridge girders.
factors for CBF roof bracing systems.
• DCB No. 40, p.3, contains a modification to Design for Fire and Behaviour in Fire
apply to equations 18.5 and 18.6 of R4-76
[13] when calculating the column design Design for steel structures response in fire and
information on steel structure behaviour in fire is
one of the principal topics covered in the DCB and getting out of date by February 2001. It
by the HERA Structural Division in general. HERA was revised and updated for the seminars
Report R4-105 [15] Notes Prepared for a Seminar on Behaviour and Design of Multi-Storey
on The Behaviour and Design of Multi-Storey Buildings for Severe Fires held in March
Steel Framed Buildings for Severe Fires, Revised 2001 and is now presented as session 4 of
June 2001 is the most current report on Fire [15]. For example, it now references the
Engineering Design (FED) of Multi-Storey SPM design method, presented in DCB
Buildings and contains/supersedes much DCB No. 60, a copy of which is also included in
material on FED of multi-storey buildings the notes under session 2.
published prior to then. HERA Report R4-91 [16]
Notes Prepared for a Seminar on Design of Steel • The collapsed wall condition concept, for
Buildings for Fire Emergency Conditions provides determining whether the steel columns
design and detailing guidance for low-rise supporting fire rated external wall elements
buildings. Various DCB articles since [16] was of single-storey buildings are required to be
published, in November 1996, have revised passive fire protected, was first introduced
application of the procedures to keep them up to in DCB No. 20, April 1996. It was then
date with changes to key documents such as developed further in subsequent DCB
C/AS1:2001 [17], the Approved Document for Fire articles and presented in detail in HERA
Safety. Report R4-91 [16], in November 1996.
Some errors in that report were noted and
This contents listing covers the DCB articles on corrected through DCB No. 30, pp. 3-4 and
behaviour and design for fire that are still current. more mention of the collapsed wall
Because so much of the earlier published material condition design concept made on page 6.
on fire has been superseded by later articles or The original condition was developed for a
other documents, they are listed in approximate previous edition of the BIA Acceptable
reverse chronological order: Solutions for Fire Safety and needed
modification to be applied to the current
• DCB No. 60, whole issue, presents the provisions C/AS1 [17]. Its application has
detailed design procedure for design of been made easier by the radiation
multi-storey steel framed buildings with provisions of [17] now employing the same
unprotected secondary beams or joists for concept of a limiting width on the emitter as
dependable inelastic response in severe is incorporated into the collapsed wall
fires. The design method is called the Slab condition concept. There have been two
Panel Method (SPM). This is followed up in rounds of modifications made, namely in
DCB No. 61, pp. 1-2 by details of a flexible DCB No. 51, pp. 3-5 and DCB No. 52
fire separation joint that can be used with pp. 2-3.
the inelastically responding floor system.
DCB No. 62, pp. 2-6, presents guidance on • Designers using the collapsed wall
applying the revised SPM design program condition concept should start with the
that has been developed to implement this advice given in DCB No. 52, pp. 2-3 under
method. (An error in the units for shear the articles Extending Use of the Collapsed
capacity shown in the output screen of that Wall Condition for Support of External Wall
program, Fig. 62.2, has now been corrected Panels…. That article refers back, as
from mm2 m to kN in the version of the required, to DCB No. 51 and to [16]. Pages
program available from HERA). 4 and 5 of DCB No. 51 give the method of
application itself in terms of determining the
• DCB No. 59, pp. 2-25, presents research emitter height and width.
results that have then been used in the
SPM procedure development. • DCB No. 51, pp. 2-3, provides guidance on
modifying the S rating given by [17] to
• DCB No. 58, pp. 25-30, in conjunction with account for the thermal inertia of the
a Canadian paper described and bounding elements of the enclosure. This
referenced from therein, covers the design modification is very important, as the S
of concrete filled steel hollow section ratings given in [17] are based on the most
columns for a specified fire resistance severe condition possible in buildings and
rating. require significant reduction for any building
incorporating concrete floor slabs.
• DCB No. 54, pp. 3-26, presents a state-of-
the-art report, as of February 2000, on the • DCB No. 51, pp. 5-6, provides guidance on
performance and design of modern, multi- the fire resistance ratings for structural
storey steel framed buildings in fully elements of steel framed car parking
developed fires. However, as this is such a buildings.
rapidly developing area, that article was
• DCB No. 50, pp. 9-10, overviews a useful • DCB No. 6, pp. 4-6, covers the accuracy of
paper on assessing the integrity of the structural fire severity time equivalent
structural steelwork after exposure to fire. equation, te = ef fb wf, used to develop the S
The other two FED articles in that issue rating provisions. Further brief background
have been superseded. to the ventilation factor, wf, is given in DCB
No. 8, pp. 7-8.
• DCB No. 48, pp. 3-13, presents results from
HERA’s fire research programme on key Design for Serviceability
aspects of the behaviour of a multi-storey
steel framed building subject to fully Acoustic performance:
developed natural fires.
• DCB No. 57, pp. 2-14, presents guidance
• DCB No. 46, pp.10-13, presents details on on the acoustic performance of steel
eliminating the need for passive fire framed apartment buildings.
protection in multi-storey apartment and
hotel buildings by using the shielding • DCB No. 45, pp. 11-13, covers acoustic
effects of the linings. insulation provided by Dimond Hibond floor
systems.
• DCB No. 44, p.7, mentions a publication
available from HERA on the fire Deflections:
engineering design of oil platforms and
similar structures. • DCB No. 49, pp.4-7, together with DCB
No. 50, pp. 2-4, provide guidance on the
• DCB No. 28, pp. 2-3, provides a summary stiffening effect of the cladding on portal
of the scope and contents of HERA Report frame deflections under lateral loading.
R4-91 [16].
• DCB No. 33, pp. 8-13, covers deflection of
• DCB No. 27, pp. 1-8, provides interesting composite floor systems. Much of the
material on the link between the fire information in that article is being
resistance ratings provided, the structural incorporated (and revised as appropriate)
fire severity and the resulting performance into the forthcoming HERA Report R4-107
in severe fire. That information, especially Control of Deflection and Placement of
pp. 4-5, is still of background interest; Concrete in Composite Floor systems. A
although the design recommendations draft of that report [20] is currently
arising from it have been superseded. available.
• DCB No. 27, p. 8, provides an overview of • The guidance given in DCB No. 37, pp. 9-
HERA Report R4-89 [18], Fire Protection 10, on vertical deflection limits for crane
Manuals, Section 7 (Passive Protection) runway girders, is superseded by the
and Section 8 (Active Protection). requirements of AS 1418 Part 18 [21]. This
very important new standard is overviewed
• DCB No. 15, p. 8, makes reference to in DCB No. 61, pp. 6-9.
HERA Report R4-82 [19] Calculation of the
Design Fire Resistance of Composite Vibration of floor systems
Concrete Slabs With Profiled Steel
Sheeting Under Fire Emergency • DCB No. 56, pp. 25-27, presents details of
Conditions. An error in the equation for he the latest US/Canadian based design
on page 15 of [19] is noted and corrected in procedure for the design of steel/concrete
DCB No. 35, p.5. floor systems for satisfactory in-service floor
vibration response. That article supersedes
• DCB No.12, pp. 6-8, covers the fire all previous DCB articles on this topic.
resistance of composite beams with profiled
steel decking, in particular addressing the Design of Specific Types of Structures
issue as to whether the voids between top
of steel and decking in a ribbed deck need This section of the content listings covers articles
filling with passive protection material when relating to specific types of structures, typically
the beams are protected. covering a range of topics in relation to that type
of structure. The listing is not exhaustive,
• DCB No.11, p. 6, covers fire stopping and especially in that it does not cover articles on
penetration seals for the construction components or other items that are applicable to
industry. more than one type of structure. Its principal
purpose is to identify articles that would not be
referenced elsewhere within this contents • DCB No. 31, pp. 1-10, covers general
overview. issues and design of selective pallet racks
Houses • DCB No. 53, pp. 6-12, covers design of

drive-in pallet racks
• DCB No. 52, pp. 9-10, covers guidelines for
light-weight steel framed house Design of Connections
construction.
The location and scope of all connection design
• DCB No. 48, pp. 17-18, provides an guidance presented in the DCBs up to December
overview of a BHP publication on the use of 1999 has been summarised in DCB No. 53,
steel in houses, which is available from pp. 12-14. Readers should refer first to there.
HERA. The publication is written for
Australian conditions, however much of it is Guidance on connectors, connection components
relevant to New Zealand. There are plans and connection design concepts presented in
underway to produce a New Zealand DCB Nos 54-62 is listed below:
version.
• DCB No. 56 covers the following items;
Single-storey buildings
− pp. 2-5, revised design guidance for
• DCB No. 50, pp. 2-4, covers the stiffening proportioning design actions from the
effect of cladding on portal frame buildings. braces into the supporting members of
brace/beam column connections
• DCB No. 52, pp. 2-3, covers design of
external walls for fire resistance. − pp. 5-11, design concepts for
brace/beam/column connections
haunched, tapered universal beam sections
− pp. 11-20, design concepts for
in portal frame rafters. moment-resisting column baseplate
connections
• DCB No. 21, pp. 5-6, covers the minimum
required pitch for profiled metal roofing and
− pp. 29-32, determining the tension
references an excellent publication for
capacity of bolt/plate combinations, for
profiled metal roofing design and
any combination of bolts and plate
installation.
• DCB No. 57, pp. 14-28, presents design
Multi-storey buildings
and detailing recommendations for panel
zones in moment-resisting beam to column
• DCB No. 49, pp. 20-24, presents general
connections. This guidance supersedes all
concepts in selecting structural form and
previously published guidance on that topic.
detailing for maximum cost-effectiveness in
multi-storey steel framed buildings.
• DCB No. 58, pp. 1-24, plus revisions in
• DCB No. 50, pp. 20-26, presents DCB No. 62, pp. 16-18, present design and
connection design and detailing issues in detailing requirements for the semi-rigid
selecting structural form and detailing for Flange Bolted Joint (FBJ).
maximum cost-effectiveness in multi-storey
steel framed buildings. • DCB No. 58, pp. 28-30, presents
recommendations on connection design
• DCB No. 52, pp. 22-25, covers optimising and detailing for fire endurance between
the cost of multi-storey steel framed beams and concrete-filled SHS members.
buildings in New Zealand.
• DCB No.59, pp. 26-32, presents design
• DCB No. 49, pp. 7-14, covers durability of concepts for the semi-rigid Sliding Hinge
multi-storey car parking buildings. Joint (SHJ).
Pallet racking systems • DCB No. 61, pp. 2-3, presents some
guidance on bolted circular flange joints;
There have been various articles on pallet racking see also pages 3 to 4 herein for another
systems in the DCB, however the following two design method for this type of joint.
issues present the current guidance and
supersede earlier articles; • DCB No. 61, pp. 3-6, presents an
amendment to the FE designs in R4-100
[5].
• DCB No.61, pp. 9-21, presents a fully • DCB No. 37, pp. 7-9, preliminary design of
worked design example of a composite members using published
brace/beam/column connection. See also charts.
minor errata to that example on pages 1 to
2 herein. • DCB No. 33, pp. 4-5, covers rapid
assessment of φMsx, preliminary sizing of
Design of Structural Hollow Section portal frame members, preliminary design
Members and Connections of simply supported composite floor beams.
(These are presented in earlier DCBs
The DCBs cover a range of topics in regard to referenced from this issue, especially DCB
SHS members and connections. These are as No. 2, pp. 1-2. The preliminary design
follows; guidance for connections presented on
pp. 5-7 of DCB No. 33 is superseded by
• DCB No. 63, pp. 3 - 4, DCB No. 61, pp. 2-3, R4 100 [5]).
DCB No. 46, pp.17-18, cover design of
bolted circular flange joints in tubular Crane runway girders and rails
structures.
• DCB No. 61, pp. 6-9, overviews the design
• DCB No. 58, pp. 25-30, covers design of of crane runway girders and monorail
SHS columns for fire endurancel. beams to the provisions of the new
standard, AS 1418 Part 18 [21].
• DCB No. 38, pp. 1-2, reviews two
publications, available from HERA, that • DCB No. 47, pp. 18-20, covers crane rails:
provide detailed design guidance on a materials and attachment systems.
range of SHS connection types.
Cold-formed steel members
• DCB No. 39, pp. 3-4, reviews the design
guidance, available from HERA, on the • DCB No. 46, pp. 16-18, introduces the
DuraGal range of members. Cold-formed Steel Structures Standard,
AS/NZS 4600 [8], and accompanying
• Refer also to HERA Report R4-104 [22] for design guidance.
much information on research and design
of tubular members, structures and • DCB No. 55, pp. 2-15, presents a detailed,
connections. fully worked design example with
commentary for a cold-formed member
Design of Members Not Listed Elsewhere subject to combined actions.
This section covers articles on design of members • DCB No. 39, pp. 1-3, covers material
that are not listed elsewhere herein. grades for cold-formed SHS members.
Beams and columns Design of Non-Ferrous Metals
• DCB No. 53, pp. 1-6 and pp. A1-A20, The DCBs are written principally for structural
presents a design procedure for openings steel application, so the coverage of non-ferrous
in beam webs. metal design is limited to the following:
• DCB No. 54, pp. 26, 27 covers rigging • DCB No. 16, p. 5, overviews an excellent
restraint for long, isolated columns in book available from HERA on design for
compression. aluminium alloy structures.
• DCB No. 52, p. 9, briefly mentions • DCB No. 40, pp. 5-6, covers a range of
precambering of hot rolled beams; a topic stainless steel members available in New
being more comprehensively addressed in Zealand.
[20].
Innovative and Economical Steel Design
• DCB No. 52, pp. 11-13, covers lateral
restraint and load bearing capacity in the The following articles on innovative steel
support regions of continuous beams. applications and economics/costing of steelwork
are covered:
Preliminary design guidance of beams and
columns is covered in the following: • DCB No. 30, pp. 1-3, presents an article on
the rational way of costing steelwork. The
concepts are still current, but the detailed
costing provisions are now contained in • Use of AISI 4140 steel rods for hold-down
HERA Report R4-96 [23]. bolts is covered in DCB No. 39, pp. 5-6.
• DCB No. 44, pp. 7-8, presents an overview • DCB No. 8, pp. 4-6, covers availability and
of the Structural Steelwork Estimating use of the Torque Control (TC) high
Guide [23]. This is the principal source of strength structural bolt.
estimating guidance for all cost items
relating to structural steelwork. • DCB No. 5, p. 2, covers the designation of
steels of UK origin.
• DCB No. 52, pp. 22-25, optimising the cost
of multi-storey steel buildings in New Shear stud availability is covered seperately,
Zealand, presents summary guidance on under Composite Construction: Welded shear
choice of deck, floor beams, gravity stud design, supply and installation on page 15
columns and seismic-resisting systems for herein.
car parking buildings, apartment / hotel
buildings and office buildings. Publications
A series of innovative structural steel articles There are a number of articles on

have been published, covering the following publications/conferences in the DCBs. Details are
as follows (the publications are not listed in the
• DCB No. 45, pp 13-15, steel structure references unless they are referenced from
supporting a new second storey of elsewhere in this article):
classrooms built over existing buildings.
• DCB No. 36, pp. 4-5, covers the Composite
• DCB No. 46, pp. 16-17, cost-effective Floor Preliminary Design Charts
V-braced CBF seismic-resisting system
with site welded braces. • DCB No. 38, pp. 1-4, covers the following:
• DCB No. 47, pp. 20-21, cost-effective − Design of Structural Steel Hollow
X-braced, tension only, CBF seismic- Section Connections, First Edition
resisting system with site welded strap − Hollow Structural Section
braces. Connections and Trusses
− Design of Semi-Continuous Braced
• DCB No. 54, pp. 28-30, low-rise car parking Frames
providing increased carpark capacity. − Semi-Rigid Connections in Steel
Frames
• DCB No. 61, pp. 21-22, 14 storey − Seismic Behaviour of Steel Plate
apartment building with timber floors Shear Walls
(currently the tallest residential building in − Various Winstone Wallboards
the world with no concrete in the structure publications covering fire and noise
or floors). control
− Two publications giving properties of
Material Properties and Availability members to overseas design
standards
Articles on material properties and availability of
components are as follows: • DCB No. 39, pp. 3-5, covers the following:
• DCB No. 39, pp. 1-3, cover the grades of − Range of DuraGal publications
steel plate, flat, sections and SHS − Building Design Using Cold Formed
commonly available. That article Steel Sections: Construction
supersedes earlier articles on the same Detailing and Practice
topic, except where these are referenced
from that issue.
• DCB No. 58, pp. 31-32, covers the status of
the HERA Structural Steelwork Design
• HSFG bolt, nut and washer availability in Guides Vol. 2, as of October 2000
sizes above M36 is covered in DCB No. 51,
p.14, with further guidance on nut
• DCB No. 62, pp. 18-19, covers the SCI
availability in DCB No. 52, pp. 3-4.
publication Appraisal of Existing Building
Steelwork
• Details on the Lindapter range of fasteners
is given in DCB No. 38, p.4 and 43, pp. 5-6.
• DCB No. 63, pp. 16-17, covers an SCI • DCB No. 55, pp. 16-18, give the
publication on the use of steel sheet piles background to the revised web slenderness
as permanent walls. limits introduced via. Amendment. No. 1 for
rectangular and square hollow section
Research Results members
Results from HERA’s research projects and other Composite Construction

structural steel research projects are presented
throughout the DCB. Articles presenting research The listing of DCB articles on composite
results have already been listed in relation to the construction is presented in two groups; first are
topic or topics they cover. those relating to composite systems and members
and second are those relating to the design
Steel Structures Standard, NZS 3404 supply and installation of shear studs,
The following articles relate to NZS 3404:1997 [1], Because several earlier articles have been or are
or were written for the 1992 edition and are still being superseded by later work, they are
current. They are presented in chronological presented in reverse chronological order and only
order: the articles that are still current are listed.
• DCB No. 16, pp. 3-4, covers α m factors for Composite members and systems
segments unrestrained at one end and not
covered by Table 5.6.2 of [1] • DCB Issue No. 56, pp. 25-27, overviews the
current recommended method for in-service
• DCB No. 17, pp. 2-8, covers single angle floor vibration design
design
• DCB Issue No. 53, most of issue, covers
• DCB No. 29, pp. 4-5, provides the design for openings in the webs of
background to Equations C12.2.3 of [1] composite beams.
• DCB No. 34, pp. 1-7, presents an article on • DCB No. 52, p.9, and DCB No. 33,
design to NZS 3404:1997 made simple. pp. 8-14, cover deflection of composite floor
This topic is covered in more detail in a systems. Those provisions are the current
comprehensive set of seminar notes [25] information in the DCB on this topic,
and an excellent SESOC publication [26] however they are currently being slightly
revised and incorporated into a more
• DCB No. 36, pp. 1-3, presents follow up comprehensive publication [20].
questions and answers from the mid-1997
seminar series on NZS 3404 • DCB No. 42, pp. 1-4, cover a number of
composite floor system good design and
• DCB No. 37, p.9, summarises a reference detailing practices, namely:
paper to the NZS 3404 provisions for SHS
members. This paper is included in [22], − Spacing of shear connectors on
which provides much more comprehensive secondary beams supporting profiled
coverage steel decks
− 22 mm diameter shear studs cannot be
• DCB No. 43, p.5, gives a change to the welded through deck
significant axial force provisions that has − unpainted beam top flange is required
been introduced in Amendment No. 1. for through deck shear stud welding
− Hilti shear connector availability
• DCB No. 45, pp. 7-8, presents more − Reasons not to use reinforcing bar as a
changes introduced via. Amendment No. 1 shear connector
• DCB No. 48, pp. 1-2, presents a partial
twist restraint scenario not covered in the • DCB No. 37, pp. 7-9, and DCB No. 36,
1997 edition of [1] and which is introduced pp. 4-5, cover preliminary design of
via. Amendment. No. 1. composite beams using published design
charts
• DCB No. 51, pp. 9-12, gives the
background to two significant changes • DCB No. 35, pp. 4-5, overviews the
introduced via. Amendment. No. 1. These COBENZ 97 spreadsheet program for
relate to bearing at a pin and lateral composite beam design
restraint of inelastically responding
members • DCB No. 32, pp. 1-4, covers good practice
in composite floor system design
• DCB No. 29, p. 7, gives a reference for the • DCB No. 1, pp. 1-2, introduces the HERA
design capacity of Hilti shear connectors Limit State Design Guides Volume 1 [27]
Welded shear stud design, supply and • DCB No. 21, p. 5, gives details of Gib
installation Fireboard, which was introduced at that
time (May 1996).
• DCB No. 55, pp. 18-28, covers the
concepts involved in determining the design • DCB No. 23, pp. 5-7, covers results from
shear capacity of shear studs. Use when the experimental testing of large-scale,
the application is outside the scope of beam to column joints, undertaken to verify
NZS 3404, except for; the design model presented in R4-76 [13]
(and also in DCB No. 11, pp. 2-6).
• DCB No. 45, pp. 8-11, covers the design
shear capacity of shear studs with precast • DCB No. 28, p. 5, references a US paper
hollowcore slab units. However, those giving the design capacity of bolted
provisions should only be used for HCUs of moment-resisting endplate connections with
up to 250 mm thick and in accordance with multiple bolt rows at the beam tension
the restrictions of [12]. flange. An alternative to the use of that
paper is to determine the capacity from first
• DCB No. 44, pp. 3-6, covers the testing of principles, using the SCI Publication No.
shear studs during construction placed with 207/95 [28] as is covered in DCB No. 56,
conventional stud welding machines, while pp. 29-32.
DCB No. 52, pp. 7-9, covers testing of
shear studs placed with advanced all- • DCB No. 31, p. 10, gives a short article on
weather machines which record the weld the difference between nominal and
current for each application. These characteristic yield stress and the
machines allow the option of using the significance of each in design
printed output to determine stud weld
quality in lieu of visual inspection. If, • DCB No. 32, pp. 4-5, covers calculating the
however, visual inspection to DCB No 44 is bending moment in a pin
to be used with an all-weather stud welding
machine, then the Part 1 requirement on • DCB No. 36, pp. 5-6, overviews an
page 8 of DCB No 52 is not required. interesting paper on the design of slender,
monotubular steel arches
• DCB No. 42, p.8, gives a tabular listing of
the range of welded, headed shear studs • DCB No. 44, p. 7, gives a very brief report
available and their nominal capacity (which on the 1998 Second World Conference on
must be multiplied by 0.8 in accordance Steel in Construction
with Note 3 to Table 42.2).
• DCB No. 46, p. 1 and p. 18, mentions some
Note that the 0.8 factor has been of the structural steel topics covered by the
incorporated directly into the NZS 3404 1998 Australasian Structural Engineering
Equations for shear stud capacity Conference.
determination, through Amendment No 1.
See the reason for this in the amendments
to Commentary Clause C13.3.2.1 of An Overview of Design Aids for
NZS 3404: Part 2. Structural Steelwork
• DCB No. 22, p.7, and DCB No. 29, p. 7, Following on from the “what’s in” article, it is an
both give details of all-weather stud welding opportune time to bring readers attentions to an
equipment which was introduced at that extremely comprehensive listing of design
time. guidance for structural steelwork compiled by
Peter Kneen of the Australian Institute of Steel
• DCB No. 8, p. 8, gives the range and type Construction.
of arc shields available.
His paper, presented in Steel Construction, Vol.
Miscellaneous Items 35, No. 2 [29], is advertised as “a snapshot at
[June 2001] of the main local design aids”. It is
This article on what’s in the DCB from Issue No. 1 more than that, including HERA publications and
to Issue No. 62 ends with a listing of contact details for all major steel related
miscellaneous items that are still current but have associations.
escaped mention earlier. They are presented in
chronological order.
The advice is collated into the following sections: This use of steel sheet piling is particularly
1. Introduction relevant to top-down construction methods where
2. General steel structures the sheet pile walls can be left in place and built
3. Design capacity tables into the final construction, being propped by cast
4. Structural connections in-situ concrete floor slabs, as the construction
5. Specialised structural design aids progresses deeper.
6. Fire resistance design aids
7. Architectural and domestic A lower whole life cost is obtained due to simpler
8. Fabrication and faster construction, less risk of subsidence
9. General during construction, reduced maintenance cost
10. Composite construction through less leakage, and still with ease of
11. Composite design software removal at the end of the service life.
12. Software
13. Structural analysis software This method of sheet pile wall construction is now
14. Member/joint design software being increasingly widely used in the UK and
15. Costing software Europe, hence the initiative from the SCI to put
16. Structural modelling together design, detailing and construction
17. Purlins and grits recommendations.
18. CIDECT publications
19. Material and product catalogues
20. AS/NZS Standards
21. HERA structural publications (up to R4-101)
22. Steel Construction Journal contents
23. Websites
This is a publication well worth obtaining and

studying to find out what publications and material
of interest is available from AISC. Much of the
material presented therein is of relevance to New
Zealand.
Maximising the Use of Steel in

Basements
General
Traditionally, basement construction has used a

bottom-up method in which steel sheet piles have Fig. 63.3
been used as a temporary external wall that has Permanent Steel Pile Wall and
been removed after an inner concrete Concrete Pile Cap Supporting the Building
construction is complete. Consequently, sheet Superstructure (from [30])
piles have generally been considered to be
temporary walling. However, this imposes the Scope of Publication
expense of removal, the need for a separate
structural wall to be built and the risk of ground The purpose of this publication is to provide the
disturbance during evacuation. necessary guidance for structural and
geotechnical engineers to take advantage of the
These factors are driving a trend towards the use economies gained through the use of permanent
of top-down construction, using embedded walls steel sheet piling. It contains fourteen sections
made from the steel sheet piling. In this case, the and two appendices, which cover the following:
steel sheet piling provides a permanent wall, into
which the superstructure is built and which • Case histories (nine are presented,
functions as an integral lateral and vertical load including the one from which Fig. 63.3 has
carrying part of the foundation system. An been taken)
example of this is shown in Fig. 63.3. That • Benefits and cost comparisons
example is taken from the SCI Publication P275, • Construction methods for basements
Steel Intensive Basements [30], which provides • Design basis and design procedures
guidance on the design and installation of • Base stability
permanent steel sheet piled walls for “steel • Design of temporary supports
intensive” basement construction. • Waterproofing
• Fire resistance
• Pile driving and installation
• References non-seismic elements (ie. their contribution to the
• Appendices – sheet pile products, systems seismic-resisting system is ignored). While this
available in the UK. would bring cost benefits, these would be further
enhanced through being able to use these walls
Food for Thought: Application in New as shear walls.
Zealand
Any readers interested in their use or in
In principle, this permanent steel sheet pile wall participating in a research program to develop
system can be readily used in New Zealand. The their seismic potential should contact Charles
sheet piles are available and are frequently used Clifton or Clark Hyland at HERA.
as temporary walling on projects.
References
In terms of designing for durability, the guidance
in DCB No. 46 on long-term corrosion rates for 1. NZS 3404: 1997, plus Amendment No. 1:
steel piles would be used to determine the 2001, Steel Structures Standard; Standards
sacrificial loss of material to allow for on the side New Zealand, Wellington
in contact with the soil. Corrosion on the side
facing into the basement would be as for the 2. AS/NZS 4671:2001, Steel Reinforcing
basement interior environment; in any case this Materials; Standards New Zealand,
side would typically be painted for the sake of Wellington
appearance.
3. Wardenier, J. et.al.; CIDECT Design Guide
This leaves only the question of earthquake for Circular Hollow Section Joints Under
performance, where these walls would form part Predominatly Static Loading; Verlag TUV
of the seismic-resisting system. In so doing they Rheinland, Koln, Germany, 1991
would function as shear walls, cantilevering out of
the ground at lower basement level and with a 4. AS/NZS 1252:1996, High Strength Bolts
fixed or pinned connection to the superstructure at With Associated Nuts and Washers for
their top. This interconnection can be readily Structural Engineering; Standards New
provided by welding shear studs to the sheet pile Zealand, Wellington.
tops and casting the studded tops into the
concrete slab/superstructure base. 5. Hyland C; Structural Steelwork Connections
Guide; HERA, Manukau City, 1999, HERA
If these walls are to be used as elements of the Report R4-100.
seismic-resisting system, then the following needs
to be known: 6. Structural Steel Properties and Design
Charts, Third Edition; Fletcher EasySteel
(1) Their lateral strength and stiffness in the Kingston Morrison Ltd, Auckland, 1997.
elastic range; and therefore
(2) Will they be subject to potential inelastic 7. Clifton, GC; HERA Specification for the
demand; and if so Fabrication, Erection and Surface
(3) Their force/deflection characteristics in the Treatment of Structural Steelwork; HERA,
inelastic range Manukau City, 1998, HERA Report R4-99.
The answers for (1) and (3) can be obtained 8. AS/NZS 4600:1996, Cold-Formed Steel
through Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Clark Structures; Standards New Zealand,
Hyland, SSAS Manager, has utilised permanent Wellington.
steel sheet piles in this manner on an SSAS
project, using HERA’s FEA capability to determine 9. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
their elastic and inelastic behaviour. The result and Design Loadings for Buildings;
was a significant saving in cost over a Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
conventional approach of using these steel sheet
piles as temporary walls, bearing out the UK and 10. Clifton, GC; Restraint Classifications for
European experiences documented in [30]. Beam Member Moment Capacity
Determination to NZS 3404: 1997; HERA,
There is scope for an interested party or parties to Manukau City, 1997, HERA Report R4-92.
fund/collaborate with HERA to provide seismic
design guidance for the use of permanent sheet 11. Bird, GD; MemDes V2 – Program for
steel pile shear walls. That guidance would sit Member Design to NZS 3404, Version 2;
alongside SCI Publication P 275 [30]. BHP New Zealand Steel, Auckland, 2001
There is sufficient information in [30] to allow
permanent sheet steel pile walls to be used as
12. Clifton GC; Welded Shear Stud Capacity 21. AS 1418.18;2001, Cranes (Including Hoists
With Hollowcore Floor Slab Units; and Winches) Part 18: Crane Runways and
Reappraisal of Published Design Criteria; Monorails; Standards Australia, Sydney,
HERA News, March 2000, pp. 6,7 Australia
13. Feeney MJ and Clifton GC; Seismic Design 22. Hancock, G. et.al.; Notes Prepared for the
Procedures for Steel Structures; HERA, Tubular Structures Seminar; HERA,
Manukau City, 1995, HERA Report R4-76. Manukau City, 2001, HERA Report R4-104
14. Clifton, GC; Tips on Seismic Design of 23. Hyland, C; Structural Steelwork Estimating
Steel Structures; Notes from Presentations Guide; HERA, Manukau City, 1998, HERA
to Structural Groups mid-2000; HERA Report R4-96.
Manukau City, 2000.
24. HERA; New Zealand Structural Steelwork
15. Clifton, GC and Robinson, J; Notes Design Guides Volume 2; HERA, Manukau
Prepared for a Seminar on The Behaviour City, 1989/1991, HERA Report R4-49
Buildings for Severe Fires, Revised June 25. Clifton, GC et.al.; Notes prepared for a
2001; HERA Manukau City, 2001, HERA Seminar on the Steel Structures Standard,
Report R4-105 NZS 3404:1997; HERA, Manukau City,
1999 HERA Report R4-101.
for a Seminar on Design of Steel Buildings 26. Bird, GD and Feeney, MJ; Simplified
for Fire Emergency Conditions; HERA, Design of Steel Members; Structural
Manukau City, 1996, HERA Report R4-91 Engineering Society, Auckland, 1999.
17. C/AS1: 2001, Approved Document for 27. Clifton, GC; Structural Steelwork Limit State
NZBC Fire Safety Clauses C1, C2, C3, C4; Design Guides Volume 1 HERA, Manukau
Building Industry Authority, Wellington City, 1994, HERA Report R4-80.
18. Barber, DJ; HERA Fire Protection Manuals 28. Joints in Steel Construction: Moment
Sections 7 and 8, Passive / Active Fire Connections; The Steel Construction
Protection of Steel; HERA, Manukau City, Institute, Ascot, England, 1995, SCI
1996, HERA Report R4-89. Publication P207.
19. Barber, DJ; Calculation of the Fire 29. Kneen, P; An Overview of Design Aids for
Resistance of Composite Concrete Slabs Structural Steelwork; Steel Construction
With Profiled Steel Sheet Under Fire (Australia), Vol. 35, No. 2, June 2001.
Emergency Conditions; HERA, Manukau
City, 1994 HERA Report R4-82 30. Yandzio, E and Biddle, AR; Steel Intensive
Basements; The Steel Construction
20. Clifton, GC; Draft for Comment: Control of Institute, Ascot, England, 2001, SCI
Deflection and Placement of Concrete in Publication P. 275.
Composite Floor Systems; HERA, Manukau
City, 2001, HERA Report R4-107-DD
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City
Auckland
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885
Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 64 October 2001

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the
beginning of the article.
Introduction World Trade Centre Twin Towers Collapse:

No Melted Steel
This issue covers a range of topics, dealing with
outputs from HERA’s ongoing fire and seismic Many commentators writing on the causes of the
research programme, through to a number of collapse of the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers
items on fabrication and design good practice. have claimed that the intense heat of the fires
The main theme is around presenting further melted the steel supports. None of the evidence
results from aspects of our long-term research supports this.
into the response and design of steel structures o
under extreme events. Structural steel melts at over 1500 C and still
o
retains some load carrying capacity up to 1200 C.
These events don’t come much more extreme The best conservative guesstimate of the
than the impacts that ultimately collapsed the temperatures reached in the world Trade Center
o
World Trade Centre Twin Towers, on September fires following the impacts is between 700 C and
th o
11 . There has been an underlying theme 1000 C, with the higher temperature being
running through many reports on the causes of reached only in localised regions of high fire
the collapse of these towers that the intense heat severity. Thus the fire was nowhere near hot
of the fires “melted the steel framework.” The enough to melt steel, even when directly engulfed
scale of the impact and explosions was so great in fire.
that this perception is understandable. However it
is contrary to all known evidence from the event, The evidence coming from ongoing investigation
for reasons that are briefly elaborated on below. of the wreckage is pointing to post-impact fire
o
temperatures lower than 700 C.
In This Issue Page Nor were the fires sufficiently severe in
themselves to cause the collapse. Recent large
Extending The Application of the 3 scale fire tests (eg. as reported on in this Bulletin
Flange Bolted Joint and elsewhere – see details referenced from
pages 8, 9 of DCB No. 63) have demonstrated
Finite Element Analysis of the 24 that a multi-storey steel framed building with
Sliding Hinge Joint uninsulated beams subjected to severe fires will
remain stable when exposed to fire temperatures
33 o
Update on SPM Design Method of over 1200 C and with exposed steel beams
o
reaching 1100 C, provided that the supporting
Avoiding Unnecessary Fabrication 37 columns are insulated from these very high
Costs: Three Good Practice temperatures and are not initially damaged.
Reminders
In the case of the World Trade Center towers, it
38 was the combination of impact/blast damage and
Restraint of Load Bearing Stiffeners
subsequent fire that caused the collapses, with
in Simply Supported I-Section
the impact/blast being the most significant factor.
Beams
It is in fact a tribute to those involved in the design
39 and construction of the towers that they absorbed
References
the massive impact from the planes and remained
standing long enough to allow many occupants to
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No 64, October 2001
escape. Unfortunately, only five people from The reason for this revision is constructability; in
above the impact level in the South tower were some instances the 40 mm edge distance leaves
able to escape, due to the damage to the stairs insufficient clearance between bolt and column
and lifts in the initial impact. No-one above the member for easy nut and washer placement. The
impact level in the North tower escaped. How to amendment affects only one page in [1], that is
try and make egress ways more robust against page 325 which presents the drawing of the
such impacts must be a key consideration in the BPP-1 connections. A revised drawing is
deliberations currently underway to learn from this available for those with existing copies of R4-100;
tragic event. all new copies issued from January 2002 will
contain the amended details.
More information on the possible causes of the
collapses can be found on the HERA website at Load Rated Rod Bracing System Now
www.hera.org.nz Available
Investigations as to the causes and sequence of When providing tension bracing for relatively
events from impact to collapse of the towers are lightly loaded CBF systems, rod bracing offers a
currently underway in America. This will be an good solution. However, the issue of how to pre-
involved process and a formal report is anticipated tension the rods to get them straight needs to be
around March 2002. considered. Furthermore, if the bracing system is
subject to seismic-induced inelastic demand (ie. is
Minor Revision to Structural Steelwork category 1 , 2 or 3 to NZS 3404 [2] Clause 12.2.3)
Connections Guide and the braces are the primary elements of that
system (which is normally the case), then the
A minor revision is required to the detail given for braces and their connections into the supporting
the BPP-1 connections in the Structural Steelwork structural system must be able to maintain their
Connections Guide, HERA Report R4-100 [1]. load carrying capacity when subject to inelastic
demand.
This connection is the Column Baseplates Pinned
(BPP) connection, which is designed to transmit One of the most practical means of achieving
compression and shear force. brace pre-tension in a rod brace CBF system is
through a turnbuckle. Such a detail is shown in
The revision is a detailing one only and does not HERA Report R4-58 [3] as Item 18a.
affect the design capacity of any connection. It
involves revising the edge distances, currently Design Guides Volume 1 [4] states that rods and
given [1] as 40 mm for three of the connection turnbuckles can be used in a specified range of
applications, down to 35 mm. The connections earthquake applications requiring dependable
affected are the channel, SHS/CHS and RHS or inelastic behaviour, provided that the tension
Taper Flange Beam. capacity of the turnbuckle dependably exceeds
that of the rod and that proof loaded turnbuckles
are used.
Fig. 64.1
Components of the BraceLok  System
Unfortunately, up to now, such items have not
been available as off the shelf components.
Extending The Application of
The Flange Bolted Joint
This has now changed, with the availability of the
BraceLok system from Reid Engineering This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Systems Ltd. Structural Engineer and John Butterworth, Senior Lecturer at
the University of Auckland, Department of Civil and Resource
Engineering.
BraceLok is a proof loaded bracing system
using grade 500 Reidbar as the tension member,
1. Background
which is rotated to tension the system. It thus has
the ease of installation of a turnbuckle system.
1.1 General
BraceLok comes in four sizes and load ratings,
namely; HERA and the University of Auckland are
engaged in a long-term research project aimed at
RB12 - yield strength, Nty = 56 kN developing innovative new forms of semi-rigid
RBA16 - yield strength 100 kN joints for moment-resisting steel framed seismic-
RB20 - yield strength 157 kN resisting systems (MRSFs). These joints are
RB25 - yield strength 245 kN intended to remain rigid up to the design level
ultimate limit state earthquake moment, eg. as
These strengths should be used in conjunction derived from NZS 4203 [5], then to allow rotation
with φ = 0.9 to give the design tension capacity. to occur between the beam and the column, when
this design moment is exceeded. The joint is then
Each size has an associated size of high strength designed and detailed to withstand the expected
structural bolt specified for connection into the inelastic rotation associated with the design level
supporting structure. Data on the detail, ultimate limit state earthquake with minimal
specification and application of the BraceLok damage, such that little or no repair is necessary
system is available from the manufacturers, along when the MRSF has been subjected to that
with test reports on the strength and mode of magnitude of earthquake. Finally, the joint is
failure of the samples tested. expected to be able to withstand greater levels of
inelastic rotation, associated with more severe
When loaded to destruction, the behaviour of the events, without catastrophic failure, instead
BraceLok system can be summarised as undergoing at worst a gradual loss of moment
follows: capacity with increasing cyclic rotation demand
beyond the design severe seismic level.
• yielding commences in the Reidbar in all
cases Of the five joint types that have been researched
• final failure is in the bar, for the RB12 and to date for this project, two joint details have
RBA16 systems (12 mm and 16 mm dia. emerged as preferred options for the beam to
Reidbars) and in the connecting HSFG bolt column connections of MRSFs. These are the
for the RB20 and RB25 systems (24 mm Flange Bolted Joint (FBJ) and the Sliding Hinge
and 30 mm dia. Reidbars) when attached to Joint (SHJ).
a single cleat. If placed between two
cleats, failure is in the bar for the RB20 and The development work on the FBJ is essentially
RB25 systems. completed and design and detailing procedures
for the joint and for MRSFs containing the FBJ
These systems are suitable for application as have been presented in DCB No. 58, October
primary members (braces) in a CBF seismic- 2000, with some revisions in DCB No. 62, June
resisting system. In the HERA Structural 2001.
Engineer’s opinion, any of them can be used in
category 2 or 3 systems. In terms of their brittle Both the FBJ and the SHJ have been developed
fracture performance, this would need to meet certain performance criteria in severe
consideration when using the RB20 and RB25 earthquakes. Details for the FBJ are presented in
systems in category 2 or 3 members where the section 2 of DCB No. 58, on pages 2-7. The
design service temperature, determined from target performance characteristics for two levels
o
NZS 3404 Clause 2.6.3, is lower than 0 C. of severe earthquake are given in section 2.2
therein. These are the design level ultimate limit
To obtain product data and prices for this state (ULS) earthquake, involving at least a 450
significant new bracing system, contact: year return period [5] and the maximum
considered earthquake, based on around a 2000
Peter Mortimer year return period.
Reid Engineering Systems Ltd
Phone: 0-9-444 4122 Because the FBJ has a relatively low damage
Fax : 0-9-444 0199 threshold and given the performance objective of
Email : peterm@reids.co.nz
easy assessment and rapid reinstatement to (1) What is the difference in system
service under the design level earthquake, its performance and ductility demands on FBJ
intended range of application at the time of writing systems designed to µ = 2 and µ = 4
DCB No. 58 was to low ductility demand
conditions. The system design ductility level, (2) What is the difference in system
given in section 3.2.1 of DCB No. 58, on pages 7 performance and ductility demands on FBJ
and 8 therein, was set at µdesign = 2 for beam systems designed to µ = 4 using deep
depths of up to 930 mm and with lower values for columns (ie. complying with equations
deeper beams. 58.38 or 58.40 of DCB No. 58) and FBJ
systems designed using shallow
Having obtained the experimentally determined columns (ie. a UC type cross section). The
FBJ performance (see summary details in section latter means less restrictive columns (see
2.3, pp. 4-8 of DCB No. 58), numerical integration Fig. 64.3 on page 9 for details) and this
time history (NITH) analyses of representative 5 approach is practical to apply for the
and 10 storey perimeter frames incorporating weaker joints associated with µdesign = 4.
FBJs were undertaken over 1999/2000 to
determine the ductility demands on the joints and (3) Ensuring that the design of the joints and
compare these with the ductility capacity, thereby the system are as close as is practicable to
determining how well the stated performance the strength and stiffness limits of [2, 5] in
criteria for the joints would be expected to be met each instance (ie. they are not
in practice. All these analyses were undertaken unnecessarily overdesigned). The original
for designs to µdesign = 2 and the results, for the design spreadsheet developed was not
design level events, showed FBJ rotation demand comprehensive enough to ensure this and
comfortably within the damage control limits. so a major revision of the design
spreadsheets was made, allowing access
During July/August 2001, a concept involving to a wide range of available sections and
partially isolating the floor from the seismic- incorporating the design provisions of DCB
resisting system at each level in a building was Nos. 58, 62 and the further changes to
investigated to a preliminary evaluation level. design procedure given below.
(The concept has been termed FISSER – Floor
Isolating System for Superior Earthquake 1.2 Scope of article
Response - and preliminary indications are that it
has considerable merit. Readers who want more This article covers the following:
details should contact Charles Clifton at HERA).
The preliminary evaluation involved a NITH study • Changes to the design procedure for the
on a proposed series of 10 storey FISSER joints, and for the frames incorporating the
models, formed by adapting the 10 storey FBJ joints, that have arisen from this work.
model and spreadsheet to carrying the semi-
isolated gravity system. As the potential benefit of • Summary details of the NITH studies
this system is reduced demand on the seismic- undertaken, covering the scope of work,
resisting system, the FBJs used in the FISSER frame options studied, earthquake records
analyses were designed for µ = 4. used and principal results obtained
The ductility demand on the FBJs in the FISSER • Recommendations for and consequences
analyses were compared with those from the of extending FBJ application, in terms of
original FBJ analyses for µdesign = 2 and it was system response and ductility demand, to:
found that the demand on joints at all levels, and → µdesign = 3 or 4 for the system,
especially the lower and upper levels, was deep columns
reduced. For completeness of this study, an FBJ → µdesign = 3 or 4 for the system,
frame without floor isolation was then designed to UC type columns
meet µdesign = 4 and was included in the analyses.
Slightly surprisingly, it was found that the ductility 2. Change to Design Procedure
demand on the joints in the µdesign = 4 FBJ system
were little different to those on the joints in the 2.1 General
µdesign = 2 system for most earthquake records
used. (For some records, demand was greater, Only minor changes have been made to the
for others less). Flange Bolted Joint design procedure itself and
these are documented in section 2.2, with
It was therefore decided to expand the NITH reference back to the relevant equations and
studies on the FBJ systems into a more formal sections from DCB Issue No. 58, as required.
consideration of the following:
Section 2.3 gives additional guidance on the best
sequence of joint design, as developed through
the repeated applications undertaken in (1) Calculate the design earthquake moment
developing the range of FBJ options for the 5 (section 3.3 of DCB No. 58)
storey and 10 storey NITH analyses. This
sequence is different in some regards to the order (2) Calculate the element design action
of joint design presented in DCB No. 58, but is reduction factor, φ*r (section 3.4 of DCB
more effective.
No. 58).
Section 2.4 covers changes to the frame design
procedure when applying it to the higher level of (3) Determine the bottom flange plate and bolt
ductility demand and to the use of shallow (UC details (section 3.6 of DCB No. 58), noting:
type) columns.
• For designs involving µ = 4 and the
2.2 Changes to joint design procedure lower seismic zones, contribution of the
concrete slab in compression against
These changes must be read in conjunction with the column, given by equation 58.13,
Fig. 58.1 and section 3 of DCB No. 58. may dominate the calculated flange
plate sizing for this flange
(1) Minimum limit for flange plate thickness.
• The 12 mm limit on flange plate
Equations 58.8 and 58.9 give the minimum minimum thickness introduced in section
flange plate thickness required to resist the 2.2 (1) above
moment-induced design axial force on the
flange plate. Determine the size and number of bolts
required in relation to the bottom flange
It is recommended that a general minimum plate at each level
thickness limit of 12 mm also be placed on
these flange plates. The value of 12 mm is (4) Apply the outcomes from (3) to the top
not based on a calculated limit but rather to flange plate and the top flange plate bolts
keep the flange plate minimum thickness to
a reasonable looking value. (5) Check the web plate and web bolts for
adequacy, in accordance with section 3.7.5.
The implication of this is that, where the Use 0.5 x the number of bottom flange plate
design actions on the joint are low, the bolts in each row of web bolts as the initial
minimum thickness limit of 12 mm will number of bolts used in this check – it has
exceed the calculated value from either been shown to be adequate in every
equation 58.8 or equation 58.9. In such example calculated so far for the NITH
instances, the flange plate width should be studies. Note that the check on shear
kept close to the minimum required from capacity of the web plate given in section
equation 58.6, while being consistent in 3.8.8 needs to incorporate the amendment
terms of minimising the variations in flange presented on page 17 of DCB No. 62.
plate width over the height of the MRSF.
(6) Size the welds for the flange plates, in
(2) Make the top flange plate thickness and accordance with sections 3.10 and 3.11,
width equal to the bottom flange plate incorporating the amendments to weld size
thickness and width. determination in sections 3.10.1 and 3.10.2
that are presented on pages 17 and 18 of
(3) Make the web plate thickness equal to the DCB No. 62.
bottom flange plate thickness unless a
greater thickness is required to satisfy (7) Design the tension/compression stiffeners
moment or shear capacity. (Moment in accordance with section 3.12
capacity – section 3.8.5 from DCB No. 58 –
will typically be critical, compared with (8) Design the panel zone in accordance with
shear capacity). section 3.13.
2.3 Recommended sequence of FBJ design 2.4 Change to MRSF design procedure
While the design requirements given in section 3 Extending the application of the FBJ to higher
of DCB No. 58 are presented in a logical manner levels of design ductility and to UC type columns
in terms of describing the joint design, experience is covered in section 4. This extension involves
in undertaking FBJ design has shown that the making minor changes to the existing design
design process is facilitated by tackling the joint procedure for the moment-resisting framed
design in the following order, once the detailing systems incorporating the FBJ as is presented in
requirements (section 3.2) have been considered: section 4 of DCB No. 58. The changes to that
procedure are as follows:
2.4.1 Relationship between µdesign and relatively minor for preliminary design and trivial
overall beam depth for final design.
When the FBJ is subject to inelastic demand, this (1) Changes to procedure for MRSF
is accommodated by relative movement between preliminary design
the beam and the flange/web plates and is
associated with yielding of these plates. As the Step 1 Establish preliminary frame layouts
beam depth increases, a given joint inelastic
rotation will result in greater relative movement at − no changes to step 1, section 4.2 of
beam flange level and hence greater inelastic DCB No. 58
demand on the flange and web plates. The Step 2 Estimate beam sizes required
capacity of the plates to sustain this demand for a
given state of damage is fixed by the plate detail 2.1 To carry gravity loads
and is independent of the beam depth. The result
is that a given damage threshold limit will be met − no changes to step 2.1, section 4.2.
at lower joint rotations with deep beams than is
the case with shallow beams. 2.2 To provide suitable frame lateral
stiffness
This means that the joint rotation demand must
decrease as the beam depth increases, which − use step 2.2, section 4.2, except that:
means that the design ductility for a system − the beam sizes required for µdesign = 4
becomes a function of the depth of the deepest are typically slightly less than those
beam in the system. This is typically found at the required for µdesign = 2, hence the
lowest seismic level, where it is also subjected to limits of equations 58.35 are likely to
the greatest inelastic demand. slightly overestimate the beam sizes
required for µdesign of 3 or 4
For the general case of µdesign = 2, the actual − the dependence of µdesign on db,max is
relationship between µdesign and maximum beam now given by Table 64.1
depth is given in section 3.2.1 of DCB No. 58.
2.3 Select the largest beam size from steps
The largest beam depth used in the NITH studies 2.1 and 2.2
was 903 mm, being that for a 914 x 305 x 201 UB
section. Given that application to µ = 4 has only Step 3 Calculate the design seismic loads
been investigated for that range of beam size,
then it is recommended that application to µdesign = − no changes to the requirements for
4 be limited to systems with a maximum beam determining the design seismic
depth of 930 mm. The requirements for µdesign = 3 loads, the only difference being that
can then be set by interpolation between the µdesign of 3, 4 is also possible, such
µdesign = 2 and µdesign = 4 requirements. that:
The resulting relationships between µdesign and • For µdesign ≥ 2, Emax is based on
beam depth, for the expanded range of µdesign now µ = 1.25
proposed, are given in Table 64.1. • For µdesign ≥ 1.5, Emax is based on
µ = 1.0
Table 64.1
Relationship Between Design Structural Steps 4, 5 – no changes to steps 4, 5, section 4.2
Ductility Factor and Maximum Beam
Depth Used in FBJ System Step 6 Estimate the column sizes required
Maximum Structural Ductility Factor 6.1 For the first seismic level
Beam Depth
General Value of µdesign
(mm) 6.1(1) If using UC type columns, don’t apply
2 3 4 the limitation of equation 58.38, DCB
≤930 2 3 4 No. 58
931 – 1750 1.5 2 N/A
If using deep columns (UB type
1751 – 3500 1.25 N/A N/A
columns), this can be considered as a
Note to Table 64.1: recommendation only but not a required
N/A = not allowed for that beam depth limit, to keep the beam and column
stiffnesses in proportion
2.4.2 Changes to design procedure
6.1(2) Flange slenderness for the column
These are expressed in terms of modifications to should comply with category 3 for µdesign
the MRSF design procedure presented in sections ≤ 2 and category 2 for µdesign of 3 or 4
4.2 and 4.3 of DCB No. 58. The changes are
6.1(3) Web slenderness should comply with When µdesign = 2, γlim over the bottom half of the
NZS 3404 Table 12.8.2 for the value of MRSF may be governed by either the P - ∆ OK
N g* and column category from (2) above limit of NZS 4203 [5] or the general limit of Clause
2.5.4.5 (a). When µdesign = 4, γlim is always
6.1(4) As for step 6.1 (4), section 4.2, DCB governed by the P - ∆ OK limit for the lowest
No. 58 levels of the buildings. This means that there may
be examples where the system meets the general
6.2 For the levels above the first seismic
limit but not the P - ∆ OK limit. In accordance with
level
NZS 4203 Clause 4.7.5.2, a rational method of
6.2(1) Equation 58.40 is only applicable to analysis needs to then be used to determine the
MRSFs using deep columns and then P - ∆ effects.
only as a guide
What has been done in the systems involved in
6.2(2) As for step 6.2 (2), section 4.2, DCB this NITH study (see section 3.2 for details) is to
No. 58 increase the seismic design actions by 1.5 on all
systems which don’t meet the P - ∆ OK stiffness
6.2(3) As for step 6.2 (3), section 4.2
criterion of NZS 4203 Equation 4.7.1 but do meet
Step 7 Review member sizes to control deflection the general drift limit. This increases the joint
seismic design moment and seismic shear
Use the procedure in step 4, section 5.2 of HERA component. The resulting NITH studies, all of
Report R4-76 [6]. which have been analysed using the large
When applying equation 5.14 from [6], set β = 1.0 displacement analysis option in RUAUMOKO [7]
as the shear contribution to deformations will be to determine directly the P - ∆ influence, have
negligible in this system. shown suitable behaviour under the range of
earthquake records studied.
Equation 5.14 of [6] is reproduced below as
equation 64.1; The revised guidance for step 7 is therefore to
either:
∆ei ≤ γlim hs,i β / µdesign (64.1)
(1) Size the frame members to meet the
where: provisions of equation 64.1, using the most
∆ei = design interstorey elastic deflection at stringent interstorey drift limit of NZS 4203
the level i with storey height hs,i Clause 2.5.4.5 and Equation 4.7.1.
γlim = interstorey drift limit, as determined from (2) If the Equation 4.7.1 limit is the more
Clause 2.5.4.5 and, where appropriate, severe of the two (ie. requires larger
Equation 4.7.1 from Clause 4.7.5.1 of member sizes) and if the member sizes
NZS 4203 [5] chosen over the lower half height of the
MRSF meet the Clause 2.5.4.5 limit but not
hs,i = storey height for level i
the Equation 4.7.1 limit, then increase the
seismic design actions by 1.5 and use
β = proportion of interstorey deflection due those increased actions in the design of the
to shear translation under seismic load
frame and the joints.
= 1.0 for this semi-rigid system.
Step 8 Design the connections
The value of ∆ei calculated from equation 64.1 is
input into equation 5.15 of [6] to determine the This involves using the detailed procedure given
limiting beam stiffness necessary to keep the in section 3 of DCB No. 58, in conjunction with the
elastic lateral deflection within that limit. changes given in sections 2.2 and 2.3 herein.
If a check for additional lateral load requirements (2) Changes to the procedure for MRSF final
generated by P - ∆ action is to be avoided, under design.
the provisions of NZS 4203 [5], then γlim from
The only modification given to the procedure in
NZS 4203 Equation 4.7.1 needs to be applied
section 4.3, pp. 18-20 of DCB No. 58, is that
between the base and mid-height of the structure,
µdesign and µmax are given by Table 64.1. This
with the limiting interstorey drift over those storeys
affects step 1 of section 4.3, on page 18 of DCB
taken as the lesser of that value and the general
No. 58.
limit of NZS 4203 Clause 2.5.4.5 (a). Over the
upper half height of the structure, only the general 3. Numerical Integration Time History
limit of Clause 2.5.4.5 (a) is applied. Analyses
Equation 4.7.1 needs to be applied over only the 3.1 Scope of work undertaken
lower half of the MRSF as specified by Clause
4.7.5.1(d)(i) of [5], because the capacity design As outlined back in section 1.1, the only feasible
procedure is applied to suppress column sway method of assessing what the system demands
mechanisms. are on MRSFs incorporating FBJs is to undertake
a range of appropriate numerical integration time The dead load is representative of a composite
history analyses on representative frames. steel flooring system of the type shown therein,
supported on steel secondary beams. Suitable
A range of 5 and 10 storey FBJ frames were allowance has been made for services, floor
analysed during 1999, however the designs used coverings, suspended ceilings and partitions.
for these have been superseded by the current Also allowed for is the cladding self-weight,
spreadsheets (see section 5 herein) and by the represented as a line load around the perimeter of
broadening of the potential scope of application the building.
from the original µdesign = 2 concept.
The basic design live load, Qb, is chosen at higher
For this reason, the frames have been redesigned than the recommended minimum specified value
to the current spreadsheets, a more for offices from NZS 4203 [5], consistent with
representative range of earthquake records used recommended design practice. The use of the live
and the process of abstracting and presenting the load area reduction factor, Ψ a , is in accordance
summary data reformulated. with NZS 4203.
Brief details of this work are now presented in The frame designs are for the perimeter frame
sections 3.2 – 3.5; more detailed results will be no. 2 (PF2) in Fig. 64.2; designs for frames PF3
presented in the write-up of this research and PF4 would be similar, with the central beam
programme, which is scheduled for the second probably being larger to support the central gravity
half of 2002. primary beam.
The format and nature of the presentation is The frame designs are in accordance with the
broadly in line with that given in HERA Report R4- preliminary design procedure given in section
88 [8], which presents the results of NITH studies 2.4.2 herein.
undertaken on the original MRSFs using either
ring-spring beam to column joints or tendon joints. Fig. 64.3 on page 9 shows elevations of four of
the fourteen frame member size options designed.
3.2 Frame options designed for study
Details of the member sizes and other relevant
The floor plan of the prototype building used in items for these options are given in Tables 64.2
these studies and the basic design data used are and 64.3 on pages 10 and 11.
shown in Fig. 64.2.
A B C D E F
Perimeter Frame No. 4 (PF4)

Secondary Beams @ 2.5m

2
3 @ 7m = 21m
Gravity Carrying Columns Primary Beams
4 Span of Decking
5
5 @ 7m = 35m
Fig. 64.2
Floor Plan of Prototype Buildings
Used in NITH Studies
Note: See design data for this figure on the next page
Basic design data for this building comprises:
1. Building located on intermediate soil conditions

2. Building loads are G floor = 4.5 kN/m2
Q b,floor = 3.5 kN/m2
G roof = 2.25 kN/m2
Q b.roof = 0.25 kN/m2
G perimeter cladding = 3.5 kN/m (line load)
3. Buildings are 5 storeys and 10 storeys high, h = interstorey height = 3.5 m
B C D E B C D E
L 10 - L 10 -
- Storey 10 - Storey 10
L9- L9-
Interior Exterior
Beam Beam
L8- L8-
L7- L7-
L6- L6-
Interior Exterior
Column Column
L5- L5-
L4- L4-
L3- L3-
L2- L2-
L1- L1-
Ground Ground
(a) (b)
10 Storey Frame, 10 Storey Frame,
Deep Columns UC Type (Shallow) Columns
B C D E B C D E
L5- L5-
L4- L4-
L3- L3-
L2- L2-
L1- L1-
Ground Ground
(c) (d)
5 Storey Frame, 5 Storey Frame,
Deep Columns UC Type Columns
Fig. 64.3
Elevations of Four Frame Options Designed
For the NITH Study
Note: These frames are for Perimeter Frame No. 2 from Fig. 64.2, hence the gridline designations B to E
Table 64.2
Member Sizes for The 10 Storey MRSF
Options M1 – M8
Level Member group 1 Member group 2 Member group 3 Member group 4

Designation Weight Designation Weight Designation Weight Designation Weight
Beam 1 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 147 914x305 UB 201 914x305 UB 201

2 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 147 914x305 UB 201 914x305 UB 201
3 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 147 914x305 UB 201 914x305 UB 201
4 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 147 914x305 UB 201 914x305 UB 201
5 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 147 914x305 UB 201 914x305 UB 201
6 914x305 UB 201 610x229 UB 113 762x267 UB 134 762x267 UB 134
7 914x305 UB 201 610x229 UB 113 762x267 UB 134 762x267 UB 134
8 610 UB 101 610x229 UB 113 762x267 UB 134 762x267 UB 134
9 530 UB 82 610x229 UB 101 610x229 UB 101 610x229 UB 101
10 530 UB 82 610x229 UB 101 610x229 UB 101 610x229 UB 101
Column 1 914x305 W 313 762x267 W 246 356x406 UC 340 356x406 UC 340
2 914x305 W 313 762x267 W 246 356x406 UC 340 356x406 UC 340
3 914x305 UB 289 762x267 UB 197 356x406 UC 340 356x406 UC 340
4 914x305 UB 289 762x267 UB 197 305x305 UC 283 305x305 UC 283
5 914x305 UB 289 762x267 UB 197 305x305 UC 283 305x305 UC 283
6 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 197 305x305 UC 283 305x305 UC 283
7 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 134 305x305 UC 240 305x305 UC 240
8 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 134 305x305 UC 198 305x305 UC 198
9 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 134 305x305 UC 198 305x305 UC 198
10 914x305 UB 201 762x267 UB 134 305x305 UC 198 305x305 UC 198
Members for Ductility 2 Members for Ductility 4 Members for Ductility 4 Members for Ductility 4
With Deep Columns With Deep Columns With UC type columns With UC type columns
Wellington Wellington And Fixed Bases And Pinned Bases
Complies with P-Delta OK limit Complies with P-Delta OK Wellington Wellington
limit Dosn’t comply with P-Delta OK Dosn’t comply with P-Delta OK
limit; design actions increased limit; design actions increased
by 1.5 factor by 1.5 factor
Level Member group 5 Member group 6 Member group 7 Member group 8

Designation Weight Designation Weight Designation Weight Designation Weight
Beam 1 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 140 762x267 UB 147 914x305 UB 201

2 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 140 762x267 UB 147 914x305 UB 201
3 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 140 762x267 UB 147 762x267 UB 147
4 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113 762x267 UB 147 762x267 UB 147
5 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113 762x267 UB 147 762x267 UB 147
6 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113
7 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113
8 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113 610x229 UB 113 530 UB 82
9 530 UB 82 530 UB 82 530 UB 82 530 UB 82
10 530 UB 82 530 UB 82 530 UB 82 530 UB 82
Column 1 610x305 UB 238 610x305 UB 238 305x305 UC 240 356x406 UC 287
2 610x305 UB 238 610x305 UB 238 305x305 UC 240 356x406 UC 287
3 610x305 UB 238 610x305 UB 238 305x305 UC 240 305x305 UC 240
4 610x305 UB 238 610x305 UB 238 305x305 UC 240 305x305 UC 240
5 610x229 UB 140 610x305 UB 238 305x305 UC 240 305x305 UC 240
6 610x229 UB 140 610x305 UB 238 305x305 UC 240 305x305 UC 240
7 610x229 UB 140 610x305 UB 238 305x305 UC 240 305x305 UC 240
8 610x229 UB 101 610x229 UB 140 305x305 UC 240 305x305 UC 240
9 610x229 UB 101 610x229 UB 140 305x305 UC 240 305x305 UC 240
10 610x229 UB 101 610x229 UB 140 305x305 UC 240 305x305 UC 240
Members for Ductility 4 Members for Ductility 2 Members for Ductility 4 Members for Ductility 4
With Deep Columns With Deep Columns With UC type columns With UC type columns
Auckland Auckland And Fixed Bases And Pinned Bases
Dosn’t comply with P-Delta OK Complies with P-Delta OK Auckland Auckland
limit; design actions increased limit Dosn’t comply with P-Delta OK Dosn’t comply with P-Delta OK
by 1.5 factor limit; design actions increased limit; design actions increased
by 1.5 factor by 1.5 factor
Table 64.3
Member Sizes for The 5 Storey MRSF
Options M1 – M6
Level Member group 1 Member group 2 Member group 3

Designation Weight Designation Weight Designation Weight
Beam 1 838x292 UB 176 610 UB 125 762x267 UB 134

2 838x292 UB 176 610 UB 125 610 UB 125
3 838x292 UB 176 610 UB 125 610 UB 125
4 610x229 UB 125 610 UB 101 610 UB 101
5 530 UB 82 530 UB 82 530 UB 82
Column 1 762x267 W 196 610x229 W 171 305x305 UC 240
2 762x267 W 196 610x229 W 171 305x305 UC 240
3 762x267 W 196 610x229 W 171 305x305 UC 240
4 762x267 W 134 610x229 W 140 305x305 UC 240
5 762x267 W 134 610x229 W 140 305x305 UC 240
Members for Ductility 2 Members for Ductility 4 Members for Ductility 4
With Deep Columns With Deep Columns With UC type columns
Wellington Wellington Wellington
Complies with P-Delta OK Complies with P-Delta OK Complies with P-Delta OK
Limit Limit Limit
Level Member group 4 Member group 5 Member group 6

Designation Weight Designation Weight Designation Weight
Beam 1 914x305 UB 201 610 UB 125 762x267 UB 134

2 610 UB 125 610 UB 125 610 UB 101
3 610 UB 125 610 UB 125 610 UB 101
4 610 UB 101 610 UB 101 610 UB 101
5 530 UB 82 530 UB 82 530 UB 82
Column 1 305x305 UC 283 610x229 W 171 610x229 W 140
2 305x305 UC 283 610x229 W 171 610x229 W 140
3 305x305 UC 240 610x229 UB 140 610x229 W 140
4 305x305 UC 240 610x229 UB 140 610x229 W 140
5 305x305 UC 240 610x229 UB 140 610x229 W 140
Members for Ductility 4 Members for Ductility 2 Members for Ductility 4
With UC type columns With Deep Columns With Deep Columns
And Pinned Bases Auckland Auckland
Wellington Complies with P-Delta OK Complies with P-Delta OK
Complies with P-Delta OK Limit Limit
Limit Except at Storey 1
Where Stiffness is 10%
Under Code Limits for the
P-Delta OK Criterion
3.3 Analytical modelling of frame options acceleration, or a force excitation, which varies
with time. The program also calculates the
3.3.1 Brief description of computer natural periods/frequencies of vibration of the
program used elastically responding structure, for the specified
number of modes of vibration, and the modal
The computer program RUAUMOKO [7], version participation factors. It produces similar results to
RUAU98, has been used for the numerical the most commonly used program of this type
integration time-history analyses undertaken. internationally, namely DRAIN-2D [9].
This program is designed to produce a step by
step time-history response of a non-linear, two
dimensional framed structure to an input ground
Exterior Column
Exterior Column
Interior Column
Interior Column
End 1 of Beam End 2
Level 5
Exterior Beam Interior Beam Exterior Beam
Level 4
Level 3
End 2
End 1 of Column
Level 2
Level 1
Ground
B C D E
Legend
rigid end blocks or equivalent rotational spring
Fig. 64.4
Elevation of 5 Storey Model
Developed for Input into RUAUMOKO
The principal advantage of using RUAUMOKO for Clause 8.3.2.2. These beam-column
this project lies in the wide range of joint cyclic elements also incorporate rigid end blocks
moment-rotation curves which can be input into with a length equal to half the beam depth.
the program and the ease with which new curves
can be added, or with which two or more existing (5) The modelling of the beam and joint
curves can be combined to generate a new curve, elements is covered in section 3.3.3.
with the desired characteristics.
(6) The column connections at the base have
This has allowed the moment-rotation curves for been modelled incorporating a realistic
the FBJ to be modelled using two flexural springs value of elastic joint flexibility, determined in
in parallel, as described in section 3.3.3. The accordance with NZS 3404 [2] Clause
result provides close agreement with the 4.8.3.4.
experimentally derived moment-rotation curve.
For the fixed base frames, the maximum
New hysteresis curves can also be input into base stiffness specified by Clause 4.8.3.4
RUAUMOKO; for example a mathematical model (b) has been applied.
of the unique moment-rotation characteristics of
the Sliding Hinge Joint (see Fig. 59.28, DCB For the pinned base frames, the minimum
No. 59) has been formulated and is currently base stiffness specified by Clause 4.8.3.4
being input into the program. (a) has been applied.
Another advantage of RUAUMOKO lies in its (7) For the 5 storey frames, the first 5
excellent on-screen graphical output, which allows translational modes have been included in
a wide range of performance characteristics to be the analyses. For the 10 storey frames, the
displayed. Summary data on building response is first 7 translational modes have been
also output in a text file. For this project, a data included. This gives a participating mass of
extract program has been written in Excel to read typically 100% for the 5 storey frames and
in these text files for each run, extract the relevant 98% for the 10 storey frames.
data and list/display this. The outputs shown in
Figs. 64.6 to 64.9 pages 19-22 are from this Excel (8) For both frames, 5% of critical damping has
program. been applied to modes 1 and 3 for all
analyses, with the damping for other modes
3.3.2 Modelling of the MRSFs: general calculated using the Proportional Damping
details Model from [7]. This means that the level of
initial viscous damping is not greater than
General details of the modelling are as follows: 5% for the first 3 translational modes.
These 3 modes account for 98% of
(1) The analyses are all 2 dimensional, ie. participating mass in the 5 storey frames
involving one frame of the building. and 94% of participating mass in the 10
Because the building is regular and storey frames.
torsionally symmetrical (see Fig. 64.2), the
effects of torsion have been allowed for in a The effect of differing levels of damping in
simplified manner as described in (2) modes 1-5 were studied in initial analyses
below. reported in [8] and, from those, the above
values and damping model were selected
(2) The seismic mass attributable to the frame as appropriate for these analyses.
has been used. For these perimeter
frames, the seismic mass/frame modelled (9) P - ∆ effects have been incorporated via the
at each level is half the total seismic mass use of large displacement analyses in all
at that level, multiplied by 1.1 to allow for runs. This directly accounts for the P - ∆
torsional effects. effects on the displaced shape at each
timestep.
(3) The direct gravity loads on the perimeter
frame from (G + Qu) have been (10) Because the aim of the analytical modelling
incorporated, both in terms of applied is to determine how well each MRSF meets
compression load on the columns and initial the specified target performance criteria for
static moments and shears on the ends of the range of earthquakes studied, it is
the beams. important that the average strength of the
element is used for all elements of the
(4) The columns have been modelled as steel system.
beam-column elements [7], with their ends
bi-linear elasto-plastic. The moment, axial The average capacity, Ru,average, has been
force interactions are to NZS 3404 [2] determined as follows:
(i) For beam and beam column elements The FBJ is modelled as two springs in parallel.
The main spring uses the Al-Bermani
1.17 bounding-surface hysteresis rule from [7], namely
Ru,average = R u,design (64.2) IHYST = 26. The secondary spring uses the
φ
Degrading bilinear with gap hysteresis rule,
where:
namely IHYST = 35 (which was input into
Ru,design = design capacity (ie.
RUAUMOKO in 1998 for modelling this type of
incorporating φ) calculated in joint). The Al-Bermani spring models the basic
accordance with NZS 3404 [2]
behaviour, while the second spring models the
one-off increase in strength observed
φ = strength reduction factor from experimentally when the joint is rotated beyond
NZS 3404 Table 3.3(1) for the previous maximum rotation for a given
these elements direction.
1.17 = the ratio of (fy,average/fy,nominal) Article scope and space restrictions prevent a
determined from statistical detailed comparison of the accuracy of this
studies (referenced from approach between experimental and predicted
NZS 3404 Part 2). moment-rotation behaviour from being covered,
however the comparison is quite reasonable. For
(ii) For the Flange Bolted Joints example, note the similarity in shape between the
analytical curve presented in Fig. 17 of [10] with
The average yield moment is calculated as that developed experimentally in Fig. 14 of [10] or
1.17 My,joint , where My,joint is given by in Fig. 58.5, DCB No. 58.
equation 58.42, DCB No. 58.
With reference to Fig. 64.5, the variables
3.3.3 Flange bolted joint modelling subscripted with “gap” refer to the IHYST = 35
element, while those without the subscript, refer
The following should be read in conjunction with to the IHYST = 26 element.
Figs. 64.4 and 64.5. Fig. 64.4 shows the
elevation of the 5 storey model, while Fig. 64.5 The input data for each are constructed as
shows the basis for determining the input data for follows:
the dual springs modelling the Flange Bolted
Joints.
M
rgap k0, gap
k0, gap
M max, θ = 9
rk0
My, av M’
k0
θy 6 9 θ
(milliradians)
Fig. 64.5
Basis for Determining the Input Data for the FBJ
Moment-Rotation Curves
(1) My,av is determined as specified in section The web moment component in equations
3.3.2 (10) (ii) above. 64.8 comes from the web plate yielding at
top and bottom under the actions
(2) θy is determined from elastic movement of transmitted through the bolt group. For the
the transverse stiffened column half depth reasons given in section 5.1, page 19, DCB
as follows: No. 52, equation 58.15 factors down the
design shear contribution by 0.8; when
θy = Max (2∆l / db ; 1.5 millirads) (64.3) determining the actual average strength of
the joint, this must be accounted for through
where: the multiplier (1/0.8).
1.75 db (1.17 / 0.9) Vf b
∆l = (64.4) (5) The post-elastic slope factor, r, for the main
Ab E
spring has been derived experimentally and
Ab = Aw + As (64.5) is given by:
Vf b = Max (φNt,bfp ; φNc,bfp) (64.6)

M 
r = 0.033  max  (64.9)
M 
Definitions of variables:  y ,av 
φNt,bfp and φNc,bfp are given by equations (6)

-3
M * = My,av + rk 0 (6 - θy ) x 10 (64.10)
58.10 and 58.11, respectively, of DCB
No. 58. (7) rk 0,gap is determined from the construction
shown in Fig. 64.5, with an additional
Aw = area of participating column web in a factor of 1.5, based on experiment, givi ng
load bearing stiffener, from NZS 1.5 (Mmax - M ' )
3404 Clause 5.14.2.2 k 0,gap = kNm/rad (64.11)
3 x 10 - 3
As = area of the horizontal column
stiffeners (8) The initial activation of the gap element is
set at θjoint = 6 milliradians, as determined
db = depth of incoming beam from experiment.
E = 205,000 MPa. (9) rgap is set at 0.01, making the additional

post-elastic contribution from the gap
The minimum value of 1.5 milliradians is element very small.
adopted as a practical lower limit and to
avoid joints near the top of the building, (10) The unloading of the gap element is very
where the columns are considerably abrupt; from the experimental data a value
heavier and stronger than the joints, from of 4.9 for the unloading stiffness factor has
having unrealistically high modelled been derived.
stiffness through having an unrealistically
low value of ∆l . 3.3.4 Beams and panel zone modelling
(3) k o = My,av / θy (64.7) These elements are shown in Fig. 64.4.

(1) The beams spanning between the columns
(4) Mmax , which is calculated at θ = 9 and connected to the columns by the flange
milliradians, brings in the contribution of the bolted joints are modelled as elastic
web to the moment capacity. This web members, with their stiffness increased to
contribution is shown from the account for the presence of the concrete via
experimental testing to develop over the shear studs, in accordance with NZS 3404
first 9 milliradians of joint rotation, giving; Clause N1.1.2(a)(i). This increase is
*
applied to the bare steel I value only.
1.17 Vwh d wb
Mmax = My,av + (64.8)
0.8 x 0.9 (2) The FBJ spring elements described in
section 3.3.3 are placed at the column face
where:
*
by means of very short, rigid elastic beam
Vwh = horizontal design shear force from elements which run the width of the column
equation 58.15, DCB No. 58 and are slaved to the column nodes at the
dwb = vertical distance between the two beam to column centreline for horizontal
rows of web bolts and vertical translation. These form the
rigid end blocks in the beams.
1.17 / 0.9 = converting the design
capacity of the web plate to
average capacity
The rigid end blocks in the columns are Of these, (i) to (iv) are broadly representative of
incorporated directly into the beam-column records derived from intermediate soils, as
element, as described in section 3.3.2 (4). defined by NZS 4203 [5], and (v) is representative
of flexible soils.
(3) The flexural spring between the columns
and beams models the column panel zone Records (i) – (iii) and (v) are generated by actual
region properties in both the elastic and the events, while (iv) is an artificially generated record
inelastic ranges. reported (reference 26 from [8]) to generate
severe near-fault action. Record (i) contains a
The elastic stiffness of the panel zone is strong near fault component, while that from (iv) is
given by equation 64.12, taken from [11]; so much more severe that its credibility must be
-6
questioned (although this could also be a function
k 0,pz = Gdbdc (twc + tp) x 10 (64.12) of the scaling factors adopted).
where: The first author has considered (i) to give a

G = 80,000 MPa reasonable indication of realistic near fault action
db = beam depth (mm) in the high seismic zone (represented by
dc = column depth (mm) Wellington) while (v), using the scaling factor
twc = column web thickness (mm) adopted, gives a maximum severity event for the
tp = doubler plate(s) thickness (mm) low seismic zone (represented by Auckland).
-6
10 = conversion from Nmm/rad to
kNm/rad Each earthquake record has been scaled to
correspond to the return periods given in section
The panel zone average shear capacity, 2.2 of DCB No. 58 for the design level ultimate
Vpz,av , is given by; limit state earthquake and the maximum credible
earthquake. The scaling has involved matching
1.18
Vpz, av = φVc (64.13) the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for the
0.9 particular record with the target PGA for each of
the two regions studied (Auckland, Wellington),
where:
derived from [12]. In the case of Auckland, the
1.18/0.9 converts design to average.
target PGA’s used are the NZS 4203 – compatible
φVc = panel zone design shear capacity, minimum threshold values, corresponding to the
as calculated from NZS 3404 lower limit on Z specified in Figure 4.6.2 of [5].
Equation 12.9.5.3 (5) These are considerably in excess of the values
derived by seismological study [12], but are
Finally, the panel zone average moment
capacity is given by; chosen to maintain consistency with NZS 4203.
A further scaling factor has been applied to record

Mpz,av = Vpz,av (db + ts ) (64.14)
(v) above to reflect the differing values of seismic
where: coefficient, Ch, determined from NZS 4203 Table
ts = thickness of flange plates 4.6.1, corresponding to the different soil
conditions associated with this record from the
The post-elastic slope multiplier, r, is set at intermediate soil conditions for which the frames
0.09. This relatively high value is have been designed
determined from experimental testing [11]
and reflects the contribution to inelastic The first author is confident that he has selected a
panel zone capacity from elements such as suite of actual earthquake records that reasonably
the column flanges. reflect the range of conditions to which the
buildings might be exposed. However he is less
3.4 Selection and scaling of earthquake confident in the appropriateness of the scaling
records factor. Given the intended use of the results,
namely to predict performance/damage levels, he
Five earthquake records have been used in the has erred on the cautious side in the approach
NITH study to ascertain the systems, responses taken. This is shown in comparison with many
to a range of earthquake conditions. These are: other NITH studies, in that the scaling factors are
on the high side of those used in practice.
(i) SylmarHosp360 1994 (abbreviated to
Sylmar H) Table 64.4 gives the relevant data relating to the
(ii) Newhall 1994 scaling of the five earthquake records.
(iii) EL Centro 1940 North South
(iv) Hall 1995
(v) Bucharest 1997
Table 64.4
Scaling of Earthquake Records Used
In Analyses
Auckland (low seismic zone) Wellington (high seismic zone)
Rp=450 years Rp=1000 years Rp=450 years Rp=1000 years

(note 4) (note 5) (note 4) (note 5)
Record name PGA for Soil Target Scale Target Scale Target Scale Target Scale
(sect. 3.4) record scale PGA factor PGA factor PGA factor PGA factor
factor
*g [m/s 2] (note 2) *g [m/s 2] (note 3) *g [m/s 2] (note 3) *g [m/s 2] (note 3) *g [m/s 2] (note 3)
Sylmar H 0.54 1.00 0.24 0.45 0.32 0.58 0.48 0.90 0.58 1.05
Newhall 0.55 1.00 0.24 0.44 0.32 0.58 0.48 0.87 0.58 1.05
El Centro 0.29 1.00 0.24 0.83 0.32 1.10 0.48 1.66 0.58 2.00
Hall 0.40 1.00 0.24 0.60 0.32 0.80 0.48 1.20 0.58 1.45
Bucharest 0.21 0.68 0.24 0.78 0.32 1.04 0.48 1.55 0.58 1.88
Notes to Table 64.4

1. The PGAs are expressed as a fraction of 1.0 g, where g = acceleration due to gravity.
2. The soil scale factor is given by the following ratio, as determined from NZS 4203 Table 4.6.1:
[(Ch (0.94,6)for intermediate soils)/ (Ch (0.94,6)for the soil conditions associated with the earthquake record)]
3. Scale factor = ((Target PGA) (Soil scale factor)) / (PGA for record).
4. Rp (Return period) = 450 years ≡ Ultimate limit state design level
Rp (Return period) ≅ 1000 years ≡ Ultimate limit state maximum considered level
3.5 Naming system for the analyses (6) Member sizes

undertaken
These are given by Table 64.2 for the 10
An alphanumeric string has been used to uniquely storey frames (8 options, designated
define each analysis run. This is compiled as member group 1 to member group 8) and
follows: by Table 64.3 for the 5 storey frames (6
options, designated member group 1 to
(1) FBJ type member group 6).
FBJ à 10 storey frames (7) Ductility level

FBJ5 à 5 storey frames
D2 à µdesign = 2 for system
(2) Seismicity D4 à µdesign = 4 for system
A à Auckland ≡ low seismic zone Using this system, 88 different runs for the
W à Wellington ≡ high seismic zone 10 storey frames and 72 different runs for the
5 storey frames have been undertaken.
(3) Column base fixity
3.6 Threshold for minimum need of repair
F à Column bases fixed to NZS 3404 following event
Clause 4.8.3.4.1(b)
P à Column bases pinned to Clause As has been already stated, one of the principal
4.8.3.4.1(a) aims of the NITH analyses for the FBJ systems
has been to ascertain the expected extent of
(4) Earthquake level damage following the given event and hence to
estimate the degree of remedial work required.
M à maximum considered level For the design level event, the target level of
D à design level demand is that for which minimal need of
structural repair and reinstatement arises.
(5) Earthquake record
This minimum damage threshold has been
S à Sylmar Hosp 360 determined for all components expected to
N1 à Newh 941 undergo inelastic demand. The limits are being
E1 à El40nsc included in all summary response outputs,
H à Halle5 expressed as;
B à Buchnsc
(i) Limit for minimum repair (in milliradians) The examples shown are those for the most
for elements expected to undergo important elements from this study, namely the
inelastic rotation demand FBJs subject to greatest inelastic demand – ie.
those at level 1 – and the FBJs at mid-height of
(ii) 2% drift limit (for deflections) the system.
The relevant element rotation limits are calculated Figs. 64.6 to 64.9 inclusive show these results.
as follows; Also shown on each figure are the relevant limits
or minimum repair on the FBJs, determined in
(1) For the flange bolted joints: accordance with equation 64.15. In each figure,
the limit for maximum repair is shown only for
7
θlimit = x 10 3 (mrads) (64.15) negative rotation (tension on top face of beam)
0 .5 db but the same value applies for positive rotation.
where: The results show that, in the low seismic zone, all
7 = maximum flange plate extension designs except 1 meet the FBJ performance
associated with minimum need for criteria for the design level event listed in section
repair as determined from 2.2 (1), page 2, DCB No. 58. The same applies
experimental testing (see eg. [11]) for the demands on the other elements. The one
design subjected to joint rotation demands in
db = beam depth excess of that desirable is the ductility 4 design
with pinned bases, 5 storey building, under the
(2) For the panel zones peak impulse type Bucharest event. Increase the
4 Mpz, av strength to ductility 2 and the peak rotation
θlimit = 4θp = (64.16) demands are significantly reduced under this
k 0, pz single strong pulse type event.
where: FBJ demands at mid-height (Fig. 64.7) are
Mpz,av = panel zone moment from equation appreciably less that at level 1 (Fig. 64.6).
64.14
K0,pz = panel zone stiffness from For the high seismic zone, the level 1 FBJ rotation
equation 64.12 for the events with a high velocity single pulse
(Sylmar and Bucharest) are considerably higher
(3) For the column bases and the limiting rotations for minimum repair are
slightly lower, because of the deeper beam sizes.
θlimit = θy + 0.5θp (64.17) See details in Fig. 64.8. The result is rotation
demands exceeding the repair limit under the near
where:
fault type design level events for the ductility 4
M rx,av
θy = (64.18) designs. As can be seen from a number of
k 0, col comparisons in Fig. 64.8, under this type of event
in the high seismic region, the increased joint and
θp = 30 mrads (from NZS 3404 Table system strength of the ductility 2 designs does
4.7 (2), given that peak demand significantly reduce the peak demand.
typically occurs over only one
cycle from all records which The use of UC type (shallow) columns also
generate appreciable rotation slightly increases the rotation demand on the
demand. joints for this type of event.
Mrx,av = average maximum moment that In contrast, for the events involving multiple strong
cycles of shorter duration (ie. lower velocity but
can be sustained in conjunction similar peak acceleration due to the shorter length
with axial force, calculated to of time over which the acceleration is applied in a
NZS 3404 Clause 8.3.2.2. given direction) the inelastic rotation demands on
the ductility 4 designs and the ductility 2 designs
k 0,col = EIcol = flexural stiffness
are similar and the use of UC columns sometimes
E = 205,000 MPa reduces the peak ductility demands. This can be
seen from comparing the results for the Newhall
Icol = moment of inertia of column and El Centro records for the different member
types and building heights. In this type of event,
3.7 Principal results obtained the greater flexibility between each seismic mass
and the ground contributes to a reduction in the
3.7.1 Rotations in semi-rigid joints acceleration and displacement of the suspended
floors of the building and the peak rotation
Space limitations preclude showing all but a small
demands in the joints.
sample of the outputs from the NITH analyses.
FBJ5APDBM6D4
FBJ5AFDBM6D4
FBJ5APDBM5D2
26
24
FBJAPDSM8D4
FBJAFDSM7D4
FBJ5AFDBM5D2
22
FBJ5APDN1M6D4
FBJ5APDSM5D2
FBJ5APDN1M5D2
FBJAPDSM5D4
20
FBJ5AFDN1M6D4
FBJAPDBM6D2
FBJAPDSM6D2
FBJAFDN1M7D4
FBJAPDN1M8D4
FBJ5APDEM6D4
FBJ5AFDSM5D2
18
FBJAPDN1M5D4
FBJ5AFDN1M5D2
FBJ5AFDEM6D4
FBJAFDSM5D4
16
FBJAFDBM6D2
FBJAFDEM7D4
FBJAFDSM6D2
FBJAPDEM8D4
FBJAPDN1M6D2
FBJ5APDEM5D2
FBJ5AFDEM5D2
FBJAFDN1M5D4
FBJAFDEM6D2
FBJAPDEM6D2
FBJAPDBM5D4
FBJAPDEM5D4
14
FBJAFDN1M6D2
FBJAFDBM7D4
FBJAFDEM5D4
FBJAPDBM8D4
FBJAFDBM5D4
12
Rotation (m rads)
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
Maximum rotation in semi-rigid joint, end 1, exterior beam, level 1, Auckland, Design Limit for minimum repair (mrads)
Fig. 64.6
Maximum Rotation in Semi-Rigid Joints, Level 1, Auckland, Design Level Event
Notes:
1/ The limit for minimum repair is shown as a negative rotation but has an equal magnitude positive rotation value, which is not shown to avoid clashing with the identifying names for each run.
2/ The vertical axis is joint rotation in milliradians
FBJ5APDBM6D4
FBJ5APDBM5D2
FBJAFDSM5D4
FBJ5AFDBM6D4
16.00
FBJAPDSM8D4
FBJAFDSM7D4
FBJAPDSM5D4
FBJ5AFDBM5D2
14.00
FBJAFDSM6D2
FBJ5APDSM5D2
FBJ5AFDSM5D2
FBJAFDBM5D4
FBJAPDSM6D2
FBJ5AFDN1M5D2
FBJ5AFDN1M6D4
FBJAPDEM8D4
FBJ5APDN1M5D2
12.00
FBJAPDBM8D4
FBJAFDEM6D2
FBJAFDEM5D4
FBJAFDEM7D4
FBJAPDEM5D4
FBJ5APDN1M6D4
FBJAFDN1M5D4
FBJ5AFDEM6D4
FBJ5APDEM6D4
FBJAPDBM5D4
FBJAPDN1M8D4
FBJ5AFDEM5D2
FBJAFDBM6D2
10.00
FBJAFDN1M7D4
FBJAFDN1M6D2
FBJAPDN1M5D4
FBJ5APDEM5D2
FBJAPDEM6D2
FBJAPDN1M6D2
FBJAFDBM7D4
FBJAPDBM6D2
8.00
6.00
4.00
Rotation (m rads)
2.00
0.00
-2.00
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
-12.00
-14.00
-16.00
-18.00
-20.00
-22.00
-24.00
-26.00
Maximum rotation in semi-rigid joint, end 1, exterior beam, level 3/6, Auckland, Design Limit for minimum repair (mrads)
Fig. 64.7
Maximum Rotation in semi-Rigid Joints, Mid-Height, Auckland, Design Level Event
Notes:
FBJ5WPDBM4D4
FBJ5WPDSM4D4
FBJ5WPDBM2D4
FBJ5WFDBM3D4
FBJ5WFDSM3D4
FBJ5WPDSM2D4
FBJWPDSM4D4
FBJ5WFDBM2D4
52.00
FBJ5WPDBM1D2
FBJ5WFDSM2D4
FBJWPDSM2D4
FBJ5WPDN1M4D4
FBJWFDSM3D4
FBJWPDN1M4D4
48.00
FBJ5WFDN1M3D4
FBJ5WPDN1M2D4
FBJ5WPDSM1D2
44.00
FBJWFDSM2D4
FBJ5WPDEM4D4
FBJWPDSM1D2
FBJWPDN1M2D4
FBJ5WFDN1M2D4
FBJ5WFDBM1D2
FBJ5WPDEM2D4
FBJ5WFDSM1D2
FBJWFDN1M3D4
FBJ5WFDEM3D4
40.00
FBJWPDN1M1D2
FBJ5WPDEM1D2
FBJ5WPDN1M1D2
FBJ5WFDEM2D4
FBJWFDN1M2D4
FBJWFDSM1D2
FBJWPDEM4D4
FBJ5WFDEM1D2
FBJWPDEM2D4
FBJ5WFDN1M1D2
FBJWFDEM3D4
FBJWPDEM1D2
36.00
FBJWFDEM2D4
FBJWFDN1M1D2
32.00
FBJWFDEM1D2
28.00
24.00
20.00
16.00
12.00
Rotation (m rads)
8.00
4.00
0.00
-4.00
-8.00
-12.00
-16.00
-20.00
-24.00
-28.00
-32.00
-36.00
-40.00
-44.00
-48.00
-52.00
-56.00
Maximum rotation in semi-rigid joint, end 1, exterior beam, level 1, Wellington, Design Limit for minimum repair (mrads)
Fig. 64.8
Maximum Rotation in Semi-Rigid Joints, Level 1, Wellington, Design Level Event
Notes:
FBJ5WPDBM2D4
FBJ5WPDBM4D4
FBJ5WFDBM2D4
FBJ5WPDSM2D4
36.00
FBJ5WPDSM4D4
FBJ5WFDBM3D4
FBJ5WPDBM1D2
FBJ5WFDSM3D4
FBJWFDSM3D4
34.00
FBJWFDSM2D4
FBJWPDSM2D4
FBJ5WFDSM2D4
32.00
FBJWPDSM4D4
30.00
FBJ5WPDSM1D2
28.00
FBJWPDSM1D2
FBJWFDSM1D2
26.00
FBJ5WFDN1M2D4
FBJ5WPDN1M2D4
FBJ5WFDBM1D2
FBJ5WFDEM3D4
FBJ5WFDSM1D2
FBJ5WPDEM4D4
FBJ5WFDN1M3D4
FBJWPDEM4D4
24.00
FBJWFDEM2D4
FBJ5WFDEM2D4
FBJ5WPDN1M4D4
FBJWFDEM3D4
FBJWFDN1M1D2
FBJWFDN1M2D4
FBJ5WFDEM1D2
FBJWPDN1M1D2
FBJWFDN1M3D4
FBJ5WPDN1M1D2
FBJ5WPDEM2D4
FBJWPDEM2D4
22.00
FBJWPDEM1D2
FBJWPDN1M4D4
FBJWFDEM1D2
FBJWPDN1M2D4
FBJ5WPDEM1D2
20.00
FBJ5WFDN1M1D2
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
Rotation (m rads)
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
-2.00
-4.00
-6.00
-8.00
-10.00
-12.00
-14.00
-16.00
-18.00
-20.00
-22.00
-24.00
-26.00
-28.00
-30.00
Maximum rotation in semi-rigid joint, end 1, exterior beam, level 3/6, Wellington, Design Limit for minimum repair (mrads)
Fig. 64.9
Maximum Rotation in Semi-Rigid Joints, Mid-Height, Wellington, Design Level Event
Notes:
3.7.2 General 4. Recommendations for and
Consequences of Extending the FBJ
The general results show the same tendencies as Application
described in section 3.6.1 when applied to the
overall performance of the systems. Based on analysis of the NITH data, some of
which has been briefly reviewed and presented
The use of the nominally pinned bases is above, the following recommendations can be
beneficial in suppressing inelastic rotation made on expanding the scope of application of
demands at the column bases, however at the MRSF systems incorporating the FBJ from that
expense of increased demands on the lower described in sections 3.2 and 4.2 step 3 of DCB
storeys of the superstructure. No. 58;
The use of the nominally pinned base in the (1) If designing for a general value of µdesign = 2
ductility 2 systems does not increase ductility (actual value varies with beam depth in
demand beyond the minimum repair limit. accordance with Table 64.1), then the
However, it does for the ductility 4 systems, for column bases can be designed as either
the single high velocity pulse type events. It is fixed or pinned. Either choice will deliver a
therefore recommended that only the fixed base system that is expected to meet the target
option be used in the ductility 3 or 4 designs, while performance criterion of minimum need for
either fixed or pinned base options can be used repair under the design level event,
for the ductility 2 designs. irrespective of the nature of the earthquake
attack. For multiple moderate velocity cycle
The MRSF capacity design procedure is type earthquakes, the rotation demand will
successful in eliminating inelastic demand on the be minimal under the design level event.
columns, except at the column bases of nominally
fixed base systems. (2) If designing for µdesign = 2, select the
member sizes to meet the P - delta OK
The lateral displacement demands and rotation provisions of NZS 4203 Clause 4.7.5.1.
demands on all systems are within satisfactory
limits which, given that large displacement (3) If designing for a general value of µdesign of
analyses were used throughout in allowing for either 3 or 4 (note the limitations of Table
P-delta effects, shows that this aspect of frame 64.1 on application of these higher levels of
response is adequately covered by either of the ductility), then note the following:
design options recommended in section 2.4.2 (1)
Step 7 on page 7 herein. (i) The columns should be designed as
fixed base
Similarly, for UC type column options, the bases
should be fixed to reduce lateral displacement. (ii) In terms of member size/joint
This would be the case for any design ductility strength to control P - delta effects,
level using this type of column. follow either option given in section
2.4.2 (1) step 7 on page 7 herein
Finally, in this vein, it should be noted that the UC
column option, in conjunction with appropriately (iii) A lower limit on joint strength may
deep beams, has appreciable benefit to the client arise from the influence of the
in terms of reduced column depth, especially concrete floor slab on the joint
where these MRSFs are along the perimeter. design, as stipulated in section 3.6.1
Compare the frame elevations in Figs. 64.3 (a) of DCB No. 58. This may control the
and (b) and in Figs. 64.3 (c) and (d) for indications strength of the joint over many or
of this. However, as seen in Tables 64.2 and even all levels in design for µ = 4 and
64.3, the column weight is likely to be increased
the lower seismic zones
with the UC column option and panel zones are
more likely to need doubler plates. However, the (iv) Note that the joint moment capacity
use of these columns is very feasible, in
must be adequate to resist the wind
conjunction with the deeper beams, because the loading, as specified in section 6,
joints limit the moment demand on the columns DCB No. 58. This is also more likely
and control the buildup of capacity design derived
to limit joint strength for the lower
design actions down the columns to levels which
values of µdesign, especially in the low
can be readily sustained by practical column
seismic zones
sizes. That option would not be possible in a
rigid-jointed strong column weak beam MRSF,
(v) Note that changing from deep
giving a significant benefit to the use of the FBJ
columns to UC type columns results
semi-rigid system.
in a more flexible frame with a higher
fundamental period, T1. This can be
approximately allowed for when Finite Element Analyses of The
making an empirical determination of
T1 by using equation 58.36.1 from Sliding Hinge Joint
DCB No. 58 for a MRSF with deep
columns and using equation 58.36.2 Structural Engineer, John Butterworth, Senior Lecturer at the
for a MRSF with UC columns. University of Auckland, Department of Civil and Resource
Engineering and Nandor Mago, HERA Finite Element Analyst.
(4) If designing for µdesign = 3 or 4, the ductility
demand on the system is increased for Introduction and Scope
design level severe earthquakes with a
fault-fling (single high velocity pulse) General introduction
component. In such events, ductility
demands may exceed the limits for As outlined in the introduction to the previous
minimum repair under the design level article, HERA and the University of Auckland are
event, resulting in replacement of the engaged in a long-term research project aimed at
bottom flange and remedial work at the developing innovative new forms of semi-rigid
column base being required. joints for moment-resisting steel framed seismic-
resisting systems (MRSFs).
This tendency will be further increased if
UC type columns are used. Of the five joint types that have been researched
for this project, two have emerged as preferred
However, the response of these buildings to options for the beam to column connections of
events without a single high velocity pulse MRSFs. These are the Flange Bolted Joint (FBJ)
component will be very similar to the and the Sliding Hinge Joint (SHJ).
response of the systems designed for µdesign
= 2 and well within the limits for which there Of these two joints, the SHJ is designed for high
will be minimum need for repair following ductility demand design applications. It is
the design level event. designed and detailed to withstand fully ductile
levels of design inelastic rotation with minimal
5. Spreadsheet Programs Available damage.
Two spreadsheet programs have been developed Development of the SHJ is less advanced than for
for FBJ design and progressively updated in the FBJ, but is significantly underway. The design
accordance with ongoing revisions to the design concepts for this joint are presented on
and detailing requirements. The latest updates pages 26 - 32 of DCB No. 59, December 2000.
incorporate all the above provisions and also Since then, a detailed design procedure has been
include a substantial library of members for beam formulated, spreadsheets developed for design of
and column selection. These members are linked 10 storey frame options and sample numerical
to the spreadsheets and activated automatically integration time history (NITH) analyses
when the entry cell for beam or column sizes is commenced.
activated.
A mathematical model of the SHJ moment-
There are two spreadsheets and the library of rotation characteristics has been developed and is
section data in the package. One spreadsheet currently being input into the program
(FBJ5) is for the 5 storey frame, the other (FBJ) is
RUAUMOKO [7]. When implemented, this will
for the 10 storey frame. The spreadsheets must allow specific studies to be undertaken looking at
be placed in the same folder as the section data the performance of the MRSF with SHJs during
library for the call-up system to work.
major earthquakes and the extent of joint
The spreadsheets have been produced on softening that occurs for a given analysis. Prior to
Microsoft Excel 97 and are available free-of- that implementation, the ductility demand on the
charge on a “use at your own risk” basis. system and SHJ components can be determined
using hysteresis models already in [7] to give
Those wanting a copy of the package, which will indicative answers. Two such models have been
be sent via email, should contact Charles Clifton developed, one using a hysteresis rule that
at structural@hera.org.nz underestimates the extent of joint softening on
sliding that is anticipated and the other that
The benefits of these spreadsheets include overestimates this. The use of these two options
showing the typical bolt sizes and numbers that is expected to bracket the actual ductility
would be applicable and the sequence of demands on the SHJs that will be generated by
operations in the design procedure. the use of the specifically developed SHJ model.
The spreadsheets do not do the calculations for The mathematical model for the SHJ has been
wind loading adequacy of the joints. built up from a series of experimental tests, both
small-scale component tests and large scale web bottom bolts must undergo asymmetric
tests. These are described in DCB No. 59. sliding along the two sliding planes on either side
of the flange plates containing the slotted holes.
The mode of operation of this joint under severe This requires the bolts to undergo combined
earthquakes involves the joint being pinned at the
tension, moment and shear actions, during which
top flange level and able to undergo controlled they lose a significant amount of their initial
friction sliding at the bottom flange and bottom pre-tension.
row of web bolts levels. This is shown in
Fig. 64.10. To achieve this, the bottom flange and
Action of the Sliding Hinge Joint in Severe Earthquakes
column beam
column beam
Structure sways to right Structure sways to left

STRUCTURAL DIVISION STRUCTURAL DIVISION
Fig. 64.10
Actions of the SHJ in Severe Earthquakes
However they must not lose so much of the initial (ii) How quickly and to what extent does the
pre-tension that they become ineffective in bolt pre-tension get reduced as sliding
retaining a significant sliding shear resistance, as occurs?
this is required to be maintained so that the joint (iii) What is the influence of relaxation of the
“freezes up” at the conclusion of strong motion bolts prior to earthquake loading on the
shaking and remains effectively rigid from then on sliding shear capacity that will be able to be
in service. developed? This is an important question
to address, as up to 20% of the installed
The small-scale and large-scale experimental bolt tension may be lost over time from
tests have shown this concept of joint and bolt relaxation prior to the earthquake occurring.
action to be valid and, from those tests, a model
has been developed to predict the bolt sliding (iv) The brass shims used are specified as ½
shear capacity. That model is presented on hard cartridge brass, eg. to AS 1566 [13].
pages 29, 30 of DCB No. 59 and the assumed That material has an elastic modulus of
actions on the bolt in developing that model are 110 GPa, which is half that of steel.
shown in Fig. 59.26. As described therein, the Unfortunately it has a considerable range of
model gives reasonable agreement with yield stresses, depending on source, from
experimental results. 310 MPa [13] to 435 MPa. The influence of
this variation on the bolt sliding shear
However, there are a number of significant capacity needs to be determined.
questions about the performance of this
asymmetric sliding system that have not been The use of FEA, provided that the model is
answered by the experimental testing. This is realistic, allows the determination of bolt strains,
where recourse has been made to finite element stresses and forces to be directly determined.
analysis (FEA). These quantities are essential to answering
questions (i) to (iv). As they cannot be
Scope of FEA studies determined experimentally, they must be obtained
through the use of FEA.
The FEA studies have been undertaken to provide
answers to the following questions; However, the FEA results can only be used with
confidence once they are shown to give good
(i) Is the stress distribution assumed for the agreement, in terms of sliding shear capacity
bolt in the sliding shear design model (see developed as a function of slip along the slotted
Fig. 59.26, DCB No. 59,) realistic? hole, with experimental results (this is shown in
Fig. 64.16, where the sliding shear capacity ≡
flange axial force).
Scope of article Finally, a plug for the use of our FEA service by
industry is given.
The FEA studies are now (November 2001)
almost completed and will be presented in HERA General Description of SHJ FEA Model
Report R4-110 [14].
Fig. 64.11 shows the solid model of the large-
This article presents a brief overview of the model scale test joint. (Fig. 59.21, DCB No. 59, shows
and approach employed, followed by the the actual specimen in the laboratory). While it
comparison between predicted and experimental would have been more realistic to have modelled
results. the entire joint, including concrete slab, this was
beyond our resources. Therefore the modelling
This is followed by the answering of questions (ii) concentrated on the bottom flange component of
to (iv).
the joint, for which one bolt and the surrounding
A comparison between the FEA determined stress area was analysed without extracting the exact
state and bolt tension reached in stable sliding demand on it from a large-scale FEA (ie. true sub-
compared with that derived from the bolt sliding modelling). This region is shown in Fig. 64.12.
shear design procedure given in DCB No. 59 Fig. 64.13.1 shows the dimensions of the M24
pp. 29-30 is then made, answering question (i). high strength structural bolt and nut used,
while Fig. 64.13.2 shows the flange plate and
slotted hole.
Fig. 64.11
Solid Model of Large-Scale Test, Showing
Location of Modeled Bolt (from [14])
Full details of the FEA study are presented in [14]. developed in practice. This rotation is due
In summary, the key points are as follows: to the joint rotating about the pinned top
flange.
(i) The left hand end of the flange plate
(Fig. 64.12) was modelled as fixed, (iii) The beam flange and flange plate steels
representing the connection to the column were modelled as trilinear elasto-plastic, as
flange. were the bolts. Material properties used
were derived from tensile tests undertaken
(ii) The enforced lateral displacement- on components used in the large-scale
controlled regime was applied through the tests.
right hand end of the beam flange at the
Ref point, as would be the case in practice. The cap plate was modelled as a bi-linear
The beam flange was restrained against elasto-plastic material using measured
out-of-plane movement along the inside tensile properties
edge, as it would be in practice by the web.
However the rotation undergone by the The brass shims were also modelled as bi-
beam flange with increasing lateral linear elasto-plastic using quoted average
movement was modelled as it would be properties from published literature.
Fig. 64.12
Region Analysed in FEA Study
Showing Components (from [14])
(Coarse mesh option shown)
Note: The cleat is termed “flange plate” in this article.
Fig. 64.13.1
Dimensions of M24 Bolt and Nut
Used (from [14]) (Normal mesh
option shown)
Fig. 64.13.2
Dimensions of Flange
Plate Used Showing the
Slotted Hole (from [14])
(iv) The load was applied in two steps. First to the beam stub, which is bolted to a heavy
was an initial bolt length adjustment about backing plate rigidly connected to the strong wall.
the bolt centre, to account for the pre- The reaction beam rotates around a bearing, the
tensioning. The adjusted bolt length was top of which is just visible in the centre of the
then fixed and the history of bolt forces due figure. The centre of rotation is 290 mm below the
to cycle beam flange enforced top surface of the beam stub. The expected
displacement was monitored. exaggerated deformed shape of the bolt during
sliding is shown in the inset picture of Fig. 64.14.
(v) The FEA program ABAQUS/Standard [16]
was used for these analyses. The 8-node In these small-scale component experimental
linear brick, reduced integration element tests, the position of the components is upside
C3D8R from [15] was used. down from what they would be in practice, with
the beam flange underneath and the cap plate on
(vi) Mesh coarseness and element type the top. Comparing this with the FE model shown
sensitivity studies were undertaken in order in Fig. 64.12, it can be seen that the two setups
to determine the appropriateness of each of are effectively the same, except for the reversal of
these aspects. Details of those studies are the components in the experimental tests and the
given in [14]. fact that the enforced deformation is applied
through the flange plate, experimentally, and
Comparison Between Predicted and through the beam flange, analytically.
Experimental Results
A key parameter in the bolt sliding shear design
Experimental test used for comparison model is the distance between the assumed
centroids of the bearing areas. This distance is
The FE model shown in Fig. 64.12 is effectively called dlever in DCB No. 59, is illustrated in
one quarter of the small-scale component test Fig. 59.26 and applied in equations 59.4 to 59.10.
setup, as shown in Fig. 64.14, except that in the (In Fig. 59.26, dlever is the vertical distance from
experimental tests the beam flange was fixed and location 1 to location 2 as shown on the bolt
the load applied through the flange plate via the shank).
reaction beam and dynamic actuator.
dlever is a function of the thickness of the flange
plate, brass shims and assumed bearing depth of
the bolts against the beam flange and cap plate.
The brass shims are always 3 mm thick; the
bearing depth for M24 bolts has been determined,
from careful inspection of the sides of the bolt
holes in the beam flange and cap plate, as 2 mm
for each bearing surface for the M24 bolt. This
means that the major variable in dlever is the flange
plate thickness.
In order to compare the experimental and

analytical results, therefore, an experimental test
is required which uses the same flange plate
thickness, bolt size, flange plate width and similar
cap plate thickness and beam flange thickness to
those modelled.
Experimental test no. 3.30 fulfills these criteria.

The flange plate thickness is 12 mm, cap plate
thickness 25 mm, beam flange thickness 16 mm
Fig. 64.14 and bolt tightened from the nut end as would be
Small-Scale Component Test Setup, the case in practice. No Belleville springs were
Showing The Reaction Beam, Flange Plate used under the nut to assist in the retention of bolt
and Beam Flange Stub tension, nor were these included in the model.
Coincidentally, Fig 59.25 shows a (not very clear)
In these small-scale tests, the reaction beam, the picture of this component test set-up at the
top of which can be seen to the right in Fig. 64.14, completion of testing.
represents the column. The flange plate is
attached to the top of this, with lateral force from Fig. 64.15 shows the loading regime for Test 3.13;
the reaction beam introduced via a shear key. a similar loading regime was used for all tests.
This force causes the flange plate to slide, relative
Loading Regime for Component Test 3.13
DR=132
mm/sec
DR=132
mm/sec
DR=132 mm/sec
∆=-51 mm
DR= 88 mm/sec
DR= 88 mm/sec
DR= 88 mm/sec
DR= 88 mm/sec
DR=132
LR=15.5 kN/sec
mm/sec
∆=-11 mm
∆=-11 mm
∆=-11 mm
∆=-11 mm
F=-72 kN
0 210
LR=15.5 kN/sec
F=+72 kN
∆ =+11 mm
∆ =+11 mm
∆ =+11 mm
∆ =+11 mm
DR= 88 mm/sec
DR= 88 mm/sec
DR= 88 mm/sec
DR= 88 mm/sec
∆= + 3 8 m m
DR= 132
∆= + 5 1 m m
DR= 132
F = Force at Actuator ∆= + 6 6 m m
LR = Loading Rate DR= 132
∆∆ = d i s p l a c e m e n t a t A c t u a t o r ∆= + 8 5 m m
DR = Displacement Rate DR= 132
Fig. 64.15
Loading Regime for Component Tests
In the case of Test 3.30, some off-centering of Flange Axial Force Versus Displacement for Sliding Hinge Joint Component, 1 M24 Bolt
the flange plate slotted holes over the beam 200
flange meant that the maximum magnitude of
slip that could be accommodated at the flange 150
plate each side of the zero position, without the

bolt hitting one end of the slotted hole, was just 100
under 15 mm. This corresponds to the ∆ = 51

Flange Axial Force [kN]
50
mm cycles shown in Fig. 64.15. Five load cycles
were performed at this slip and these are shown 0
as the experimental results in Fig. 64.16. For the -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
FEA, first the bolt was pre-tensioned, following -50
which load cycles to ± 20 mm were undertaken,

this being the magnitude of slip able to be -100
accommodated without contact between bolt and

end of slotted hole. The loading was cycled until -150
stable bolt behaviour occurred; this took two

-200
complete load cycles.
ExperimentalData Analytical Data
Displacement [mm]
Comparison between experimental and

analytical results
Fig. 64.16
This is shown in Fig. 64.16 Flange Axial Force Versus Displacement
For Experimental and Analytical Results
The comparison is good, especially for the bolt
force versus displacement and the pattern of bolt questions raised at the beginning of this article,
sliding shear force change with changing starting with loss of bolt tension with sliding.
displacement. In particular, the unique pattern of
sliding shear capacity buildup with increasing Loss of Bolt Tension With Sliding
displacement in a given direction, following a
reversal of applied displacement, is well Fig. 64.17 shows the history of the bolt tension
represented analytically. This buildup is caused force with sliding. First the bolt is pre-tensioned.
by first one, then the other of the sliding surfaces The upper and solid line shows the pre-tensioning
being mobilised. The analytical model predicts resulting from applying the bolt extension
well the sliding action on first one, then both delivered by the part turn method of tensioning to
surfaces and the increase in bolt sliding shear NZS 3404 [2] Clause 15.2.5.2 and Table 15.2.5.2.
capacity (ie. flange axial force) that develops as For the M24 bolt shank diameter and the actual
both surfaces are mobalised. material properties, this is 340 kN.
The measure of agreement means the FEA Then the displacement controlled sliding regime is
results can be used with confidence to answer the imposed, starting with positive direction
displacement. This results in a loss of bolt tension
time the bolt will have undergone some
relaxation, decreasing the installed bolt
tension.
These SHJs are intended for application in

a dry internal environment, in which the
contribution of corrosion to loss of bolt
tension will be negligible. The maximum
extent of bolt relaxation in this circumstance
is expected to be 10-15% of the installed
bolt tension.
Given the significant loss of bolt tension that

occurs between installation and attainment
of the stable sliding shear strength, as
assumed in the design procedure development
Fig. 64.17 and shown in Fig. 64.17 solid line, it was
History of Bolt Tension Force With considered unlikely that this relaxation would
Sliding, for Two Levels of Initial Pre-tension affect the sliding shear capacity of the bolt.
(from [14])
To test this, an analysis was undertaken with 79%
as sliding commences on the first sliding plane, of the original bolt pre-tension. The result is
namely between the beam and flange plate. shown by the dotted line in fig. 64.17. This is a
Starting at a displacement of 2.5 mm, there is a significantly greater reduction in bolt pre-tension
further and more significant loss of bolt tension as than would occur in practice and in fact left the
the second sliding surface, namely between bolt after the initial pre-tensioning still in the elastic
flange plate and cap plate, is mobilised. The bolt range.
tension then remains essentially stable until the
end of the enforced sliding and does not decrease After two cycles of loading, the bolt tension settles
again until the second sliding surface is again down to the same value in both cases. This
mobilised in the reverse direction of the first cycle, shows that the design sliding shear capacity is not
at which point a smaller reduction in bolt tension going to be lowered by bolt relaxation after full
occurs. tensioning.
Some very minor further reduction in bolt tension Effect of Different Strength Brass Shims
force occurs on the first half of the second cycle of
loading, after which a stable bolt tension is The brass shims are specified as UNS C26000 –
maintained. ½Hard Temper, eg. to AS 1566 [13].
Once the stable sliding bolt tension is reached, This material has minimum mechanical properties
this has a minimum value at zero displacement, of fu = 360 MPa, 20% elongation on 50 mm gauge
corresponding to the beam flange in the initial length. In practice, the range of typical
position. There is no curvature of the flange plate mechanical properties that are obtained
in this position. As the beam flange moves (depending on source), are;
laterally from that position, it is moving about the
centre of rotation of the overall joint and therefore • f0.2% elongation 310 MPa to 435 MPa
describing a shallow arc. This puts the flange • fu 390 MPa to 525 MPa
plate into minor cantilever out-of-plane bending, • εu from 20% down to 8%
which causes the bolt tension (Fig. 64.17) and
hence the sliding shear capacity (Fig. 64.16) to To determine the influence of the different
increase slightly with increasing displacement. strengths of brass shim on the bolt sliding shear
This gives the shallow dish shape to the capacity, analyses were undertaken using the fully
bolt force/displacement curve of Fig. 64.17 and tensioned bolt pre-tensions and the brass shim
the flange axial force/displacement curve of properties at each end of this range.
Fig. 64.16.
The results show no effect on bolt sliding shear
Effect of Bolt Pre-Tension Variation capacity. Details are given in [14] but not shown
herein.
In practice, the SHJ will only undergo sliding
during severe earthquake action. This may occur
many years after the bolt installation, during which
Comparison With Design Procedure 1  452 
Vfss,actual,Ao = 65 x x 1.12 x  = 119kN
0.8  353 
Bolt design shear capacity under stable
sliding
where:
For the M24 bolt modelled, the actual flange axial 1/0.8 = 1/φ ; φ = 0.8
force (≡ bolt actual sliding shear capacity) is 114 1.12 = ratio between average and minimum
kN. This is associated with the average mechanical properties
measured mechanical properties and the bolt 452/353 = shank area/tensile stress area
diameter taken as the solid shank diameter.
The analytically derived bolt sliding shear
capacity, 114 kN, is 95% of the capacity
The design procedure gives φVfss for this
configuration (bolt size, flange plate thickness) of generated by the design procedure, after the
65 kN. This is associated with a strength above adjustments have been made. This is
reasonable.
reduction factor of 0.8, minimum specified
mechanical properties and the bolt tensile stress
area, As . Stress distribution in bolt under stable sliding
The pattern of loading on the bolt used to derive
In order to compare like with like, these factors the design sliding shear is shown in Fig. 59.26 of
must be adjusted for. This gives the actual sliding DCB No. 59.
shear capacity for a bolt area equal to the bolt
shank area, A0, as; The von-Mises stress distribution in the bolt
immediately following pre-tensioning is shown in
Fig. 64.18, while that under stable sliding on both
Fig. 64.18
Von-Mises Stress Distribution in Bolt After
Initial Pre-tensioning (from [14])
Note: The pre-tensioning is applied in ABAQUS as a length adjustment about the centre of the bolt, which is the reason for the
maximum stress after pre-tensioning being shown at the centre of the bolt.
Fig. 64.19
Von-Mises Stress Distribution in Bolt Under
Stable Sliding on Both Sliding Surfaces (from [14])
Note: The top of the bolt is being pushed to the right by the beam flange, which is moving to the right in this step.
sliding surfaces is shown in Fig. 64.19. The latter bearing contact between the flange plate and
view shows the most highly stressed regions in beam flange.
the bolt shank to be those where bending induced
tension and axial tension combine. This takes
place on the opposite side of the bolt to the point
of bearing contact shown in Fig. 59.26 of DCB
No. 59. The combination of stresses from
bending and axial tension are what generates the
additional plasticity resulting in the loss of bolt
tension shown in Fig. 64.17 and represented in
equations 59.7 and 59.9 of DCB No. 59.
While the FE studies support the bolt design

model presented in DCB No. 59, they show that
the stress distribution is more uniform over the
lengths of bolt within the beam flange and the cap
plate regions than was assumed in developing the
design procedure. On this basis, the distance
dlever could be increased. For example, increasing
Fig. 64.20
this by 2 mm in the M24 bolt modelled decreases
Bolt Force Change When Bolt Impacts
φVfss to 63 kN and Vfss, actual, Ao to 113 kN, which is End of Slotted Hole (from [14])
equal to the predicted value of 114 kN. However,
the design procedure underpredicts the measured The effect of this is to cause a reduction in bolt
capacity by 1.16, on average, as detailed in DCB pre-tension, as shown in Fig. 64.20. In this
No. 59. Hence it is not being changed. instance, on the first cycle of loading, the beam
displacement is taken to +25 mm, while the
Effect of Bolt Impact on The End of The
slotted whole length is +20 mm past the origin.
Slotted Hole
This requires the bolt to force an additional 4 mm
One further aspect investigated analytically [14] elongation into the slotted hole.
was the effect on the bolt force, and hence on the
sliding shear capacity, of impact with the end of The effect of this is increased bolt plasticity,
the slotted hole. If the beam flange sliding resulting in a drop in bolt pre-tension. However,
exceeds the length of the slotted hole for a given this drop does not occur immediately, but only
direction of travel, the bolt is forced into direct after 2 mm of plastic elongation has developed in
the slotted hole.
This is also consistent with the results from the reserve of strength available from a composite
small-scale component testing, where some of the concrete floor slab supported on unprotected
specimens underwent bolt contact with the ends secondary beams or joists in severe fires.
of the slotted holes, with no loss of shear capacity
provided that this contact involved movement past The scope and background to this procedure is
the end of the slotted hole of less than around presented in the first part of that Bulletin, with the
3 mm. detailed procedure presented as Appendix A.
An example, from Test No. 3.30, is shown in DCB Issue No. 62 presents details of the revised
Fig. 64.21. software that implements this method and gives
guidance on how to apply that software to a range
Flange Axial Force Versus Displacement for Small Scale Component Showing Contact With
of floor systems likely to be encountered in steel
End of Slotted Hole
800
framed buildings.
700
600 The SPM method is now being used in a small but

500
increasing number of designs. This has resulted
Flange Axial Force [kN]
400
300
in some questions to the HERA Structural
200 Engineer on its use. The issues raised by these
100 questions are covered in this article.
0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-100
-200
A major fire research programme incorporating
-300 testing of this method is underway at the
-400
University of Canterbury. Brief details of that are
-500
Displacement [mm] also presented herein.
Revision to SPM Software

Fig. 64.21
Flange Axial Force Versus Displacement, Test The program which has been developed to
3.30, Cycle 7, Showing Contact With End of implement this method is described in DCB
Slotted Hole No. 62, on pages 2-4 therein.
Examples of the input and output screens have

FEA Capacity Available For Industry been shown in Figs. 62.1 and 62.2, respectively.
Modelling of the SHJ components described There is an error showing on the output screen, in
above has been a demanding and challenging that the shear capacity is expressed in units of
assignment. It is an excellent example of the 2
mm /m instead of kN. The calculations are
capability of HERA’s FEA operation, run by our correct; it is simply the units in the display box that
Finite Element Analyst, Nandor Mago and are wrong.
operating as part of the HERA Structural Division.
That error has been corrected and the revised
A brochure outlining the scope and capability of program is available. Those wanting a copy,
this service is [16]. A copy is attached with this which will be sent by email in a zipped file also
issue. Readers with any design queries for which containing a design example, should contact
this service may be of use are invited to contact Charles Clifton at structural@hera.org.nz
Nandor or Charles Clifton to see how we may be
of service to you. Minimum Area and Spacing Requirements
for Edge Reinforcement
Update on SPM Method for
Design of Concrete Slab/Steel Introduction
Floor Systems For Dependable The reinforcement required around the slab panel
Inelastic Response in Severe as part of the SPM procedure is shown in DCB
No. 60, Fig. 60.10. However, this figure is missing
Fires key information relating to the spacing and
minimum area requirements for the edge bars.
This article is written by G Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer.
That material is presented below, in conjunction
General with Fig. 64.22, which is the revision to Fig. 60.10
of DCB No. 60.
DCB Issue No. 60 presents a detailed design
procedure which takes account of the inelastic
Figure 64.22; Revision to Fig. 60.10, DCB Issue No. 60
Floor Plan Showing Reinforcement Required in the Slab Panels for Use of This Design Procedure
Notes to Fig. 64.22
1. The reinforcing bars shown are deformed high tensile reinforcement.
2. The reinforcement shown is additional to the mesh required for shrinkage and temperature control.
3. The edge bars, trimmer bars and interior support bars are required in all instances. They are placed on top of the slab mesh.
Interior support bars are typically 12 or 16 mm diameter.
4. The spacing and minimum area requirements for the edge bars and interior support bars must comply with the
recommendations on pages 64.33 to 64.35, DCB No. 64.
5. The deck trough bars are optional and are used if necessary to increase the load-carrying capacity of the slab panel. They are
placed in the troughs as shown in Figs. 60.11 – 60.13 of DCB No. 60. They will typically be 12 or 16 mm diameter.
6. The centreline position of the primary interior beams is shown in this view, because the placing of the interior support bars is
based around this position. The rest of the floor support beams are not shown herein.
In-situ concrete slabs on profiled steel Note that the interior support bars can be made
decking, supported by composite steel beams only 1500 mm each side of the interior supports
and used as edge supports only.
The calculation of shear capacity available
through the slab is given by equations 60.A43 to In-situ concrete slabs on Speedfloor joists
60.A45, DCB No. 60 – section A4.2.6 (1). supported on primary beams
The minimum requirements for edge bars are

The provision for concrete shear strength, vc , is
determined from NZS 3101 [17] Clause 9.3.2.2. It given in section CA5 1.3, page 57, DCB No. 60.
is important, therefore, that the area of slab Note that the slab reinforcement, if this is bars
reinforcement and spacing of these bars over the instead of mesh, can be used also as edge
edge supports comply with the minimum support bars, provided that it is anchored at the
requirements of NZS 3101, as applied to profiled edges on the outside face of the trimmer bar as
steel decking. shown in eg. Fig. 60.12, DCB No. 60 (this
anchorage detail covers all deck support
The contribution of the decking to shear systems).
resistance is neglected, as the decking is on the
fire-exposed side and will reach high Similarly, where the bars extend over the interior
temperatures. supports and are lapped for continuity of tension
transfer to NZS 3101 [17], then they can double
Clause 8.4.3.4 of NZS 3101 calls up Clause as interior support bars. The interior support bar
7.3.30.1 for minimum slab reinforcement. requirements from the Speedfloor Design Manual
[18] must also be met.
Clause 7.3.30.1 specifies this level as;
Detailing of Edge Reinforcement
ρ ≥ Max (0.7/fy r ; 0.0014) (64.19)
The edge reinforcement detail shown in
where: Figs. 60.12 or 60.13, DCB No. 60, shows the
As edge bars turned down on the outside edge of the
ρ = ⇒ As ≥ ρ min bd (64.20)
bd trimmer bar. The important aspect of this detail is
b = 1000 mm (unit width) that the development length for the bar should be
d = he (effective thickness of slab, as obtained, measured from the critical location for
defined by NZS 3404 [2] Section II) edge slab shear capacity (line S-S in Fig. 60.12,
for example) back to the free end.
As shown in Fig. 64.22, the edge bars are DH12
reinforcement, which is now available as grade If the leg end is too long to hang vertically, as
300 or 500. As shown in that figure, the edge shown in Fig. 60.12, it can be angled down with
bars lap onto the slab mesh and provide continuity the bottom end resting on the beam top flange or,
of reinforcement through over the shear studs to alternatively, a hook to NZS 3101 Clause 7.3.2
the external edge. As the mesh is grade 485, can be used if space permits. This hook can also
grade 500 bars offer the best match. be inclined to fit within the depth available.
In that case, ρ = Max (0.00140 ; 0.00140) Major Research Programme Incorporating

= 0.0014 Slab Panel Method Study is Underway
2 Currently, a fire research programme of

As,min = 1.4 he (mm /m), (64.21).
international significance is underway at the
where he is in mm University of Canterbury, which involves HERA,
BHP New Zealand Steel, Speedfloor Holdings Ltd,
In terms of edge bar maximum spacing, s max , the Dimond Industries, Forgan Jones Structural and
recommendation of [17] applied to profiled BRANZ.
decking is for;
The project is on the fire performance and design
s max ≤ 4 he (64.22) of concrete floor systems and one of the principal
outcomes from this will be an experimental and
where: analytical evaluation of the SPM method.
s max = maximum bar spacing (mm)
Key aspects of the programme are that:
These provisions apply to the edge reinforcement;
ie. along the exterior edges of the slab panel Six slab panels, each measuring 4.3 x 3.3 m,
shown in Fig. 64.22. They also apply to the have been built. They will be supported on
interior support bars along any internal supports. vertical supports over the BRANZ test furnace,
loaded with 3.3 kPa and heated to failure under
the Standard Fire Curve. Their performance will range of locations and will be monitored visually
be monitored for load-carrying performance, and for horizontal and vertical deflections.
integrity and insulation.
The experimental results from the flat slabs and
The options being tested include: the others, time permitting, will be used to validate
• 100 mm flat slabs (3 No), each with the fire FEA program SAFIR, thus allowing for
different levels of reinforcing ongoing analytical modelling of other slab
• a representative slab on Speedfloor joists configurations.
• a representative slab on Dimond Hi-Bond
• a representative slab on Tray-dec. The influence of restraint conditions on the fire
performance of precast concrete units on supports
These tests will allow the unknown factors for with different axial and rotational stiffness is also
which probably conservative allowances have being determined.
been made in the current SPM design procedure
to be assessed and, where justified, relaxed. The principal researcher is Linus Lim, a PhD
These factors are: student at the Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury.
(i) The ductility of the standard cold-drawn
mesh under fire conditions (currently the As of November 2001, the slabs for testing have
ductility is based on room temperature, been built and are curing/drying out. Testing of
however the ductility at elevated these is scheduled for mid-2002.
temperature should be higher)
The first slab panel analyses have been
(ii) How much reinforcement is needed to limit successfully performed.
crack widths and hence meet integrity
requirements for slabs that don’t have The study on restraint of precast floor panels and
decking on the underside to prevent the its effect on fire performance is largely completed.
passage of hot gasses through the slab.
Currently this is set at the limits for “strong As previously stated, this is a research
crack control” in reinforced concrete slab programme of international significance and the
design (see section CA5 1.1, pp. 56, 57 of results will be widely disseminated.
DCB No. 60). This requires high levels of
reinforcement and it is hoped the tests will The SPM method will also be amended, if and as
allow these limits to be relaxed. required, based on the findings of the research.
The slabs are instrumented for temperatures and Figures 64.23 and 64.24 show two of the slab
for strains in reinforcement and concrete at a panels at different stages of construction.
Fig. 64.23 Fig. 64.24

100 mm Thick Flat Slab With Deformed Bar 130 mm Thick Slab on Tray-dec After
Reinforcement Prior to Concrete Placement Concrete Poured
Avoiding Unnecessary tension, a CPBW should be specified unless
rational analysis shows that an ICPBW is suitable,
Fabrication Costs: Three Good in which case it should be a balanced, two sided
Practice Reminders ICPBW. Sometimes access limitations will also
preclude the use of fillet welds, such as where
o
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA members intersect at angles less than 60 . An
Structural Engineer. example of this is the brace/beam/column
connection shown in Fig. 61.6, DCB No. 61.
Introduction
In all other instances, the choice of fillet weld (FW)
Three issues have been raised recently, on or butt weld should be based on economical
separate jobs, each of which either caused or had considerations only. In making this decision, as a
the potential to cause significant and unnecessary general rule a double sided fillet weld will be
increases in fabrication costs. These are cheaper than a CPBW for FW leg lengths ≤ 12
highlighted below as items to avoid. mm. That is the limit used in R4-100 [1].
However, some fabricators have welding
Preparation of Full Contact Splices equipment that increases this limit to between
16 mm and 20 mm.
Full contact splices are used to transmit
compression force from one member to another. Even at the 12 mm limit, many more welded
For example, in the Bolted Compression Splices details can use FWs than require CBPWs. This is
(BCS) specified in HERA Report R4-100 [1], all even the case for welded connections subject to
the compression forces resulting from axial and earthquake actions, for which an additional
flexural actions are resisted across the splice in penalty is placed on the use of double sided FW’s
this manner. in some elements (eg. for the flanges of an
I-section) through NZS 3404 [2] Clause
The specification for end surface tolerances in full 12.9.1.2.2. This penalty takes the form of
contact splices is given in NZS 3404 [2] Clause increased design actions on the weld rather than
14.4.4.2. This gives just the numerical a limitation on its scope of use.
requirements, which are backed up in
All this means that the use of CPBWs should be
Commentary Clause C14.4.4.2 with a figure and
considered in light of the above factors – they
quite a bit of background information.
should never be specified “for general use unless
otherwise noted” as this can carry a significant
NZS 3404 Clause 14.3.2.1 states that full contact
and unnecessary penalty in fabrication cost and
splices may be produced by cold saw cutting or
time.
machining. The former is considerably cheaper
and generates a quality and accuracy of finish Late Changing of Member Sizes Carries
equivalent to end milling. Engineers should Significant Cost Penalties
therefore specify that full contact splices be
produced to NZS 3404 Clause 14.3.2. They Fabrication of steelwork involves adding value to
should not specify the method of end preparation, what are typically mass produced steel members
but leave that to the fabricator to comply with (eg. hot-rolled sections, plate). This process
Clause 14.3.2.1 in the most cost-effective manner. involves detailing the fabrication operations to be
carried out on known member sizes and
Complete Penetration Butt Welds quantities, typically on shop drawings, then
planning the sequence of work to be undertaken
Complete penetration butt welds (CPBW), which on a project. All this occurs prior to fabrication
are sometimes termed full penetration butt welds itself.
(FPBW), are expensive to fabricate because of
the greater preparation, welding and handling This need for advance detailing and planning
required. means that the fabricator typically commences
those operations as soon as the fabrication
The only time that a CPBW is required instead of contract is approved.
a fillet weld or an incomplete penetration butt weld
(ICPBW), because of the nature of the applied It follows that changing member sizes once the
loading, is for certain fatigue governed details. fabrication contract is approved carries significant
These are identified in Section 10 of NZS 3404, potential cost and time penalties. The change in
especially Tables 10.5.1. material supply terms might be minor, however
changes required to material ordering, shop
There will be instances where a butt weld instead drawings and fabrication sequencing can be
of a fillet weld will be required for physical reasons major.
– eg. when making a butt splice between two
Therefore member sizes should not be changed
elements. Where these elements are loaded in
once the drawings have been issued for steel
ordering purposes. If late changes to member NZS 3404 Clause 5.14 covers the design of load
changes are made, this will result in increased bearing stiffeners. They are required to be
costs and hence cost claims by the contractor, designed for local yielding, to Clause 5.14.1 and
even if the member sizes are reduced. for buckling, to Clause 5.14.2. (Additional
guidance on both of these is given in section 5.3.1
Restraint of Load Bearing of [4]). The design for buckling requires the
stiffener plus a specified portion of the column
Stiffeners in Simply supported web to be considered as a column, spanning the
I-Section Beams clear depth of the beam between flanges. The
design member compression capacity of that
This article is written by G Charles Clifton, HERA Structural column must be greater than the applied load.
Engineer.
The restraint requirements to the flanges forming
Background
the ends of this load bearing stiffener are now
Designing of a load bearing stiffener for its addressed.
buckling capacity as a column spanning between
the beam flanges implies that the column must be Restraint to the Top Flange
effectively restrained at these flanges. The top flange, which is the point of contact of the
This raises two questions, namely; incoming compression load, is also the critical
flange in bending and the top of the load-bearing
(1) What restraint is necessary at each flange, stiffener column.
It must have effective lateral restraint against out-

(2) How is this restraint provided
of-plane movement at or in close proximity to the
Answers to this are given below, following a brief location of the stiffener. The distance between
background to this topic. the stiffener and the point of restraint must be not
greater than db, where db is the depth of the
When a simply supported beam carries a supporting beam, and should be less than 0.5 db
concentrated load applied to the top flange, a load where possible.
bearing stiffener may be required to distribute this
load into the beam section without causing a If the restraint is to be effective in providing
bearing failure in the top flange/web. A generic restraint for the applied compression load and to
example of this is shown in Fig. 64.25. the top of the load bearing stiffener, then it must
be capable of resisting 0.025 R*, where R* is the
design compression load, and of transmitting this
R * (applied load) back to effective anchorage or reaction points.
Top
Flange in Where a concrete floor slab or steel decking
Compression;
Simply supported Critical Flange exists and is either directly connected to the beam
end with full or
partial twist
or is cast directly around the base of the incoming
restraint compression member, then this slab will provide
the restraint. Where no floor diaphragm of
Flange in suitable strength exists the restraint will need to
Bottom Tension be via members back to points of effective
*
RSupport anchorage.
If the restraint is to also be an effective point of

Fig. 64.25 restraint against out-of-plane bending of the beam
Load Bearing Stiffener Under Concentrated Load (ie. to provide lateral restraint as specified by NZS
Applied to Simply Supported I-Section Beam 3404 Clause 5.4.2.3), then it must resist the
greater of either 0.025R* or 0.025 times the
The supported end of the beam must resist the
applied load, without causing local end failure and maximum force generated by bending moment in
also provide either full or partial restraint to the the critical flange from the adjacent segments.
The latter is the requirement of NZS 3404 Clause
critical (top) flange. There are a wide range of
support conditions to achieve this; details of many 5.4.3.2.1 (a) and may often be greater than the
are given in HERA Report R4-92 [19]. former.
However, what about beam restraint at the point Restraint to the Bottom Flange
of application of the applied load? At that point,
the top flange is in bending-induced compression The bottom flange is not subject to any direct
and is the critical flange in accordance with destabilising action from the applied load, R*. It is
NZS 3404 [2] Clause 5.5.2. The bottom flange is subject to bending induced tension, under which it
in bending-induced tension. is unconditionally stable. It also has to provide
effective restraint to the bottom of the load- 7. Carr, AJ; RUAUMOKO – the Maori God of
bearing stiffener column. Volcanoes and Earthquakes; University of
Canterbury, Civil Engineering Department,
In almost all instances it will be able to achieve Christchurch, 1998.
this without requiring direct restraint (eg. via a fly
brace). A very quick and easy check for this is as 8. Clifton, GC et. al.; Development of Moment-
follows: Resisting Steel Frames Incorporating Semi-
Rigid Elastic Joints 1995/96 Research
(1) Determine the bending-induced axial Report; HERA Manukau City, 1996, HERA
tension force in the beam flange from the Report R4-88.
design moment at the point of application of
*
R*. This force is termed R ft,m and is 9. Kanaan, A and Powell, GH; DRAIN-2D,
* General Purpose Computer Program for
obtained by R ft,m = M */(db – tf ) for an
Dynamic Response of Plane Structures;
I-section beam with flanges of equal Earthquake Engineering Research Centre,
thickness, tf . University of California, Berkeley, USA,
*
1973, Report UCB/EERC 73/6.
(2.1) If R ft,m > R* , then no restraint is required.
10. Clifton, GC et.al.; Moment-Resisting Steel
* Framed Seismic-Resisting Systems With
(2.2) If R ft,m < R* , then further consideration
Semi-Rigid Connections; SESOC Journal,
should be given as to whether or not direct
Vol. 11, No. 2, 1998, pp. 21-41 and 43-52.
restraint is provided. This consideration
can be made in accordance with section 2.2
11. Popov, EP and Tsai, KC; Seismic Panel
of [19]. The restraining force is given by
*
Zone Design Effect on Elastic Storey Driff in
0.025(R* - R ft,m ) and this may be able to be Steel Frames; Journal of Structural
provided through flexure in the web back to Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 12.
the top flange and floor system, as
described in section 2.2.2 of [19]. 12. Matuschka, T et.; New Zealand Seismic
Hazard Analysis; Bulletin of the New
In practice, it is highly likely that 2.1 will govern Zealand National Society for Earthquake
and no direct restraint to the bottom flange at the Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1985.
stiffener will be required.
13. AS 1566:1997, Copper and Copper Alloys –
References Rolled Flat Products; Standards Australia,
Sydney, Australia.
1. Hyland C; Structural Steelwork Connections
Guide Incorporating Amendment No. 1; 14. Mago, N and Clifton, GC; Sliding Hinge
HERA, Manukau City, 1999/2001, HERA Joint FEA Study; HERA, Manukau City,
Report R4-100. 2001, HERA Report R4-110.
2. NZS 3404:1997 (Plus Amendment No. 1: 15. ABAQUS/Standard; Finite Element Analysis
2001), Steel Structures Standard; Program; HKS Inc, Pawtucket, RI, USA,
Standards New Zealand, Wellington. 2001.
3. Manual of Standard Connection Details for 16. Mago, N et. al.; Finite Element Analysis –
Structural Steelwork, Second Edition; What is it and how can it help your
HERA, Manukau City, 1990, HERA Report company? ; HERA, Manukau City, 2001.
R4-58.
17. NZS 3101:1995 (Incorporating
4. Clifton, GC; Structural Steelwork Limit Amendments 1 and 2, 1997), Concrete
State Design Guides Volume 1; HERA, Structures Standard; Standards New
Manukau City, 1994, HERA Report R4-80. Zealand
5. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design 18. Speedfloor Design Manual; Speedfloor
and Design Loadings for Buildings; Holdings Ltd, Auckland, 2001.
19. Clifton, GC; Restraint Classifications for
6. Feeney M J and Clifton G C; Seismic Beam Member Moment Capacity
Design Procedures for Steel Structures; Determination to NZS 3404:1997; HERA,
HERA, Manukau City, 1995, HERA Report Manukau City, 1997, HERA Report R4-92.
R4-76.
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
Auckland,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 65 December 2001

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the beginning of the The procedure detailed herein has been the
article. subject of review by a number of people. The
effort and input of these reviewers is greatly
appreciated.
Introduction
Also on our website is a second paper entitled
The last issue focussed on results from HERA’s Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse
semi-rigid joint research project. This issue of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers, dated
covers a range of topics, including a significant 13th December, 2001. This paper elaborates on
fire design advice article presenting a number of the collapse mechanism for the North Tower,
fire engineering design examples and a design which is relatively complex and is only
procedure for circular bolted flange annulus simplistically covered in the original paper. It also
connections. elaborates on the likely severity of the post-impact
fires, introducing new material which sheds further
Some of the topics from the last issue also light on this hotly debated issue.
warrant revisiting, principally to highlight sources
of further information. These are covered
immediately below. In This Issue Page
It has been a very busy and rewarding year for the FDA Article No. 65:
expanding team of people working in the Various Examples Covering the
4
research, education, development and promotion Design of Structural Members for
of structural steel in buildings. Some of the Fully Developed Fires
highlights from that year were presented on pages
11 and 12 of the December Issue of HERA News. Semi-rigid joints: 3 Dimensional
13
Views
One aspect covered under new products/services
was the introduction of a long-span, deep deck
Design of Circular Bolted Flange
profile. A major industry innovation in regard to 16
Annulus Connections: Part 1 of 2
that profile is also announced below, to whet
reader’s appetites for a significant new floor
system opportunity that will be available from New Cold-Formed Stainless Steel
31
2002. Structures Standard is Available
World Trade Centre Twin Towers Collapse References 32

Revisited
As mentioned in DCB Issue No. 63, HERA has The Behaviour of Concrete and Composite
published details on the possible causes of the Steel-Concrete Floor Slabs in Fire
collapses of these two towers. The original paper
on this was written by Charles Clifton, HERA This very significant fire research project, currently
Structural Engineer, dated 17th September, 2001. underway at the University of Canterbury, has, as
It has since undergone 3 revisions, with the latest its primary aim, determination of structural
dated 11th December, 2001. That revision covers behaviour of concrete floor slabs in fire. The
a number of issues that have come to light as a second objective for the researcher is to validate
result of ongoing investigations and the finite element program, SAFIR [1], to model
considerations by a range of organisations. That concrete slabs and hence to be able to use SAFIR
revision is now on the HERA website at as a reliable tool to predict the behaviour of other
www.hera.org.nz.
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 65, December 2001
types of concrete and composite floor systems in
fire.
Mention was made of the project in DCB No. 64,

on pages 35 and 36.
Since then, the Principal Researcher, Linus Lim,

has established a web page for the project within
the website for the University of Canterbury
Department of Civil Engineering. This web page
gives much more detail on the following aspects
of the project:
background and objectives

test specimen details
parties involved
pictures of the test slabs’ construction.
The website is available at:

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/postgrads/linus/index.html
Fig. 65.1
ComFlor 210 Used in Slim Floor Configuration
(Century City, Wellington)
Amendment No. 1 to NZS 3404:1997
All those who completed their registration However, the profile is also well suited to
form in their copy of the Steel Structures applications where the decking sits on the top
Standard NZS 3404:1997 should have by now flange of the supporting beam, as shown in
received their copy of Amendment No. 1, dated Fig. 65.2. This is termed down-stand application
June, 2001. If you haven’t received a copy and invokes installation requirements that have
please contact Patrica Langiham of Standards had to be developed locally, as they are beyond
New Zealand on phone (04) 498-3987 or the scope of the UK design guidance – although
patrica.langiham@standards.co.nz the design of the decking for composite action is
not changed.
The amendment has been presented in a user-
friendly format to facilitate rapid transfer of the The design of the decking is straightforward in
material into the standard. either application and is covered by [3]. Design
for fire could also be through the Slab Panel
While the size of the amendment is quite small, Method, as described in DCB Issue No. 60/64 and
some of the changes introduced are significant 62.
and all users of NZS 3404 should be using the
updated copy [2] incorporating Amendment No. 1.
ComFlor 210 to be Made in New Zealand
ComFlor 210 is a long-span (up to 8 metres),

deep deck profile which has been developed in
the UK for use in slim floor construction. This
form of construction involves the decking being
mounted on the bottom flange of the supporting
beams, which are incorporated into the depth of
the finished floor slab. An example is shown in
Fig. 65.1.
The beams are typically made composite with the

surrounding concrete by various means, eg.
through the use of shear studs (Fig. 65.1). This
effective flat slab concept has been developed to
its greatest extent in the UK, where specialist hot- Fig. 65.2
rolled SlimFlor beam profiles are available ComFlor 210 Used in Down-Stand Configuration
from Corus, along with detailed design guidance, (Century City, Wellington)
eg. [3].
When the supporting beams are made composite • In place of 200 mm thick and 250 mm thick
with the concrete slab, which is usually the case, hollowcore floor slab concrete units (HCU)
determination of shear stud design shear capacity in any application
is outside the scope of NZS 3404 [2]. The general
concepts involved are given in DCB No. 55, pp. • For apartment/hotel buildings, in
18-28. The application of these concepts to conjunction with propped beams. Acoustic
ComFlor 210 decking in a downstand performance levels, as specified by [5],
configuration is given in [4]. The shear stud must be met for the former application and
capacity is particularly dependent on adequate similar levels are desired for the latter
transverse reinforcement at the base of the stud; application. Read DCB No. 57 pp. 2-14 for
an example of this is the reinforcing bar seen in general requirements relating to acoustic
Fig. 65.2. performance of steel framed (apartment)
buildings; contact either Charles Clifton at
The deck profile can span up to 8 metres propped HERA or Steve Stickland at Corus NZ Ltd
and 6 metres unpropped between supporting for more information specifically on the
beams, ie. as shown in Fig. 65.2. The ends acoustic performance of elements of
therefore attract high wet concrete loading during construction incorporating ComFlor 210
construction and require support to the sides and
top of the ribs, as well as to the rib base. In the • For office buildings, in conjunction with
slim floor configuration, this support is achieved propped beams.
using cold formed steel stop ends, which are left
in place once the concrete is poured. These stop Other significant advantages that ComFlor 210
ends have a high unit cost and are fiddly to erect. has are:
For the down-stand application, a superior
alternative in the form of re-useable plywood stop
• It provides a relatively light self-weight for
ends has been developed. Fig. 65.2 shows a
the finished floor – 2.81 kPa for 280 mm
beam with the stop ends in place and the decking
thick slab –compared with any flat slab
being erected, while, to the left, a completed
system of comparable span. (200 thick
beam is visible. Used in this manner, ComFlor HCU with topping has 4 kPa self weight)
210 provides a flooring system that is very
competitive in cost with other flooring systems
• It has an inherent fire resistance rating for
involving precast concrete units. Details
load carrying capacity and integrity of up to
regarding the sizing and fixing of these ply stop-
2 hours
ends are available from Corus New Zealand Ltd.
The decking used in New Zealand applications to • It provides a very rigid working platform for
date, such as the Century City development placing of reinforcement and concrete, with
shown in Fig. 65.2, has been imported from Corus a comparable working stiffness in the
in the UK. These applications have allowed construction stage to that shown by 200
constructability issues to be addressed and in- thick HCU floors and more rigid than
place costings to be established. The results double-tee floors.
show the decking to be cost-effective and to offer
a new and innovative composite steel solution, to For further information on any aspect of this
the extent that the go-ahead has been granted for ComFlor 210 profile and application, contact:
Corus New Zealand to produce the decking in
New Zealand for local application and export. Steve Stickland
Customer Services Engineer
The plant and equipment necessary for Corus NZ Ltd
manufacture is currently being developed, with an Phone: 0-9 634 1179
expected launch date for the New Zealand made Mobile: 021 617 309
product of mid July, 2002. Email : steve.stickland@corusnz.com
As part of the development work, the UK design

requirements for application in the slim floor
configuration will be New Zealandised and formal
design and construction requirements for
application in the down-stand configuration will be
developed.
In the meantime, design engineers and specifiers

are invited to consider this ComFlor 210 profile for
floor systems especially in the following instances:
Fire Design Advice Article 65: the design procedure given from DCB No. 58
would be very conservative. Hence the design
Various Examples Covering the fire used for a design adequacy check on this
Design of Structural Members column is the design fire C3MN described in DCB
No. 59 Table 59.1. This fire has a structural fire
for Fully Developed Fires severity (time equivalent) of 100 minutes. The
design adequacy of the concrete filled column
Structural Engineer subject to this fire is checked in section 4.
1. Introduction and Scope Prior to commencing the first design check, some
information of general interest and relevant to the
1.1 Background to and scope of article design approaches used in sections 2 - 4 is given.
The role of HERA in supporting Fire Engineers is 1.2 Multi-storey steel building structural
to undertake research and provide specialist response to fire
design guidance. This is aimed at ensuring steel
building performance in fully developed fires is It is important to understand the response of a
predictable, meets or exceeds the requirements of multi-storey steel building to fire to appreciate the
the NZBC [5] and provides a cost-effective effects of elevated temperature on the building
outcome. As a general policy, HERA does not and hence to determine the appropriate design
undertake fire engineering design (FED) on procedure to use to check the adequacy of the
specific projects, preferring this work to be done building if subjected to fully developed fire attack.
by practicing Fire Engineers. Occasionally, When an individual steel beam reaches its limiting
however, the necessity to perform a project- temperature (eg. as calculated by NZS 3404 [2]) it
specific FED arises. In such cases, our policy still has sufficient strength to support the design
wherever possible is to generalise the work done long term load (ie. the fire emergency load
and to present the details as design examples in from [7]) indefinitely and without excessive
eg. the DCB, in order to benefit the profession as deflection. The majority of beams over a given
a whole. area will not suffer local buckling of the cross-
section, although some individual members may
This article has arisen from such a situation. The
do so, due to thermal effects. (This would
need arose to perform a specific FED on the car
principally affect smaller members highly
parking levels of a mixed apartment and car
restrained by larger members).
parking building, in order to demonstrate the
adequacy of elements of the structure under a
For beams which just reach their limiting
design car park fire. The Acceptable Solution
temperature from [2], some of the thermal-induced
approach would have been to use the provisions
downward deflection undergone during the fire is
of C/AS1 [6] Para. 6.10.5 for determining the fire
likely to remain. Beams in a structural system
resistance rating (FRR) requirements of car
gain rotational restraint that is available from the
parking levels, however these provisions are
surrounding members, irrespective of the type of
unrealistically severe for an unsprinklered car
end connection used. If the restraint from simple
park, which was the case in this instance.
or semi-rigid connections is ignored when
An Alternative Design solution could have been calculating the limiting temperature (ie. this
simply made by applying the recommendations temperature is based on pinned end supports)
given on page 6 of DCB No. 51. However, those then the permanent deflection, post-fire,
recommendations do not provide any guidance on associated with reaching that limiting temperature
the level of permanent deformation that might be will be minimal. The effects of this beam sag on
expected in the floor system exposed to a car fire any structural and non-structural components
and information on this was sought in this supported by the beam will be negligible
instance. compared to the effects on these components of
the fire itself. On cooling, the structure will have
The Alternative Design approach taken, therefore, the same strength as before the fire. Minor
was to develop an appropriate design fire, subject cracking in the top of a concrete floor slab above
the unprotected steel beams, columns and floor the fire floor, if present, is likely to be of aesthetic
slab to this fire and to demonstrate the adequacy concern only and would be readily repairable.
of these elements. Selected parts of this design
are presented in sections 2 and 3 below. The If the steel temperature is raised above the
columns in question were concrete–filled 300 x 9 NZS 3404 beam limiting temperature associated
SHS (structural hollow section) members. The with simple end support conditions, then the
design of concrete-filled SHS columns for fire beam’s stiffness and strength reduce further and
endurance is covered from pages 25 - 30 of DCB load is redistributed into adjacent cooler parts of
No. 58. However, because a design car fire has the structure which will be both stiffer and
so little influence on this type of column , applying stronger. Larger beam sagging deflections and
some local buckling of the beam cross-section 1.3 Brief summary of appropriate design
may occur in this instance, but the loads applied approaches to use for multi-storey steel
to the structure will continue to be supported in buildings containing unprotected steel
modern steel buildings and in most older steel members
buildings, because of continuity and redundancy
in the structure. Some local permanent damage 1.3.1 For low structural fire severity
of the steel members subject to the highest
temperatures would be sustained, but experience This involves situations where the expected
shows that such members are readily repaired. maximum fire temperature will not exceed around
750oC, the fire duration is short and the region of
The load-sharing due to continuity and fully developed fire is localised. The most
redundancy is important, because it allows common situation for this is in car parking
individual elements in the structure to be heated buildings.
beyond their limiting temperature without affecting
the structure’s overall strength and stability. This In this instance there are two options, these being:
also accounts for the substantially better
performance of multi-storey steel structures in (1.1) Determine the design fire conditions
actual fires that is observed in practice compared appropriate to the situation
with what would be expected from the results of (1.2) Determine the maximum temperature
standard fire tests on individual members. Details reached in the steel member
of this are given in session 4 of HERA Report (1.3) Check that this temperature is not in excess
R4-105 [8], which is an update of the principal of the limiting steel temperature, calculated
article on FED given in DCB Issue No. 54. in accordance with NZS 3404 Clause 11.5.
The use of end restraint conditions in
Therefore it can be seen that the attainment of the increasing this limiting temperature may be
steel limiting temperature from [2] represents a made; pages 13-15 of DCB No. 46 provide
threshold in the expected performance of a steel guidance on how to do this.
beam to withstand a fire without significant or, alternatively;
permanent damage, but does not mean that (2.1) Use design FRRs where these are
either the structure or the individual members available. (For example, see DCB No. 54
will collapse when heated to and beyond the page 17 for FRRs for the structural
NZS 3404 limiting temperature. elements of steel framed car parking
buildings)
Unprotected steel members directly exposed to a (2.2) Ensure that the design fire resistance of the
fully developed fire will heat up rapidly. In element, determined from NZS 3404 [2]
particular, any unprotected elements which can Clause 11.6 equals or exceeds the design
“see” the fire and hence receive radiation directly FRR. This in turn requires the
from it, and which are not directly in contact with a determination of the limiting steel
heat sink material like concrete, will be subjected temperature for the unprotected element.
to a time-temperature history only slightly less
severe than that of the fire. (Tmax,steel ≈ 0.9 The two options are variations on the same basic
Tmax,fire). This is illustrated in Fig. 65.3 on page 7 approach. They determine the design fire
for the bottom flange of a composite steel beam. resistance of a member acting largely in isolation
from the surrounding structure and do not take
This means that, for designs incorporating steel into account the inelastic reserve of strength that
members without specifically applied passive fire is available from a structure with insulated or fire
protection, the appropriate design procedure is resistant columns and unprotected beams subject
very dependent on the following two factors; to severe fire attack. However the structural fire
severity in this instance is too low to generate
(1) Is the member shielded from direct other than localised inelastic response, hence the
exposure to the fire by an effective radiation options are well matched to the expected
barrier, and, if so: structural fire severity.
• How long into the fire will that barrier 1.3.2 For moderate structural fire severity and
dependably remain in place limited extent of fire spread
• What is the fire time-temperature This applies especially to apartment and hotel
history after that barrier is removed buildings, which share the following
characteristics with regard to fire:
(2) If the member is directly exposed to the fire
and most or all of it is not connected to a • The building floor plans are typically divided
heat sink, what are the expected maximum into relatively small firecells, with separating
fire temperatures and durations? walls requiring both fire resistance ratings
and sound resistance ratings, therefore In such instances, many of the floor support
providing effective barriers to fire spread beams may be able to be left unprotected through
• The fire load present is relatively low (FHC application of the Slab Panel Method of floor
1 as specified by [6]) system design. This method is presented in DCB
• There is moderate or better levels of No. 60, with further material in DCB Nos 62 and
ventilation to all regions containing fire load, 64. It is supported by computer software.
due to the requirements for natural light and
amenity, resulting in fully developed fires Unlike the approaches previously mentioned, the
with relatively high peak temperatures SPM design is a high-temperature design
(around 900oC) but short duration. procedure applied to large regions of a floor and
incorporating inelastic response. It is based on
These fire characteristics are such that non-fire- unprotected steel beam elements not in contact
resistant linings, which can function as a radiation with concrete reaching temperatures in excess of
barrier for a specified dependable minimum period 850oC. It also contains detailing requirements to
of time, will shield the unprotected steel members ensure that the expected response can be
from high radiation levels past the peak of the fire achieved.
and into the cooling down phase. Thus, by the
This method incorporates a significant proportion
time the radiation barrier can no longer be relied
of the inelastic reserve of strength known to be
on to remain in place and the steel may be
available from multi-storey steel framed buildings
exposed to the fire, the fire temperatures are
with protected columns in severe fire conditions.
sufficiently cool to limit the temperature rise of the
It is conservative to apply it to low and moderate
unprotected steel member to below the limiting
fire load conditions, where lesser levels of
temperature from NZS 3404 Clause 11.5.
inelastic demand are required to be resisted.
This approach is covered in more detail on pages 1.3.4 Performance criteria to be met
17 - 18 of DCB No. 54 or session 4 of [8]; the
concept is shown in Fig. 46.2 of DCB No. 46. HERA’s FED design provisions are developed
around the building meeting a set of performance
The design approach still determines the design criteria that meet or exceed the requirements of
fire resistance of a member acting largely in the NZBC [5]. These criteria are presented on
isolation from the surrounding structure, however pages 4 - 5 of DCB No. 54 or in session 4 of [8].
it is appropriate as the inelastic demand on a
structure employing this approach, in the event of Turning now to the design examples being
fully developed fire, will be low and localised. presented in this article.
1.3.3 For high structural fire severity and 2. Design Check on Unprotected Steel
considerable extent of fire spread Secondary Beam Subject to Car Park
Car Fire
This covers the general range of FHC 2 and
FHC 3 buildings from C/AS1 [6], where a wide 2.1 Structural floor system characteristics
range of structural fire severity is possible. and loading
In such instances, the duration of severe fire The floor system subjected to the car park fire
conditions will be greater than the dependable comprises the following (only the slab and
survival time of non-fire-rated radiation barriers. secondary beam elements are given, these being
In the event of fully developed fire conditions, it the components relevant to this design example):
must therefore be assumed that unprotected steel
members will typically be subject to temperatures • normal weight concrete slab, 120 mm thick
considerably in excess of the limiting temperature on Dimond Hi-Bond [9]
from NZS 3404. • secondary beams are at 2.8 m centres
• secondary beam size, grade is 310UB40,
For low-rise and medium-rise buildings with Grade 300
sprinkler protection and where the effect of fire • secondary beams are unprotected against
spread to the neighbour doesn’t need fire
consideration, unprotected steel members can • connections to secondary beams are WP30
be an option using an Acceptable Solution to from [10]
C/AS1 [6]. • beam span is 8.3 metres
However, for buildings over 25m in height or • dead load, G = 2.4 kPa
where the Structural Fire Endurance (S) rating • live load, Q = 2.5 kPa
from [6] is required, the Acceptable Solution
The clear height from the floor below to the
requirements for steel beams and columns will
underside of the floor slab above is 2.66 m.
generally preclude the use of unprotected steel
members.
2.2 Design fire characteristics Fig. 65.3 also shows the ISO fire and associated
steel beam bottom flange temperature. This is
The design fire is shown in Fig. 65.3. It required for a comparison of the structural fire
represents the fire from one vehicle undergoing severity between the ISO fire and the carpark fire,
full burnout, as described in [11]. given in section 2.4.
Tests on open carparks [11] show that the fire will 2.3 Check on adequacy of secondary beam
dependably be confined to the car of origin.
(1) From the design fire, the maximum
Tests on closed carparks [12] show that fire temperature reached from the analysis
spread from one car to another may occur, but at in the steel beam bottom flange is
a slow rate, such that, for any one element, the Tsteel, max = 639oC.
influence of one car on fire only needs to be
considered, with that car positioned to give the Generation of both car fire and steel
most adverse exposure to the element under temperatures has been undertaken using
consideration. That approach is taken herein. an in-house spreadsheet; the steel
For the basement height to underside of the temperature is derived from the fire
secondary beams, the design fire is shown in temperature using the heat flow method
Fig. 65.3. and equations given in section 6.7 of the
A comparison of the temperatures in Fig. 65.3 Fire Engineering Design Guide [29].
with those determined experimentally in the (2) Determination of design adequacy of this
closed carpark tests [12] show the design fire beam in a simply supported condition
temperatures and duration of temperature above
500oC to be conservative compared with those (2.1) Fire emergency loading and moment on
recorded experimentally in the BHP test series. beam
The ECCS [11] design car fire is presented G + Qu = 2.4 + 2.5 x 0.4 = 3.40 kPa
as an effective fire source 0.3 m above the
wu,* lineload = 3.4 x 0.5 (2.8 + 2.8) + 0.4
floor on which the car sits. The distance from
there to the underside of the secondary beam is = 9.92 kN/m
(2.66 – 0.3 – 0.3) = 2.06 m. That is the distance w u* L2 9.92 x 8.32
used in determining the design fire, from [11],
*
Mss = = = 85.4 kNm
8 8
shown in Fig. 65.3.
(2.2) Determination of beam limiting temperature
Also shown in Fig. 65.3 is the steel beam bottom in a simply supported condition
flange temperature. This is required for the beam
adequacy check in section 2.3. This uses DCB No. 46 equation 46.3
Carpark and ISO Fire and Steel Temperatures
900
ISO fire Design carpark fire

800 Steel beam temp for carpark fire
ISO fire for 30 mins
Steel beam temp for ISO fire
700
600
Temperature DegC
Carpark fire
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Time (min)
Fig. 65.3
Design Fire and ISO Fire And Steel Beam Bottom Flange Temperatures
φfireMpos = 1.0 x 1.5 x Msx 2.4 Comparison of structural fire severity
= 1.0 x 1.5 x 202 = 303 kNm with ISO fire
φfire = 1.0 (NZS 3404 [2] Amendment Fig. 65.3 shows the steel beam bottom flange
No. 1) temperature for both the design carpark fire and
1.5 = factor accounting for the the ISO fire.
minimum increase in moment
capacity due to composite Under the design fire, two peaks of maximum
action from that for the beam temperature are reached. The reasons for this
alone (see DCB No. 2, p.2) are described in [11]. These peaks are 639oC at
Msx,310UB40= 202 kNm (for the beam alone, 15 mins and 634oC at 36 mins.
from [13] but multiplied by 1/φ) The structural fire severity is the equivalent time
*
under the ISO fire for the critical element in the
Mss 85.4 steel member to reach the maximum temperature
rf = = = 0.28
φfireMpos 303 reached under the design fire. In this instance,
that is teq = 12 mins, which gives Tsteel, ISO, 12 min =
Tl,ss = 905 – 690 rf = 711oC 642oC.
(2.3) Check on beam adequacy in simply The recommenced FRR for structural elements
supported condition in car parking buildings, given in DCB No. 54
page 17, is 15 mins. In this example, Tsteel, ISO, 15
Tl,ss = 711oC > Tsteel,max = 639oC o
min = 706 C which is more severe than the design
⇒ beam is adequate case. However, the beam would still be adequate
when considered in a simply supported condition,
(3) Conclusion as Tlimit = 711 oC from section 2.3 (2.2).
• Beam is adequate without additional 3. Design Check on Floor Slab Subject to
resistance mobilised from the WP 30 Design Car Fire
connections; this means
3.1 Slab temperatures developed from
• Permanent deflection under the design design fire
carpark fire will be minimal.
These are shown in Fig. 65.4. They have been
Some points in regard to this check are as follows:
determined by applying the design fire shown
(i) The utilisation factor, rf, is quite low. This is in Fig. 65.3 to the 120 mm thick slab on Dimond
typical for composite secondary beams, Hi-Bond. This is conservative, as the design fire
whose size is often controlled by is that developed at the level of the secondary
serviceability considerations. For example, beams; the slab soffit, which is at the top of the
in this instance, the span of 8.3 m for the secondary beams and therefore 300 mm further
310UB40 size is controlled by deflection above the fire, will be cooler.
limitations. The Composite Floor
The analysis period covers the time to which
Preliminary Design Charts [14] Tables 2
temperatures in the body and top surface of the
and 3 illustrate this point.
slab reach their maximum. The programs used
(ii) That publication [14] also lists the design for the analysis are SAFIR [1.1] and the pre-
moment capacity for 50% and for 75% processor SAPPHIRE [1.2]. The most thermally
partial composite action. That can be used conductive concrete material model in [1] has
to determine φfire Mpos instead of the been used for these analyses, corresponding to
approach in (2.2) above, which gives a Aggregate Type A from Table 6.1 of NZS 3101
lower bound value. [15].
(iii) The fire emergency loading is determined Determination of the design fire resistance of
from NZS 4203 [7] Clause 2.4.3.4 Load composite concrete slabs cast onto profiled steel
Combination (7). sheeting is undertaken using HERA Report R4-82
[16]. This matches the design fire resistance,
(iv) If the simply supported beam check had determined under the standard fire test conditions,
failed, then the additional resistance to the structural fire severity. In order to apply it to
available from the connections, as given by this design example, the temperatures generated
DCB No. 46 pp. 14 & 15, could have been under the standard fire test for a given time must
used to determine the increased fire be determined and compared with the design fire
resistance. However, this increased induced slab temperatures.
resistance is associated with increased
permanent post-fire deformation.
Temperatures within the slab at the shown selected points, slab exposed to the design car fire
500
450
400
Node 13
Node 175
350
average top of slab
Node 13
300 Node 106
Temperature DegC
250
200
150
Node 175
100
Node 106
50
0
3
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
45
48
51
54
57
60
63
66
69
e
m
Ti
Time (min)
Fig. 65.4
Temperatures from Various Locations in Floor
Slab Subjected to the Design Car Fire
Nodes from top of the slab, above the ribs and at the corner,
for 30 minutes exposure to the ISO-fire
800
700
600
Node 13
500
Temperature DegC
Node 175
400 average top of slab
Node 13
Node 106
300
200
100
Node 175
Node 106
0
e
1
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
m
Ti
Time (min)
Fig. 65.5
Temperatures From Various Locations in Floor Slab Subjected to
30 mins of Standard Fire
3.2 Comparison with standard fire test Therefore the slab meets the insulation
temperatures requirement.
The temperatures in the slab at the same The recommended FRR for floor slabs in car
locations generated by the first 30 mins of the parks, given in DCB No. 54 page 17, is 30 mins.
standard fire (ISO fire) are shown in Fig. 65.5. In this instance, the design fire exposure is less
severe than this for stability and greater than this
The comparison of temperatures between design for insulation (but still within acceptable limits).
fire exposure and 30 minutes of standard fire
exposure show that: 4. Design Check on Concrete Filled SHS
Column Subject to Fully Developed
For locations on the fire exposed face, the design Office Fire
fire exposure is considerably less severe than the
30 minutes of standard fire exposure 4.1 Design fire used
For locations within the body of the slab and on As mentioned in section 1.1, the columns
the unexposed face of the slab, the temperatures supporting the floor system used in the design
generated by the design fire are greater, but; example and also in previous two sections
comprise 300 x 9 SHS members, filled with
The temperatures reached by the slab away from '
fc,28days = 30 MPa concrete. Such members have
the fire exposed face are less than the minimum
temperatures associated with loss of strength of an inherent fire resistance well in excess of 30
the concrete or slab reinforcement, from Fig. 6.5 mins, hence their adequacy under the design car
of NZS 3101 [15]. park fire shown in Fig. 65.3 is satisfied by
inspection.
In terms of stability (ie. load-carrying capacity) of
the simply supported slab, the basement design In order to properly demonstrate application of
fire is slightly less severe than a 30 minute the fire engineering design procedure for
standard fire exposure, as this load-carrying concrete filled SHS columns given in DCB No. 58
capacity is determined by the strength available pp. 25 - 30 and [17], a more severe design fire is
from the decking and from any reinforcement necessary. The design fire chosen is C3MN from
located near the bottom of the slab. DCB No. 59, Table 59.1. This is one of a family of
design fires developed to cover the range of
3.3 Slab adequacy under design fire structural fire severities likely to be encountered in
FHC 2 and FHC 3 multi-storey buildings with
(1) For stability normal weight concrete floors. The development
of these design fires is described in section 3 of
From section 3.3 of HERA Report R4-82 the article Performance of Steel Structures in Fully
[16], the slab will meet a 30 minute Developed Fires: Fire Engineering Research
standard fire exposure without further Results of Interest on pages 8-10 of DCB No. 59.
consideration, hence a more detailed check
for stability is not necessary. The time-temperature curve for this design fire is
shown in Fig. 65.6 (a) on page 12 herein where it
(2) For integrity is called up as the Design Fire Curve. The
enclosure and fire load characteristics are as
From section 2.5 of [16], integrity will be given in Fig. 59.8 and Table 59.1 of DCB No. 59.
satisfied by the nature of the construction, The design fire has a calculated teq = 100 mins,
principally the presence of the decking in accordance with the equation used in
which seals any crack developed in the developing the S ratings of [6] (equation 59.3 from
concrete during the fire from allowing DCB No. 59). It represents a slice of a large
passage of hot gas and flame firecell and models migrating fire conditions
through that firecell.
(3) For insulation
4.2 Structural system and loading details
The requirement, as referenced from [6], is
for a minimum temperature rise on the The column is part of a gravity load–carrying
unexposed face of 140oC average and system, with simple connections (WP30) between
180oC maximum. the supported beams and the column.
For the slab subject to the design fire, the Design fire emergency compression force is;
actual predicted temperature rise (see Fig.
65.4), is 130oC average and 150 oC N G* + Qu = 1055 kN
maximum.
4.3 Check on adequacy of column 4.3.3 Check on column adequacy
4.3.1 Calculation of Cmax The concrete filling comprises plain, normal

weight concrete with no reinforcement or steel
This uses the procedure presented in [17], as
adapted to New Zealand conditions through fibres added, hence the factor to apply to Cr' is
DCB No. 58, pages 25 - 30. 1.0 (see page 17 of [17]).
Cmax
( )
 a f ' + 20 D 2.5 
=  c 
2
= 1375 kN
φNc,fire = min (1.0 Cr' ; Cmax ) = 1375 kN
 R (KL - 1,000) 

+ Qu = 1055 kN > φNc,fire
*
NG
a = 0.060, from Table 1 of [17], PC, Column is satisfactory.
aggregate type A
f c' = 30 MPa That is the end of the design check on the column
D = 300 mm itself.
R = 100 mins (the teq value)
KL = 0.85 x 2,660 mm = 2278 mm If this column were part of an office building
and subjected to a design fire of the severity of
The value of K used corresponds to one end Fig. 65.6(a), then detailing of the column to vent
pinned, the other fixed, case 2, Fig. 4.8.3.2, steam and detailing of the connections between
NZS 3404 [2]. The column is part of a gravity beam and column are particularly important.
load-resisting system, hence is braced against These aspects and other constructability issues
sideway. Under severe fire attack, the column will are covered on pp. 28 - 30 of DCB No. 58 and the
receive considerable rotational restraint from sections of [17] referenced from there.
columns on adjacent floors. Hence, in
unsprinklered buildings, K = 0.85 is appropriate. 4.4 Comparison of temperatures within the
In sprinklered buildings, K = 0.70 would be column generated by the design fire and
more appropriate, recognising the greater by the ISO fire
extent of deformation allowed in fully developed
fire conditions because of the much lower The column cross section subjected to the design
probability of these conditions occurring. As this fire exposure and to the Standard fire exposure
design example involves an unsprinklered has been modelled by [1] to determine the
building, K = 0.85 is used. Note that this is at temperature rise within the column cross section
variance with the advice from DCB No. 46 to use for each case.
K = 1.0 for unsprinklered building columns; that is
unduly conservative for columns of braced (gravity The results for a range of locations are shown in
load–resisting) systems. Fig. 65.6 (a) and 65.6 (b). The locations shown
are:
4.3.2 Calculation of Cr'
• Node A is on the outer edge of the steel
As described on pages 25 and 26 of DCB No. 58, jacket
the elastic buckling of the concrete core using • Node B is on the inner edge of the steel
ambient temperature properties provides the jacket
second limit on design compression capacity of • Node C is 10 mm into the concrete core
the column under fire conditions. This buckling along one of the principal axes
load is given by Cr' . • Node D is one third of the depth into the
concrete core along the same axis
• Node E is at the centre of the concrete core
Cr' = 0.85φcfc' Ac λ-c2  1 + 0.25λ-c4 - 0.5 λ-c2 
 
These analyses are not necessary in order to
= 1399 kN undertake the design check on the column (for
φc = 0.71 from DCB No. 58, page 27 that only a specified FRR, eg. from [6], or
Ac = 79,524 mm2 (bc = 282 mm) calculated teq , eg from [29], is required). They are
KL fc' presented to illustrate how the temperatures
λc = = 0.42 develop and vary within the column under both
rc π2 Ec
the design fire and standard fire conditions and to
Ec = 2500 fc' = 13,693 MPa show some interesting points. These are;
(all applied fire emergency design load (1) The concrete has a considerable heat sink
is considered long-term). effect on the steel jacket, conducting heat
rc = 0.29bc = 81.7 mm out of the steel and keeping its temperature
(for solid square section ; bc = 282 mm) rise lower than would be the case for a non-
concrete filled SHS. This is especially seen fire for an uninsulated steel beam subjected
in that the peak temperature reached by the to a carpark design fire).
design fire, at around 18 minutes from start
of fully developed fire conditions, is not the However, this approach is not appropriate
time of peak temperature in the steel jacket, for concrete filled steel members. In that
which would be the case without the case, the time equivalent calculated for the
concrete core being present. steel jacket, from Fig. 65.6(a), is 39
minutes. That determined from just within
Also, the rate of temperature rise of the the concrete jacket (node C) is 54 mins,
steel jacket in the first 18 minutes is slower while that for node D is 94 minutes. (These
than the rate of temperature rise of the fire; figures are shown in Fig. 65.6(b)). The
for an unprotected steel element 9 mm thick latter gives the closest agreement with the
exposed to fire and not in contact with calculated teq based on the C/AS1
concrete, these rates would be similar over approach. It also corresponds to the 350oC
most of that time. temperature contour that is associated with
the start of a reduction in concrete strength,
(2) When determining the time equivalent for a as specified by NZS 3101 [15].
natural fire through the use of an insulated
or uninsulated bare steel member, the time If one is wanting to obtain an estimate of
equivalent is the length of time in the ISO the time equivalent for a concrete filled SHS
fire that is required in order to generate the column subject to natural fire exposure on
maximum temperature reached in the all sides, then using the time-temperature
natural fire. (This concept has been used in history from a location one third into the
section 2.4 of this article, for example, to concrete core gives a reasonable answer
generate the equivalent time under the ISO for the time equivalent.
Comparisons of Temperatures at Selected Locations for ISO and Design Fires,

SHS Concrete-Filled Column (with fire C3MN.fct)
1200
1100
ISO Fire Curve
1000
Nodes A,B; ISO Fire
900
800
Temp (DegC)
700
600
500
Nodes A,B; Design Fire
400
Design Fire Curve
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (min)
Fig. 65.6 (a)

Design Fire, ISO Fire and Temperatures from
Nodes A and B Under Each Fire Curve
Comparisons of Temperatures at Selected Locations for ISO and Design Fires,
SHS Concrete-Filled Column (with fire C3MN.fct)
900
800
Node C; ISO Fire
700
600
Node C; Design Fire
Temp (DegC)
500
Node D; ISO Fire

400
Node D; Design Fire

300
200
Node E; Design and ISO Fire
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Time (min)
Fig. 65.6 (b)

Temperatures From Nodes C, D and E Under
Design Fire and ISO Fire Curves
Semi-Rigid Joints: each joint’s composition. These details are

presented in Fig. 65.7 for the FBJ and Fig. 65.8
3 Dimensional Views for the SHJ. In each case, two views are shown.
The solid model isometric view is to the left and
HERA has kindly been given a copy of the the exploded view to the right.
drawing program Vectorworks for our use. The
cost of this software is similar to that of the 2D The operation of Vectorworks and transfer of the
program AutoCAD LT, however Vectorworks drawings into Word took some getting used to,
allows 3D solid models to be generated. It also however the capability to produce views of this
contains an object library of standard structural type is impressive.
shapes, which assists the drawing process.
The HERA Structural Engineer would like to
As has been covered in a number of previous acknowledge the generosity of Megabits Trust,
DCB issues, we are developing two new semi- the suppliers of Vectorworks, in supplying us with
rigid joints for seismic-resisting systems. These the copy of Vectorworks 9.
are the Flange Bolted Joint (FBJ) and the Sliding
Hinge Joint (SHJ). Various drawings of each joint Any readers interested in finding out more details
have been presented in earlier Bulletins, for on this 3D drawing program should contact:
example Fig. 58.1 shows the components and
detailing for the FBJ and Fig. 59.27 shows the Dave Best
corresponding details for the SHJ. Megabits Trust
Phone : 0-9-524 7563
The capabilities of Vectorworks allows us to Email : dave@megabits.co.nz
present isometric and exploded views of each
joint, which greatly enhance the understanding of
Fig 65.7
Flange Bolted Joint: Isometric and Exploded View
Fig. 65.8
Sliding Hinge Joint: Isometric and Exploded View
Design of Circular Bolted Furthermore, many of these procedures are
written for unstiffened bolted flange plate
Flange Annulus Connections: connections, eg. as shown in Fig. 63.1.
Part 1 However, there is a significant range of
Structural Engineer, with input from Nandor Mago, HERA applications that require the bolted connection to
Finite Element Analyst. Drawings are by Bruno be confined to the outside of the structure, or, at
Duerrenberger, Undergraduate Student from the FH most, to extend only a small distance to the
Ravensbury – Weingarten on Study Leave at HERA.
inside. These are typically found on relatively
1. Introduction large diameter circular towers. An example is
shown in Fig. 65.9; this is taken from a
There are a number of design procedures (hypothetical) 2 metre outside diameter tower. In
available for the design of circular bolted flange this case, the plate extends only a short distance
plate connections; see pp. 3 - 4 of DCB No. 60 for into the inside space of the column, so that the
an example. These procedures are all written for column wall to plate weld can be easily made.
connections using a flange plate which is Connections of this type allow full access up the
effectively continuous over the end of the inside of the column.
member, eg. as shown in Fig. 63.1, DCB No. 63.
Effectively continuous means that the flange plate Where these columns are subject to design
runs past the end of the column into the inner bending moment or axial tension, then the
region to a sufficient extent so that negative connection must transfer tension action across the
moment yieldlines in the flange plate can be joint. Because the flanges are annuli and are
developed, rather than flexural yielding occurring typically much thicker than the column wall, the
in the typically much thinner column wall. This pattern of flange yielding will be different to that
doesn’t preclude any openings in the flange plate, developed in a flange plate connection.
but the extent of these must be limited, such that
they will not change the behaviour of the flange The design procedure presented herein is
plate from that on which the design procedure is specifically developed for bolted flange annulus
based. connections, both steel to steel (Fig. 65.9) and
steel baseplate to concrete (Fig. 65.10). It covers
unstiffened annuli and stiffened annuli.
Section
Section
Plan
Plan
Fig. 65.9
Fig. 65.10
Stiffened Circular Bolted Flange
Annulus Connection Between Two Steel Sections
Annulus Baseplate Connection to Concrete Base
The design procedure and associated information The design actions on the joint are designed to be
is being presented in two parts. resisted on the following basis:
Part 1 - this article - covers the scope of (i) The design moment, M *, generates a
application of the design procedure and presents varying wall axial force around the
the procedure itself, along with a brief connection. In accordance with Blodgett
commentary. Part 1 will also introduce the finite [22], 82% of the moment is resisted by the
element (FE) modelling that has been undertaken two quadrants in the plane of the moment.
as part of a limited verification of the design For the design moment about the vertical
procedure. axis, the compression and tension
quadrants resisting that moment are shown
Part 2 - which will be in DCB No. 66 – will in Fig. 65.11. Quadrant AB carries 82% of
present design examples illustrating different the moment-induced compression,
applications of the method and details of the FE quadrant DC 82% of the moment-induced
study undertaken. tension.
Both articles are presented in numbered sections

for ease of cross-referencing and identification of
specific provisions. N*cw M* N* tw
2. Scope and Range of Design Procedure

Application
2.1 General
The design procedure is an ultimate limit state A D

procedure. It applies to steel to steel or steel to
concrete bolted flange annulus connections
M*
subject to design moment, M *, shear V * , and
Compression Tension
axial force, N *. Quadrant Quadrant
Due to Due to
Moment Moment
The procedure is suitable for members and
connections using the following materials:
• The column steel is grade 250, 300 or 350 B C
• The flange annulus is grade 250, 300 or

350
• Any stiffeners to the flange annulus are
Compression side Tension side of
grade 250, 300 or 350. of connection connection
• For the steel to steel connections, the bolts
are property class 8.8 HSFG to [18]
Fig. 65.11
• For the steel to concrete connections, the
bolts should be stronger than property class
4.6 – a minimum of grade 500 reinforcing (ii) The design shear, V * , is resisted
bar to AS/NZS 4671 [19] is recommended. principally by the side quadrants. In
AISI 4140 bar to [20] has equivalent *
accordance with [21], 82% of V is resisted
properties to the grade 8.8 HSFG bolts and,
when used in the “as supplied” condition by these quadrants, shown as quadrants
and with an ISO cut thread to AS 1275 [21], AD and BC in Fig. 65.11
can be galvanized. (iii) The design axial force, N * , is resisted
uniformly around the connection. Tension
The weld between column wall and flange is positive
annulus is a complete penetration butt weld or a (iv) Compression in the column wall is
double sided fillet weld sized to develop the transferred by direct bearing, across the
design tension capacity of the column wall. The connection from one surface to the other
welds between the stiffeners and their support (v) In steel to steel connections, shear is
surfaces (column wall, flange annulus) can be considered to be transferred by the ultimate
double sided fillet welds or butt welds as required shear capacity of the bolts; in practice it will
by the procedure (see section 3.6 herein). All be transferred by shear friction between the
welds are category SP to [2] contact surfaces, which are clamped by the
fully tensioned (/TB mode) bolts
(vi) In steel to concrete connections, shear is painted in accordance with DCB No. 47,
transferred by shear friction between steel pp. 1 - 3, for long-term durability.
and concrete, unless the design shear force
is very high 3. Design Method for Transferring
(vii) Tension is transferred by flexural and bolt Tension Actions Across the Steel to
tension action through the flanges and Steel Connections
bolts. The tension quadrant is critical for
this and will dictate the flange annulus 3.1 General
thickness, bolt size and spacing and
stiffener details. The first requirement is to determine the design
tension action. This is determined on a per metre
The above method of resisting the design actions width basis, in section 3.2.
imposes some limitations on the joint size, in
terms of the bolt, flange and, where required, Then the stiffened or unstiffened flange tension
stiffener spacing within the tension quadrant. capacity is calculated and its adequacy
These limitations are as follows: determined. This is undertaken in section 3.3 for
a stiffened flange annulus and in sections 3.4 or
(1) In unstiffened flange annulus connections, 3.5 for an unstiffened flange annulus. Typically,
the bolt pitch must be such that there are at section 3.4 will govern for the unstiffened flange
least three bolts contained completely case. When stiffeners are required, the design of
within the tension quadrant. The bolt size these is covered by section 3.6.
and spacing so determined is then carried
around at least the tension side of the
connection. The bolts should be at
approximately equal spacing (bolt pitch, p).
(2) In stiffened flange annulus connections, the

pattern of stiffeners and bolts must be
repeated at least two full times within the
tension quadrant. (Fig. 65.11 shows four
repeats). This pattern is then carried
around at least the tension side of the
connection.
2.2 Steel to steel connections
Additional considerations for steel to steel

connections are as follows:
• Bolt dimensions m1 and n (see Fig. 65.12)

should comply with the relevant MEP
connection dimensions from R4-100 [10]
• Bolts must be fully tensioned to NZS 3404

Clause 15.2.5. The preferred method is the
part-turn method (Clause 15.2.5.2),
especially in external environments.
2.3 Steel to concrete connections
Additional considerations for steel to concrete

connections are as follows:
• Bolts used will be typically formed from AISI

4140 bar to [20]. Refer to items (2) – (4),
page 15, DCB No. 56 for guidance on bolt
and grout/concrete selection and to the
section headed Tightening of bolts once
grout/concrete has cured, pp. 19 - 20 of Fig. 65.12
DCB No. 56, for guidance on this aspect. Layout and Dimensions for Transfer of Tension
Actions Across Connection
• In external environments, the sides and Note: This is a region of the tension quadrant shown in Fig.
bottom of the flange annulus should be 65.11
Stiffener
m2
0.5p
0.5p
m1 n m1 n
Ls
B
F
D
= negative moment yieldline
C
= positive moment yieldline

D
B
A
= negative moment yieldline = tributary length of column wall
C
Stiffener contributing design tension
A
= tributary length of column wall

contributing design tension
Fig. 65.13 Fig. 65.14

Flange Yielding Between The Flange Yielding at an Intermediate
Stiffeners in a Stiffened Flange Connection Bolt in an Unstiffened Flange Connection
0.5p
m1 n
E
= negative moment yieldline

F
C

D
B
= tributary length of column wall

A
contributing design tension
Fig. 65.15
Flange Yielding Around an Individual
Bolt in an Unstiffened Flange Connection
Fig. 65.16
Values of α For Stiffened Flanges (from [23])
Note: The dimension shown as e in this figure is termed n in section 3.3.1 and in Figs. 65.12, 65.13.
N* tw
tw
Mpr,w
Mp,f
N* p
N* p+N* tw
Fig. 65.18
65.17 Mode 2: Bolt Elongation With Flange Yielding
Mode 1: Complete Flange Yielding
3.2 Design Tension Action N* = design axial force on connection;

tension is positive, compression is
The design tension action over the tension negative (kN)
quadrant, arising from the design moment acting
on the column wall, is given by equation 65.1. The design tension action on the tributary width of
*
connection, N tw , is given by equation 65.3.
1.108 M *
*
=
N tmw/m
(do - t w )2
(65.1) *
N tw = (N *
tmw/m + N aw/m
*
)
Ltrib (65.3)
where: where:
*
N tmw/m = moment-induced design Ltrib = the tributary length of column wall
contributing the design tension to the
tension/metre width on the tension
segment under design.
quadrant (kN/m)
M* = design moment (kNm)
For a stiffened connection, Ltrib = spacing between
do = outside diameter of column (m)
stiffeners. This is shown in Fig. 65.13 as Ls.
tw = wall thickness of column (m)
The design action/m width arising from the design For an unstiffened connection, the tributary length
axial load is given by equation 65.2. is that applicable to an individual bolt. In this
case, Ltrib = the average distance from the centre
of the bolt under consideration to the centres of
N* the adjacent bolts (see Figs. 65.14 and 65.15).
*
N aw/m = (65.2)
π (d o - t w )
3.3 Stiffened flange adequacy
where:
* 3.3.1 Effective width determination
Naw/m = design axial force/m width (kN/m)
Leff = max of Leff,1 and Leff,2 (65.4)
Leff,1 = 4m1 + 1.25n + p (65.4.1)
Leff,2 = 0.5αm1 + 2m1 + 0.625n + p (65.4.2)  m1 + n 
 
 m1 
where: Cf = (65.11)
 m2 0.5p  m + n
 +  +  1 
m1 = distance from bolt centre to face of  m1 m1   m1 
column wall (for butt weld) or distance Cw = 1 – Cf (65.12)
from bolt centre to 20% of distance into
column to annulus weld leg length (for In equations 65.5 to 65.12;
fillet weld)
n = distance from bolt centre to outside Mp,f = nominal plastic moment capacity of
edge equivalent width of flange (kNm)
m2 = distance from bolt centre to 20% of tf = flange thickness
distance into stiffener weld leg length fy,f = flange yield stress
(for fillet weld) Leff = as given by equations 65.4
p = distance between bolts Mp,w = nominal plastic moment capacity of
α = as determined from Fig. 65.16 equivalent width of column wall
(kNm)
Refer to Fig. 65.12 for guidance on these tw = column wall thickness
dimensions. fy,w = column wall yield stress
Mpr,w = nominal plastic moment capacity of
Note that Fig. 65.12 shows only two bolts equivalent width of column wall
between the stiffeners. If there are more than reduced by axial force on tributary
two, p becomes the distance between the two length of column wall (kNm)
bolts that are adjacent to the stiffeners. *
N tw = design axial force on tributary length
of column wall from equation 65.3
3.3.2 Design capacity of the tributary (kN)
region of flange
φNs = design section compression capacity
of tributary length of column wall (kN)
As noted in section 3.2 equation 65.3, for a
Cf = factor for contribution of flange
stiffened flange, the tributary region of flange is
yielding to negative yieldline
the region between adjacent stiffeners. This is
development
denoted by Ls in Fig. 65.13.
Cw = factor for contribution of column wall
yielding to negative yieldline
There are two potential modes of failure of this
development
region, as shown in Figs. 65.17 and 65.18. The
n, m1, m2 = dimensions as defined in Fig. 65.12
design tension capacity is given by the minimum
and equations 65.4
of these two modes.
ΣφNtf = design tension capacity of bolts
within the tributary region (two
Mode 1: complete flange yielding
bolts for the case shown in Fig.
65.12) (kN)
 Mp, f + C f Mp, f + C w Mpr,w  φ Ntf
φN tw,1 = 0.9  
 (65.5) = design tension capacity of one bolt
 m1 + tw /2  (kN)
3.3.3 Check on flange adequacy

Mode 2: bolt elongation with flange yielding
φNtw = min (φNtw, 1 ; φNtw, 2) (65.13)
0.9 Cf Mp,f + 0.9 Cw Mpr, w + nΣφNtf
φN tw,2 =
m1 + tw /2 + n If φNtw ≥ N tw
*
, flange is adequate
(65.6)
If φNtw < N tw
*
, flange tension capacity must be
For these equations: increased.
Mp,f = 0.25 Leff tf2 fy,f (65.7)
Mp,w = 0.25 Leff tw2 fy,w (65.8) In practice, an underestimation of up to 5% will be
  * 2  acceptable, based on the FEA studies
Mpr,w = 1.19 Mp,w  1 -  N tw   ≤ Mp,w (65.9) undertaken.
  φN  
 
s 
 3.4 Unstiffened flange adequacy, yielding
φNs = 0.9 tw fy,w Ltrib (65.10) over multiple bolts in bolt group
This is the situation shown in Fig. 65.14. It will

govern in almost all cases, compared with the
individual bolt/flange yielding mode given in
section 3.5. Even though it applies to multiple If φNtw < N tw
*
, flange tension capacity must be
bolts in a group, the calculation is undertaken for
increased.
one typical bolt in that group.
3.4.1 Effective width determination 3.4.4 Alternative bolt/flange yield mode
Leff = 0.5 (pleft + pright) (65.14) If the bolt pitch is very large, then individual
yieldline patterns may form around each bolt, with
where: unyielded regions of flange between each bolt.
pleft = pitch between bolt under consideration This is unlikely to govern (ie. to yield a lower
and bolt to the left capacity than the pattern considered above),
pright = pitch between bolt under consideration however should be checked in accordance with
and bolt to the right. section 3.5.
3.4.2 Design capacity of the typical bolt 3.5 Unstiffened flange adequacy, individual
bolt/flange yielding
As noted in section 3.2 equation 65.3, for an
unstiffened connection, the tributary length, Ltrib, is This is the situation shown in Fig. 65.15.
the average distance from the centre of the bolt
under consideration to the centres of the adjacent 3.5.1 Effective width determination
bolts – ie. Ltrib = Leff from equation 65.14.
Leff = 4m1 + 1.25n (65.17)
Once again, there are two potential modes of
failure. These are given by the following: 3.5.2 Design capacity of the individual
bolt/flange region
 Mp, f + C f Mp, f + C w Mpr,w 
φN tw,1 = 0.9  
 (65.5) This is given by the following;
 m1 + tw /2 
φN tw,1 = 0.9  
 (65.5)
0.9 Cf Mp,f + 0.9 Cw Mpr, w + nΣφNtf m1 + tw /2
φN tw,2 =  
m1 + tw /2 + n
(65.6) 0.9 Cf Mp,f + 0.9 Cw Mpr, w + nΣφNtf
φN tw,2 =
m1 + tw /2 + n
For these equations:
(65.6)
Mp,f is given by equation 65.7 but using Leff from
equation 65.14. For these equations:
Mpr,w is given by equations 65.8 to 65.10 but Mp,f is given by equation 65.7 but using Leff from
using; equation 65.17.
• Leff from equation 65.14 Mpr,w is given by equations 65.8 to 65.10 but
using;
• *
N tw is calculated from equation 65.3 using
Ltrib = Leff • Leff from equation 65.17
• φNs is calculated from equation 65.10 using
• *
N tw is calculated from equation 65.13 using
Ltrib = Leff
Ltrib = 0.5 (pleft + pright)
Cf = 0 (65.15) • φNs is calculated from equation 65.10 using
Cw = 1.0 (65.16) the same Ltrib
In equations 65.14 to 65.16; m + n

2  1 
 m1 
ΣφNtf = φNtf = design tension capacity for the Cf = (65.18)
  
one bolt under consideration.  2 + 2 m1 + n  
  m 
  1 
3.4.3 Check on flange adequacy
Cw = 1 – Cf (65.19)
φNtw = min (φ Ntw,1 ; φNtw,2) (65.13)
ΣφNtf = φNtf = design tension capacity for the
If φNtw ≥ N tw
*
, flange is adequate one bolt under consideration.
3.5.3 Check on flange adequacy The welds between the column wall and stiffener
*
should be sized to develop Nstffener over the
φNtw = min (φNtw,1 ; φNtw,2) (65.13) height of the stiffener, hs.
If φNtw ≥ N tw
*
, flange is adequate 4. Design Method for Transfer of Shear
and Compression Actions Across the
If φNtw < N tw
*
, flange tension capacity must be Steel to Steel Connection
increased.
4.1 Design for shear transfer
3.6 Design of stiffeners and their
connections in stiffened flange 82% of the design shear transfer takes place
connections through the two side quadrants, ie. AD and BC in
Fig. 65.11.
The stiffener must be able to transfer the following
load from the flange into the wall of the column: The number of bolts in each side quadrant
required is therefore given by:
 L  
*
N stffener = max   φN tw,s - φN tw,us trib,s  ; 0.5φNtw,s 
 Ltrib,us   0.41V *
  nb,s,quad ≥ (65.22)
φVfn
(65.20)
where:
φNtw,s = stiffened flanged tension capacity from where:
section 3.3.3 nb,s,quad = number of bolts required in one of the
side quadrants to resist the design
shear V*
φNtw,us = unstiffened flange tension capacity from
section 3.4.3 (typically) or section 3.5.3 φVfn = design shear capacity of bolt, threads
included in shear plane.
Ltrib,s = tributary length for stiffened flange, from
section 3.3.2 (=Ls) In practice, if the bolt size and number required to
transfer the tension actions is continued around
Ltrib,us = tributary length for unstiffened flange, the connection, then equation 65.22 will typically
from section 3.4.2 or section 3.5.2 readily be satisfied.
The stiffener area in contact with the flange 4.2 Design for compression transfer
and the welds between flange and stiffener
must be sized so that their design tension The compression force is most critical in the
compression quadrant (see Fig. 65.11), where it is
capacity ≥ Nstffener
*
. The stiffener should extend given by;
to within 10 mm of the edge of the flange,
stopping short far enough to run a weld around • Equation 65.1 for moment-induced
the face of the stiffener. *
compression magnitude (termed Ncmw/m ).
The stiffener area in contact with the column • Equation 65.2 for axial force induced
*
wall must be sized so that its design shear compression magnitude (termed Naw/m ).
capacity, incorporating a non-uniformity factor of
0.83, ≥ Nstffener
*
. This is given by: *
Ncw/m *
= - Ncmw/m *
+ Naw/m (65.23)
0.45 hstsfys ≥ Nstffener

*
(65.21) where:
*
Ncmw/m is negative, denoting moment-induced
where: compression
hs = height of stiffener up wall of column
ts = stiffener thickness *
Naw/m is negative if compression, positive if
fys = stiffener nominal yield stress
tension
The stiffener ends should be cut so that they run
perpendicular into the flange and into the column The compression is transferred by bearing across
wall for a depth ≥ tw (weld leg length) or 10 mm, the joint, in accordance with NZS 3404 Clauses
whichever is the least. This is shown in Fig. 65.9, 5.14.1 and 14.3.2.
section, and facilitates welding around the
stiffener end. Where the bolt and stiffener spacing required for
the tension quadrant is continued around the
column, design for compression transfer is easily 5.2.2 Determination of Np* and abase
achieved without further consideration required.
5. Modifications Required for Steel to φfcb = φc0.85 f c'

A2
(MPa) (65.24)
Concrete Connection A1
where:
5.1 General φc = 0.65
'
This is the case shown in Fig. 65.10. The basic fc = specified 28 day concrete compression
detail used is similar to that for the steel to steel stress (designer’s choice but ≥ 25 MPa
connection, except that the flange annulus recommended) (MPa)
typically extends slightly further in both directions.
A2
Fig. 65.19 shows a section through the baseplate = enhancement factor due to confinement,
detail with the notation involved. The deformed A1
shape shown in Fig. 65.19 corresponds to a mode from NZS 3101 [15] Clause 8.3.5.2
2 type failure in the steel to steel connection, as
shown in Fig. 65.18. However, mode 1 could also The effective uniform compression width on the
govern and both need consideration. concrete, abase, is given by;
The modifications required to the design for Np*

tension adequacy steel to steel, given in section 3, abase = (65.25)
Ltrib φ fcb
to account for steel to concrete, are described in
section 5.2. Those required for shear are
where:
described in section 5.3; those for compression in
section 5.4. Np* = prying force component (N)
Ltrib = tributary length for the flange annular
5.2 Design for tension transfer adequacy, base connection detail (as previously
steel to concrete calculated but taken at the outer edge of
the annulus, if desired.) (mm)
5.2.1 General details *
Np must be found as part of the overall design
The modifications required to use sections 3.3, procedure, which is as follows:
3.4 or 3.5, whichever is appropriate, for steel
flange in contact with concrete or grout are simple 5.2.3 Steps involved in procedure
and illustrated in Fig. 65.19. They involve
*
calculating the width of concrete required to resist Step 1: Using Np* = 0.75 N tw , calculate abase
the applied load and prying effects, then taking from equation 65.25
the effective edge of the flange annulus as
extending (n – a/2) out from the centreline of the Step 2: Go into the equation 65.6 for mode 2,
bolt. from the appropriate section (3.3.2,
N* tw 3.4.2 or 3.5.2) substituting (n – 0.5a) for
n, and calculate φNtw2
Step 3: Recalculate Np* = ΣφNtf - φNtw,2 (65.26)
n m+tw/2 Step 4: Recalculate abase and hence φNtw,2
Repeat as required until φNtw,i+1 ≈ Ntw,i
Mpr,w This should take only 1 or 2 iterations

fcb
Step 5: Determine φNtw,1 for mode 1 from

equation 65.5 in the appropriate section
a – ie. 3.3.2, 3.4.2 or 3.5.2
Step 6: Check adequacy of flange from:

N* p φNtw = min (φNtw,1 ; φNtw,2)
N* p+N* tw
If φNtw ≥ N tw
*
, flange is adequate
Fig. 65.19
Modification to Failure Modes to Allow for Steel to
Concrete Baseplate Connection If φNtw < N tw
*
, flange tension capacity
Note: a = abase must be increased.
5.2.4 Practical limit on procedure the same as that under the compression flange of
a moment-resisting column baseplate connection,
abase ≤ (n – tf) is recommended (65.27) as described on pages 16, 17 of DCB No. 56 and
the same expression for concrete bearing width is
5.3 Design for shear transfer capacity, steel used herein.
to concrete
X is calculated for a metre width of wall in the
This can be undertaken in accordance with step 4, compression quadrant as:
section 6.9 of [23]; page 97 therein.
*
N cw/m
82% of shear is, in theory, resisted by the two side X = (mm) (65.30)
quadrants, using a design friction coefficient of 0.3 φfcb
'
x the design compression load on the side

quadrants. However, that design compression where:
load will be low compared with the compression *
Ncw/m = magnitude (taken as positive) of design
load developed in the compression quadrant. compression force/m width in the wall of
Therefore, the design shear will be transferred the column over the compression
from column to annulus, transferred around to the quadrant, calculated using equation
compression quadrant and resisted by friction 65.23 (kN/m)
contact with the concrete in the compression
quadrant. φfcb = design concrete bearing stress from
equation 65.24 (MPa)
If the following two equations are satisfied, then
this mechanism can be taken as sufficient to resist N* cw
the design shear, V*
0.54wftffyf ≥ 0.46V* (65.28)
and
*
0.3 N cw/mLcomp > V * (65.29)
Outside Inside
where:
wf = width across flange annulus at base
Lcomp = 0.39 (do – tw)
= length of compression quadrant
*
Ncw/m = magnitude (taken as positive) of design
45°
45°
tf
compression force/m from equation A B
65.23.
If these are not satisfied, then resist some design

f cb
shear through bolt bearing in the side quadrants,

using page 97 of [23]. Refer to Appendix A56,
DCB No. 56, for differences in notation etc. N cb
between New Zealand design practice and that of = =
SCI Publication 207/95 [23]. X
bs
5.4 Design for compression transfer
capacity, steel to concrete Fig. 65.20
Compression Stress Block in Concrete,
5.4.1 Symmetrical transfer of compression in Compression Quadrant, Centered Under
into concrete Column Wall
The design compression force down the wall of Calculate the stiff bearing length, bs, shown in
the column in the compression quadrant is Fig. 65.20
transferred by bearing directly into the concrete,
as illustrated in Fig. 65.20. bs = 2tf + tw (65.31)
The design check involves determining the width If X ≤ bs, then the design is complete
of concrete in bearing required (ie. the width X in
Fig. 65.20), then checking the adequacy of the
flange plate under these loads. The approach is
If X > bs, then the adequacy of the flange plate to design procedure can be used for splices in
resist cantilever bending beyond the face of the concrete filled SHS columns in seismic-resisting
column wall governs. The check involves: systems. The design actions on these splices are
given by NZS 3404 Clause 12.9.2.2 and the
4mc splices are required to be located remote from
tf,c,min = (65.32) potential yielding regions. This will typically place
φfy,f them within the visible length of column, so the
appearance of the joint – ie. with the external
X t 
2 bolted flanges as shown in Fig. 65.9 – may
mc = 0.5φfcb  - w  (Nmm/mm) (65.33) preclude its use. When applied to concrete filled
2 2 columns, the moment-induced tension in the
column wall generated by M* should be
where: determined on the basis that the steel alone is
All variables are as previously defined carrying the moment internal actions – ie. by using
section 3.2 for tension action and section 4.2 for
The flange thickness chosen, tf ≥ tf,c,min . Use the compression action.
thickness already determined from the tension
side calculations as the starting point. The limitations on connection size given on
page 18, section 2.1, may impose a lower limit on
5.4.2 Unsymmetrical transfer of the use of this procedure. A quick indication of
compression into concrete whether or not those limitations will govern can be
obtained by calculating the estimated number of
If the annulus cannot, for whatever reason, extend bolts that can fit into the tension quadrant,
inside the line of the column wall inner surface, nb,tq,est,from equation 65.34.
then the distribution of column wall compression
force into the concrete is unsymmetrical. 0.39 (d o - t w )
nb,tq,est = (65.34)
Sg
In that case, X is still calculated from equation
65.30. However, its position is different to that
shown in Fig. 65.20, starting at the inner edge of where:
the flange annulus and extending under the Sg = bolt gauge for given bolt size from
column wall as far as is required. R4-100 [10]
If the outer edge of this stress block does not This represents, for example, two bolts grouped
extend beyond the outer edge of the stiff bearing around a stiffener in a stiffened flange connection.
length (ie. point A shown in Fig. 65.20), then no
consideration of plate bending is required. If nb,tq,est ≤ 2.7, either the column is likely to be too
small to use this procedure on, or the bolt spacing
If the outer edge does extend beyond that point, needs to be reduced below that recommended by
then plate bending and eccentric transfer of the [10].
compression force must be considered using
equations 65.32 and 65.33, modified as required For example, if do = 650 mm (a reasonable
for the changed geometry. diameter for a concrete filled SHS column), then,
even with M24 bolts, nb,tq,est = 2.75 In this
6. Commentary to the Design Method instance, the bolt layout would be on a circle of
(do + 2m1) = 780 mm, where m1 = 65 mm in
6.1 Commentary on Introduction accordance with [10]. The length of tension
quadrant, measured on the bolt centreline, is
The design procedure is derived from the 304 mm. If the bolts are equally spaced, then to
provisions of SCI Publication 207/95, especially meet the requirement of section 2.1 (1) for at least
those covering transfer of tension actions. 3 bolts fully within this quadrant, the bolt pitch
must not exceed 304/3 = 101 mm. This is greater
6.2 Commentary on scope and range of than the 90 mm recommendation of [10] and
design procedure application hence would be workable in practice, whereas
going to the next larger bolt size, M30, would not
The design procedure can be used for a wide be practicable.
range of circular bolted flange annulus
connections, from connections in large diameter 6.3 Commentary on design method for
towers through to connection of concrete filled transferring tension actions
steel hollow section columns. As the FEA studies
undertaken to date (see section 7) show that the The design tension action on the tension
joint remains essentially elastic up to attainment of quadrant, arising from the design moment, is
the design ultimate limit state actions on it, the
given by equation 65.1. The background to that length per bolt for the given bolt group
equation is as follows: configuration
• As 82% of the moment is carried by the (2) The effective T-stub has a flange on one
tension/compression quadrants, the axial side only, as shown in Figs. 65.17 and
force generated = 0.82M*/dlever 65.18. This means that either complete
flange yielding or bolt elongation with flange
• dlever is the distance from the centroid of the yielding are the only two failure modes
tension quadrant to the centroid of the possible.
compression quadrant. On the tension
side, measured along the axis in (3) As shown in Figs. 65.13 – 65.15, the
the plane of the moment, this centroid yieldline patterns developed in the flange
is 0.924r from the centre of the section involve a mix of negative moment yieldlines
(r = radius of column measured to wall and positive moment yieldlines. Where a
centreline). On the compression side, negative moment yieldline develops at the
the effective centroid will be closer column wall, the yieldline will typically
to the extreme point of compression develop in the much thinner column wall.
contact and is taken as ((1 + 0.924)/2)r This is incorporated into the failure modes
from the centre. The distance shown in Figs. 65.17 and 65.18 and the
between the two centroids is therefore corresponding equations 65.5 and 65.6. An
(0.924 + 0.962)r = 1.87r. Measured along example is yieldline BE in Fig. 65.13.
the diameter to the wall centreline, this is However, where a negative moment
0.943(do – tw). yieldline develops in the flange – for
example yieldline AB in Fig. 65.13 or
• The tension force from bending moment yieldlines AB, EF in Fig. 65.15 – then this
as applied over the tension quadrant mobilises the greater moment capacity of
= (0.82M*)/0.943(do – tw) the flange. Thus the negative moment
yieldlines are developed by the flange and
• This force is applied over a length of column wall in varying proportions,
tension quadrant = 0.25π(do – tw) depending on the yieldline pattern
governing a particular situation. This is
• The moment-induced tension force per accounted for through the coefficients Cf
metre width of tension quadrant is and Cw, which have been derived from the
therefore given by: yieldline patterns shown in Figs. 63.13 -
(0.82M*) / [0.943(do – tw) 0.25π(do – tw)], 63.15.
which is equation 65.1.
(4) For the unstiffened flange, two cases are
given. Typically the first will always govern.
The design procedure given in this section is
developed from the recommendations of SCI
The FEA studies on the stiffened flange
Publication 207/95 [23] section 2.8.
connection show that the yieldline failure mode for
The SCI procedure is based on an effective this detail, shown in Fig. 65.13, is realistic. More
T-stub approach, in which: on these in section 7 below and in the Part 2
article, next DCB Issue.
(i) The effective length of an equivalent T-stub
based on the expected yieldline pattern is The design tension to be carried by the stiffener,
determined, then given by equation 65.20, is based on the
maximum of the following:
(ii) The tension capacity of this equivalent
T-stub is calculated. This capacity is • The difference between the stiffened and
governed by either complete flange unstiffened design capacity, or
yielding, combined bolt elongation and • One half of the stiffened design capacity
partial flange yielding or complete bolt
elongation. The FEA studies show that the stiffeners attract a
significant proportion of the tension force,
In applying the SCI procedure to a flange annulus commensurate with that predicted by this
connection, the following modifications must be equation. Their thickness should equal or exceed
made: the column wall thickness.
(1) The effective length is calculated based on In equation 65.21, the 0.45 = 0.9 x 0.6 x 0.83.
the provisions of [23], which is the effective The 0.9 is the strength reduction factor. The 0.6
is the factor converting tensile yield stress to
shear yield stress and the 0.83 is the non-
uniformity factor, from NZS 3404 [2] Clause side), this is given by 0.6 x the design section
5.11.3, for shear resistance across a rectangular capacity of the flange. On the right hand side (the
plate. design action side), the total shear passing point
A (or point B) into the compression quadrant is
6.4 Commentary on design method for given by (0.41V* + (1 – 0.82) x 0.5V*) = 0.46V*.
transfer of shear and compression
actions across the steel to steel If all the shear is to be transferred into the
connection concrete within the compression quadrant, then
the shear capacity = 0.3 x the compression force
These provisions are very straight-forward and (from [23]); this is equation 65.29.
don’t require specific explanation.
7. Finite Element Analysis Verification
In practice, if the bolt/flange/stiffener requirements Study
for tension transfer are carried around the full
circumference then the shear and compression 7.1 Scope and aims of study
capacity will typically also be satisfied.
A limited verification study is being undertaken in
6.5 Commentary on the modifications order to determine the following:
required for the steel to concrete (1) Is the joint behaviour under loading below,
connection at and beyond the design loading in line
with the predicted behaviour?
For bolted flange annuli subject to design tension,
if the flanges start to separate at the bolt line, the (2) The design procedure is an ultimate limit
point of compression contact shifts to the outer state procedure and is based on inelastic
edge of the flange, as shown in Fig. 65.18. This is actions developing in selected joint
well supported by experimental testing. components under the design actions. At
what proportion of the design load does
For a flange annulus supported on concrete, this plasticity start to develop?
assumption is not valid. Instead, a zone of
concrete in bearing will support the flange, as (3) What extent of plasticity is developed at the
shown in Fig. 65.19. The approach that has been design loads and where?
taken herein is to take the effective flange
extension beyond the bolt contreline as running to (4) Is the pattern of flange yieldline
the centre of this concrete bearing area. In development shown in Fig. 65.13 realistic
practice, that is probably conservative. for a stiffened flange detail?
An iterative procedure is required to establish the A detailed description of the FEA study will be
magnitude of prying associated with this, as given given in Part 2 of this article. This article briefly
in section 5.2.3. describes the example joint that has been
modelled and the key results obtained.
Having determined what the prying force, hence
the width of concrete in compression and hence The FEA program ABAQUS/Standard [24] has
the design tension capacity would be for the mode been used for these analyses.
2 form of failure, the possibility of complete flange
failure (mode 1) giving a lower design tension The FEA modelling has been undertaken by
capacity must be considered. This is calculated in Nandor Mago, HERA Finite Element Analyst.
step 3 and the minimum value from the two
modes checked in step 6. 7.2 Brief Description of Joint Being
Modelled
The design for transfer of shear and Fig. 65.21 shows the joint being modelled in the
compression in the steel to concrete study.
connection, presented in sections 5.3 and 5.4
respectively, carry explanatory notes in those The joint is a stiffened flange annulus, of the type
sections and hence don’t require additional shown in Fig. 65.9. It was modelled as occurring
commentary, except for equation 65.28. 1 m above ground on a 5 m high cantilever tower,
subject to design bending moment and shear
Equation 65.28 is derived on the basis that the force generated by an applied point load at the
shear force being transmitted from each shear top.
quadrant into the compression quadrant (ie. past
the points A and B in Fig. 65.11) must not The advantage of symmetry has been used to
generate a sufficiently large axial force to reduce model half the joint, with an axis of symmetry
the bending capacity of the flange. On the left through the centre. The load is applied at the top,
hand side of the equation (the design capacity in the plane of symmetry.
Fig. 65.21
Stiffened Circular Bolted Flange Annulus
Connection Modelled in FEA Verification Study
The joint modelled is that being used in a design (ii) S* (design actions)
example which will be presented in Part 2 of this (iii) 1.25S*
article, DCB No. 66. Key details of the connection (iv) 1.5S*
and design actions are as follows:
Results of the analyses will be presented in Part 2
• Column details are: of this article. At the time of writing this,
do = 2000 mm preliminary results for all levels of applied load are
tw = 16 mm available.
Grade 250 steel
7.3 Key results from modelling
• Flange annulus details are:
wf = 150 mm These are as follows:
m1 = 65 mm
m2 = 65 mm (1) There is negligible plasticity developed in
n = 55 mm the joint components under 0.75S*
tf = 25 mm (maximum local strain 0.3%)
Grade 250 steel (2) Very minor and localised plasticity is
developed in the stiffeners and flange
• Bolt details are: closest to the point of maximum tension
32 number M30 8.8/TB (the tensioning has under S*
been modelled) (3) The bolt tensions in the tension quadrant do
not increase appreciably following pre-
• Stiffener details are: tensioning and up to application of the
shape, spacing as shown in Fig. 65.9 design actions on the joint
grade 250 steel (4) The bolt tensions in the compression
quadrant do not increase following pre-
Design actions at the connection, S*, are tensioning
(5) Review of the magnified deformed shape of
M* = 3681 kNm the flange in the tension quadrant under S*
V* = 740 kN shows a deformed shape consistent with
The joint performance has been determined for the yieldline pattern postulated in Fig. 65.13
the following levels of loading. (6) The inelastic demands on the joint
components under 1.5S* are within the
(i) 0.75S* (corresponding approximately to dependable capacity of all joint
the maximum serviceability load) components.
New Cold-Formed Stainless properties are to be used – see also Clause 3.1
for more guidance on this
Steel Structures* Standard is
Available Section 3: Members
(Structures* means any fabricated object made
from stainless steel, from tanks to piping to This is the key section for member design,
cladding systems to structural supporting covering section capacity determination for
systems). members subject to axial forces, bending moment
and combined actions.
Scope and Format of Standard.
There is a special section for tubular members,
Despite the fact that New Zealand is one of the recognising that many applications involve the use
largest users of stainless steel in the world ( in of these members and that the design of these is
terms of tonnage used for the size of the different to, and typically more straight-forward
economy), up to now we have not had a New than the design of open sections.
Zealand Standard for the design of stainless steel
structures. Section 4: Structural assemblies.
That situation has now been rectified with This section gives requirements for design of
the publication of the state-of-the-art standard compound members and details for providing
Cold-Formed Stainless Steel Structures, AS/NZS lateral restraint to a range of members. The latter
4673:2001 [25]. provisions are cross-referenced back to the
relevant member capacity determination
The design requirements for stainless steel in provisions of section 3.
structures bears more similarity to the design
requirements for thin gauge structural steel than it Section 5: Connections.
does to those for application of “heavy” structural
steel. This is because many stainless steel This covers determination of the capacity of
members are custom formed from thin gauge welded and bolted connections, using the
plate, rather than comprising hot-rolled or welded specified grades of stainless steel weld metal and
sections with relatively stocky elements. bolts.
Furthermore, many grades of stainless steel
contain significant extents of cold working, which It provides considerable detail on the grades of
must be accounted for in determining the material stainless steel bolts to be used.
properties and design capacities.
Section 6: Testing.
For these reasons, the format of AS/NZS 4673 is
very similar to that of AS/NZS 4600 Cold-Formed
As with cold-formed steel elements, in quite a few
Steel Structures [26].
instances, the determination of design capacity is
outside the scope of established calculation
This article very briefly outlines the content of the
provisions and requires the use of experimental
new Stainless Steel Structures Standard and goes
testing. This section provides the testing
on to mention sources of design guidance.
framework requirements in terms of procedures,
loads and reporting provisions.
Content of AS/NZS 4673
Appendices.
This is as follows:
Appendix A contains the list of related documents
Section 1: Scope and General.
Appendix B contains mechanical properties. This
Section 1 presents the scope of the Standard - in is essential first up reading for those not familiar
clause 1-1 - , and notation and definitions. It also with stainless steel design, as the properties
outlines the design requirements, especially the exhibit some significant differences to those of
interface with NZS 4203 [7]. carbon steel, especially in regard to the lack of a
clearly defined yield point.
Section 2: Elements
Appendix C is arguably the most useful starting
This section contains the effective section point into the standard for the unfamiliar. It gives a
provisions which account for the effect of local detailed description of stainless steel properties,
buckling and shear lag. It also details when full covering effect of alloying elements, surface
section properties and when effective section finish, mechanical behaviour, physical properties,
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 31 No. 65 December 2001
selection for durability, details of available grades,
selection of these grades for given applications
References
and references for more information. 1.1 Franssen, JM et.al.; SAFIR: A Computer
Program for Analysis of Structures
Appendix D does for fasteners what Appendix C Submitted to the Fire; University of Liege,
does for steel plate and sections. Belgium, 1998/2001.
Appendix E provides guidance on the applicability 1.2 Mason, J; SAPPHIRE: A Pre-Processor for
of elastic structural analysis to continuous beams SAFIR; Sinclair Knight Merz, Wellington,
and frames constructed from stainless steel. 2000.
Appendix F provides some guidance on design 2. NZS 3404: 1997, plus Amendment No. 1:
and detailing for high-cycle fatigue. The provisions 2001, Steel Structures Standard; Standards
are written for use in conjunction with NZS 3404 New Zealand, Wellington.
Section 10.
3. Mullet DL and Lawson RM; Design of
Slimflor Fabricated Beams Using Deep
Appendix G contains a small amount of guidance
Composite Decking; The Steel
on design for fire.
Construction Institute, Ascot, England,
1998, SCI Publication P248.
Appendix H provides requirements for section
property determination 4. Hyland C. et.al: Composite Down-Stand
Steel Beam Behaviour with a Profiled
Appendix I provides effective width requirements Deep-Deck Slab; Australian Structural
for compression elements with stress gradients. Engineering Conference, Gold Coast,
Australia, 2001; The Institute of Engineers,
Appendix J provides a very good set of provisions Australia, Canberra, Australia, 2001.
for design of hollow section lattice girder
connections subject to static loading. 5. NZBC:1992, New Zealand Building Code;
Sources of Design Guidance.
6. C/AS1: 2001, Acceptable Solution for Fire
As has been previously mentioned, the new Safety; Building Industry Authority,
Standard has many similarities to AS/NZS 4600 Wellington.
[26]. DCB No 55, pp.2-15, contains a very detailed
design example on design of a cold-formed, thin- 7. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
walled single angle chord truss member subject to and Design Loadings for Buildings;
combined compression and in-plane moment. Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
That design example will be of assistance to those
struggling with the concepts of member and 8. Clifton, GC and Robinson, J; Notes
section buckling in all its various modes. See Prepared for a Seminar on The Behaviour
especially the section entitled Important general and Design of Multi-Storey Steel Framed
considerations on page 15 of that issue, which will Buildings for Severe Fires, Revised June
also have relevance in design of thin-walled 2001; HERA Manukau City, 2001, HERA
stainless steel sections to AS/NZS 4673 [25]. Report R4-105.
There is a good range of design examples in the 9. Hi-Bond Design Manual; Dimond Structural,
Euro-Innox Design Manual [27], which may be of Auckland, 1997.
assistance, as the design provisions of [25] are
also similar in format and content to those in [27]. 10. Hyland C; Structural Steelwork Connection
Guide Incorporating Amendment No 1;
Finally, HERA will be running a seminar series on HERA, Manukau City, 1999/2001, HERA
the new standard in February 2002. The seminar Report R4-100.
notes to be published [28] will be another valuable
source of design guidance. They will cover 11. Fire Safety in Open Car Parks: Modern
aspects of durability, availability and Fire Engineering; ECCS, Brussels, 1993,
constructability in addition to the design provisions ECCS Technical Note No. 75.
of the new Standard [25].
12. Bennetts, ID et.al; Fire and Unprotected
Steel in Closed Carparks; BHP Melbourne
Research Laboratories, Melbourne,
Australia, 1998, Report No.
MRL/PS98/87/001.
13. Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel, 26. AS/NZS 4600:1996, Cold-Formed Steel
Third Edition, Volume 1 : Open Sections; Structures; Standards New Zealand,
Australian Institute of Steel Construction, Wellington.
27. Design Manual for Structural Stainless
14. Composite Floor Preliminary Design Steel; European Stainless Steel
Charts; Steltech Structural Ltd, Auckland, Development and Information Group, Nickel
1999. Development Institute, England, 1994.
15. NZS 3101:1995 (incorporating 28. Notes Prepared for Seminar on Designing
Amendments 1 and 2, 1997), Concrete Stainless Steel Structures, HERA, Manukau
Structures Standard; Standards New City, 2002 (to be published February,
Zealand. 2002).
16. Barber, DJ; Calculation of the Fire 29. Buchanan, AH (Editor); Fire Engineering
Resistance of Composite Concrete Slabs Design Guide; Centre for Advanced
With Profiled Steel Sheet Under Fire Engineering, University of Canterbury,
Emergency Conditions; HERA, Manukau Christchurch, 1994 (Note that the Second
City, 1994, HERA Report R4-82. Edition, published 2001, is now the current
edition).
17. Kodur, VKR and MacKinnon, DH; Design of
Concrete-Filled Hollow Structural Steel
Columns for Fire Endurance; AISC
Engineering Journal, First quarter, 2000,
pp. 13-24.
18. AS/NZS 1252:1996, High Strength Bolts

With Associated Nuts and Washers for
Structural Engineering; Standards New
19. AS/NZS 4671: 2001, Steel Reinforcing

Materials; Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
20. ASTM A 320M-94, Specification for Alloy

Steel Bolting Materials for Low
Temperature Service, American Society for
Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
21. AS 1275:1985, Metric Screw Threads for

Fasteners; Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia.
22. Blodgett, OW; Weld Failures: They Could

Be the Result of Violating Simple Design
Principles; Welding Journal, March 1982.
23. Joints in Steel Construction: Moment

Connections; The Steel Construction
Publication P207/95.
24. ABAQUS/Standard; Finite Element Analysis

Program; HKS Inc, Pawtucket RI, USA,
2001.
25. AS/NZS 4673:2001, Cold-Formed Stainless

Steel Structures; Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 66 February 2002

beginning of the article. review by a number of people. The effort and input of these
reviewers is greatly appreciated.
Introduction
In This Issue Page
The start of 2002 has been busier than any Design of Multi-Storey Buildings for 1
previous year since the HERA Structural Engineer Satisfactory In-Service Wind
started working at HERA in 1983. Induced Vibration Response
This has included the presentation of a seminar Amendments to the SPM Method for
10
series on design of stainless steel structures, Fire Engineering Design of Floor
introducing the new Stainless Steel Structures Systems
Standard, AS/NZS 4673:2001 [1]. The notes [2] Design of Circular Bolted Flange 12
from that seminar series cover many aspects of Annulus Connections: Part 2 of 3
stainless steel material selection, design and
fabrication and provide a valuable resource for Guidance on Heat Straightening 16
designers without much (or any) prior experience Repair of Damaged Steel
who are getting involved in stainless steel design. 16
References
Also published in early 2002 was the result [3] of
an investigation into the wind induced vibrations on amendments to the method that have been shown
a building – the 12 storey Engineering School to be necessary following the SiF’02 Workshop.
tower block at the University of Auckland. The
purposes of this research were to ascertain the
accuracy of the proposed wind serviceability Design of Multi-Storey
vibration provisions of the new draft standard, Buildings for Satisfactory In-
AS/NZS 1170.2 [4] and the accuracy of a simple
preliminary design equation proposed [5] by Cenek Service Response to Wind
et. al. As a result, recommendations for a Induced Vibrations
preliminary design procedure for assessing the
satisfactory in-service wind induced vibration This article has been written by Thomas Mahoney, Final Year
response can now be made. These Student in Civil Engineering for 2001 at the Department of Civil
and Resource Engineering, University of Auckland and G
recommendations form the first technical article in Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer. It has been
this issue. reviewed by Peter Cenek of Opus International Ltd., Wellington.
Another article presents a design example for the Introduction and Scope
Circular Bolted Flange Annulus Connection, the
design procedure for which is presented in DCB General Background
No. 65. The results of the Finite Element Analyses
(FEA) on this connection are to be presented in Steel framed multi-storey buildings are generally
Part 3 of this article, DCB No. 67, rather than in lighter in weight than reinforced concrete framed
this issue. multi-storey buildings. The principal reason for this
lies in the self weight of the flooring systems used
Those are the principal two articles in this issue of in each instance.
the DCB. Two smaller articles are presented, one
relating to the SPM fire design method and the The lighter weight of steel framed buildings makes
other to the heat straightening of steel. The SPM them potentially more susceptible to unacceptable
article is particularly important, as it covers
levels of acceleration generated by wind-induced The aim of the experiment was to record both wind
vibration under serviceability limit state conditions. flow data and building along-wind and across-wind
accelerations for a given test building. The
These accelerations are caused by the movement accelerations were recorded at the top of the
of the building due to the wind flowing around it. building. The wind flow was also recorded at the
As shown in Fig. 66.1, the nature of the wind flow top of the building, sufficiently far above roof level
is complex, even in this simplified view, as is the to be effectively free from the local effects of
building’s response to it. Generally, for buildings turbulence generated by the building itself.
that are torsionally regular and torsionally stiff
relative to their translational stiffness, the flow of This generated data sets of wind flow and building
wind past the building will generate both an along- acceleration that could be used directly to compare
wind response and an across-wind response, with the accuracy of the full dynamic design procedure
the latter typically governing. from [4 or 7] and the much simpler Cenek et. al.
recommendations [5], with a view to making
improved design recommendations.
Scope of article
This article commences with an overview of the

University of Auckland research project and the
results from it.
It then presents the preliminary design procedure

from [5], which is more comprehensive than the
threshold limit of C5.2.2.3 from [6] or Equation G1
from [4], but is still straightforward to apply.
Many of the variables used in this procedure are

not familiar to designers, so the determination and
use of the key variables is covered in detail.
Fig. 66.1
Simplified 3-Dimensional Wind Flow Around a The article then highlights the types of building
Building (from [3]) covered/not covered by this simple design
procedure.
The design of buildings for wind-induced vibration
serviceability criteria is not well covered by NZS It ends by providing some guidance on what can
4203:1992 [6], with this coverage being restricted be done if the building fails the preliminary design
to a simple threshold limit check given in procedure.
Commentary Clause C5.2.2.3. This check is a
function of the building’s height and mass and Overview of Research Project and Principal
takes no account of wind speed. Conclusions
If the proposed building fails this check, then a Analysis techniques for establishing along-wind
designer using either the current loadings accelerations are well regarded as yielding
standard [6] or the proposed replacement standard reasonably reliable results. The problem, however,
(to be AS/NZS 1170.2 [4]) has to attempt a full lies in the across-wind loading mechanism.
dynamic design. However, the design procedure Experimental studies (eg. as reported in [5] and in
presented in [4] or referenced from [6] is very the references in the commentary to [4]) have
complex, is difficult to apply and gives unreliable shown that across-wind motions are likely to
results. dictate in regard to accelerations. The mechanism
involved in the across-wind situation is complex
In an attempt to try and help designers out of this and depends mainly on pressure fluctuations
unsatisfactory situation, HERA commissioned cause by the broad band vortex shedding process.
research into this topic which led to a full-scale Expressions based on first principles for
experiment being conducted at the University of determining the response of buildings to across-
Auckland during 2001. One of the objectives of wind forces do not currently exist. Therefore,
that experiment was to test the accuracy of a determination of response is difficult and must be
preliminary design technique developed by Cenek achieved using a semi-empirical method.
et. al. [5], which appears to offer designers a Consequently most building code methods are
method for establishing a much more accurate conservative. Expressions based on empirical
threshold limit for assessing a building’s adequacy data from wind tunnel tests are available for
in this area. buildings with simple geometric shapes and not
subject to interference effects. For example, the
equation for determining peak across-wind predictions for acceleration, the across-wind
accelerations from the draft AS/NZS 1170.2 [4] is method particularly so.
as follows:
The Cenek et. al. method predicted the most
1.5bgR  0.5êair [Vdes,θ ] 
2 accurate accelerations compared to the actual
πC fs
ÿmax =   Km measured results [3]. This was surprising,
m0  (1 + g v IH )2  ζ
  considering the limitations of the method (ie. it
(66.1) uses a correlation factor instead of directly using
where: turbulence intensity and other factors such as
ÿmax = peak across-wind acceleration at the top damping and the cross-wind force spectral
of the building, in metres/second/second density). This bodes well for its use as a less
rigorous preliminary design technique and has led
all other notation is as defined in Appendix G of [4]. to its recommended use in that regard in the
following section.
The major difficulty with this and other such
equations is the lack of reliable empirical data for In the light of the results from [3] and their
working out, for example, the cross-wind force consistency with other investigations into the
spectral density (Cfs) for different shaped buildings. accuracy of the code procedures from [7], it
Consequently extrapolation is required and is likely appears that those procedures are overly rigorous
to cause errors. It is also well documented [3, 5] and, considering their lack of accuracy, should be
that such methods are unreliable and that wind regarded as preliminary design methods only. The
tunnel testing is recommended to validate any Cenek et.al. method [5] has been shown [3] to be
results. an adequate alternative and, being much simpler
to apply, one which is more likely to be correctly
In an attempt to determine just how accurate such implemented. It is a preliminary technique for
expressions are for a typical situation, an estimating peak wind-induced accelerations in
experiment was conducted at the University of buildings. Because of this, when the analyses
Auckland. The experiment was an investigation show results which lie close to or above the
into the wind characteristics around a 12 storey recommended acceleration limit, wind tunnel tests
building and the wind’s influence on the are advised to confirm the building’s suitability.
accelerations of that building. In particular, the
wind characteristics and the building accelerations Mahoney concludes [3] that it is clear more
were recorded simultaneously. Various wind research is required in this field. The key to
parameters were established and the recorded developing a reliable analytical design technique
accelerations were compared to the methods from lies in a better understanding of the across-wind
AS 1170.2:1989 [7] for predicting accelerations loading mechanism.
and with the preliminary design technique
developed by Cenek, et. al [5] for predicting In developing their preliminary design technique,
accelerations. Cenek et. al. [5] first established the critical
parameters that influence wind-induced building
At the time of conducting this research, the draft acceleration and then developed a simple yet
replacement to [7] was still under development, reliable analytical method for assessing the
hence the comparison made in the project has maximum acceleration at the preliminary design
been with the design provisions of [7], rather than phase. That method is presented in the next
with the provisions of Appendix G of [4] which will section.
replace the 1989 standard during 2002. In terms
of predicting the across-wind acceleration, Their parametric study showed the following:
however, the new provisions are simply a fine
tuning of the 1989 procedure, so it is likely that the 1. Accelerations are directly proportional to the
same general conclusions from [3] would apply if wind speed cubed
the comparison between predicted ÿmax and
recorded ÿmax was made using the provisions of [4] 2. Accelerations are inversely proportional to
rather than those of [7]. the building's mass
The measured turbulence intensities were similar 3. Accelerations are inversely proportional to
to the calculated turbulence intensities using the building’s natural sway frequency
AS 1170.2 [7].
4. For buildings with height to across-wind
However, there were large discrepancies between width aspect ratios less than 5, building
the accelerations predicted by [7] and the shape appears to have little effect on
measured values. This is consistent with previous serviceability level accelerations.
studies (referenced from [3]). Both the along-wind
and across-wind methods gave very conservative
Having obtained a design assessment of maximum (ii) Structural damping under serviceability
acceleration, this must be compared with an conditions is taken as 0.01 (ie. 1% of
appropriate limit. Cenek et. al. advise [5] that an critical). This is appropriate for any clad
appropriate acceleration limit is 10 milli-g (1 milli-g steel frame building under the levels of
= (1/1000) x acceleration of gravity) for a one year movement expected.
return period wind. Melbourne and Palmer [8]
show that the limit is frequency dependent and (iii) The simplified equation from [5] for amax
give a more detailed expression, which is a uses the mean hourly wind speed at the top
function of building frequency, duration of wind of the building, for which the number in the
record consideration and chosen return period. In numerator is 0.46. However, NZS 4203 [6]
the recommended design procedure that follows, does not give provisions for determining the
this expression is used to determine the limiting mean hourly wind speed for a 1 year return
acceleration, as that helps reduce any inaccuracy period (R = 1 year), which is the return
introduced through uncertainties in the period on which the limiting acceleration is
determination of building natural frequency. based. The draft AS/NZS 1170.2 [4] does
allow the wind speed for a dynamic
Recommended Preliminary Design Procedure evaluation to be explicitly determined,
however it uses an adjustment to the 3
Determination of design maximum acceleration second gust speed rather than a mean
at top of building hourly wind speed directly. The relationship
between the two is given in equation 66.3
The design maximum acceleration at the top of the herein. The adjustment for the different
building, amax, is given by recording durations can be made from [5] in
the peak factor, g, in equation (1) from [5].
 0.41 V (H) 3  Making this adjustment introduces an
 1000 
amax = 
 fo mo 
   (milli - g) additional 0.9 factor, reducing 0.46 to 0.41.
   9.81 
(66.2) Determination of V (H)
where: Because the acceleration is proportional to the

wind speed cubed, it is important to determine this
V (H) = mean 10 minute interval wind speed at
the top of the building for the chosen as accurately as possible.
return period, R (m/s)
This can be done using the provisions of the new
fo = fundamental frequency (Hz) in the draft AS/NZS 1170.2 [4], as follows:
across-wind direction (see Fig. 66.1)
Step 1: Determine the design 3 second wind
mo = average building mass per unit height speed, Vdes, θ
over the top one third of the building
(kg/m height) This is determined at the top of the building in
accordance with Clauses 2.2 and 2.3 of [4]. The
This acceleration so determined is the across-wind critical equation for a given direction of
acceleration, being the governing acceleration for consideration is Equation 2.2 from [4], which is:
buildings covered by this procedure.
Vsit, β = VR Md (Mz, cat Ms Mt ) (Eq. 2.2 from [4])
Equation 66.2 is equation (3) from Cenek et.al.’s
paper [5], with the number 0.46 in the numerator where:
reduced to 0.41. Users of this procedure should VR = regional 3 second gust wind speed, m/s,
obtain a copy of [5], from which they will see the for the annual probability of exceedence
simplifications made to obtain the above equation. of 1/R, given in section 3 of [4]
Those simplifications, and the reason for reducing
0.46 to 0.41, are as follows: Md = as given by Table 3.2 of [4] or taken as
1.0
(i) Typical fundamental frequencies of 0.2 to Mz, cat = as given by Table 4.1(A) of [4], calculated
0.4 Hz were used in deriving equation 66.2, at the top of the building (z = H) for
however Mahoney [3] shows that the the design Terrain Category
correlation is adequate for the 12 storey test
building, with a frequency of 1.9 Hz in one Ms, Mt = shielding and topographic multipliers,
orthogonal direction and 1.8 Hz in the other. given by section 4 of [4].
This covers the range of fundamental
frequencies of interest in design. The determination of Mz, cat , Ms, Mt is very similar
to that of the corresponding expressions from
NZS 4203 [6] Part 5.
The wind directional multiplier, Md, embodies the For serviceability wind-induced vibration design,
same directionality concept as currently given in the building is responding at well below yield
[6], however applied as a multiplier (≤ 1.0) on the level. Contributions to building stiffness will
peak basic regional wind speed, VR. come from the lateral load-resisting system, the
gravity-resisting system and, to a minor but
An expression is given in Table 3.1 of [4] relating noticeable extent, from non-structural components.
VR to the return period, for any value of R. This
allows VR to be explicitly calculated for R = 1. For a given building, the frequency will therefore be
higher (period lower) for the wind case than for the
VR is a function of the wind region. Fig. 3.1 (b) seismic case and this should be included in the
gives these regions for New Zealand. There are determination of fo.
only 3, termed Regions A6, A7 and W. The latter
covers the Cook Strait / Wellington region. For a The most accurate source of fo for this procedure is
one year return period, VR = 26m/s for regions A6 that obtained from a modal analysis of the building,
and A7 and VR = 34 m/s for region W. with this analysis taking into account the
contribution to building stiffness from all
The appropriate directional, topographical and lee dependable sources. For example, simple
effects from [4] must be included in determining connections in the gravity load-carrying system
Vsit, β. with bolts tightened beyond snug tight will behave
in a rigid manner under the very small movements
Having obtained, Vsit, β, the largest value within a involved. However, designer judgement will be
90o quadrant (±45o) to the direction under required to determine the magnitude of these
consideration gives Vdes,θ . The direction under contributions, along with a level of computer
consideration (θ = 0) is the along-wind direction modelling not normally undertaken at preliminary
(see Fig. 66.1) in the context of this procedure. design stage. Thus, in most instances, designers
will need to make recourse to empirical equations
for fo.
Step 2: Calculate V (H) for the 10 minute record
interval One useful empirical source of fo is from tests on
complete structures, such as those reported [9] by
Vdes,θ Ellis, who gives the optimum formula for
V (H) = (m/s) (66.3)
(1 + gvIH ) fundamental frequency for 163 rectangular-in-plan
buildings as:
where:
gv = gust factor = 3.7 (from [4]) fo = 46/H (Hz) (66.4)
IH = turbulence intensity, from Table 6.1 of [4],
calculated for z = H and for the Terrain where:
Category appropriate to the direction H = height to roof (metres)
giving Vdes,θ .
Fig. 66.2 shows this equation plotted against the
Determination of fo experimental data. The buildings in the sample
comprise a range of lateral load-resisting systems,
Building designers are familiar with calculating the one of the reasons for the considerable scatter in
fundamental period, To, for earthquake design. data about the curve given by equation 66.4,
The fundamental frequency, fo = 1/To. especially in the 20 m to 75 m building height.
However, it is not appropriate to simply use the Equation 66.4 does not allow differentiation
inverse of the period calculated for earthquake between the form of lateral load-resisting
considerations in wind serviceability design. This system and the associated stiffness. This
is because the two design applications are for is accommodated by the calculation of To for
different limit states. seismic-resisting systems, however such
calculations underestimate the frequency of the
For earthquake design, the building is on the building as appropriate to the wind serviceability
threshold of general yielding under ultimate limit limit state, because they ignore the additional
state conditions. The period is calculated based contributions to building stiffness that will apply in
on the contribution of the designated seismic- that situation. These factors can all be
resisting systems only. Any contribution to building accommodated, at least roughly, by use of the
stiffness from the gravity load-carrying system and following approximate provisions for calculating fo:
from non-structural components is neglected. The
period is calculated using either the Rayleigh fo ≈ lesser of (i) 46/H (66.4)
method (NZS 4203 [6] Equation 4.5.1) or empirical (ii) C1 (1/To) (66.5)
formulae that are developed for seismic design
(DCB No. 40 page 4). (definitions on next page)
For concentrically braced frame or shear wall
lateral load-resisting systems, use;
To ≈ 0.06 H 0.75 (66.6.4)
These expressions are taken from DCB No. 40,

page 4. H is the height of the top of the building,
as defined previously. (In DCB No. 40, H is
defined as hn)
The factor C1, which accounts for the increase in

frequency generated by the extra stiffening
available at the serviceability limit state, is the
HERA Structural Engineer’s best estimate based
on his experience in this area. The value has been
set conservatively low, compared with
experimentally derived building frequencies under
motions in the elastic range.
Because of the relationship between amax and

(1/ fo) given by equation 66.2, it is important not to
overestimate the frequency. The use of equations
Fig. 66.2 66.4 and 66.5 will ensure this. The incorporation
Frequency Versus Height From Measurements of of fo into the calculation of alimit (equation 66.7) and
163 Rectangular in Plan Buildings (from [9]) amax (equation 66.2) also reduces the impact of
error in calculating the frequency, as it occurs on
both sides of the S* ≤ φRu equation.
where:
H = building height (metres) Designer judgement will be needed when the
lateral load-resisting systems in the across-wind
C1 = 1.5 for buildings with moment-resisting direction are of mixed form.
frame lateral load resisting systems in the
across-wind direction (for which fo is Determination of mo
being calculated)
mo is the average building mass per unit height
= 1.3 for buildings with eccentrically-braced over the top third of the building.
frames in the across-wind direction
It is calculated using 1.0 G + 0.7 ψlQ,
= 1.2 for buildings with concentrically-
braced frames or shear walls in the where:
across-wind direction G = building dead load from NZS 4203 [6]
ψl = live load long-term load factor for the
To = the fundamental period as determined for serviceability limit state, from Table 2.4.1
the bare frame lateral load-resisting of [6]
system only, either through NZS 4203 Q = ψ aQb
Clause 4.5.1 or the following: Qb = base live load
ψa = tributary area reduction factor per floor
For perimeter moment-resisting frame lateral load- (as used in calculating seismic mass)
resisting systems with deep columns:
The 0.7 factor translates the average live load with
To ≈ 0.11 H 0.75 (66.6.1) a 5% probability of exceedence, as represented by
ψl, to the mean value of average live load. This is
For internal moment-resisting frame lateral load- based on a normal probability distribution of live
resisting systems and for perimeter frame systems load, with standard deviation = 0.15 x mean.
with shallow (UC) columns:
It is important that the calculated building mass
To ≈ 0.14 H 0.75 (66.6.2) includes an average live load component, as to
ignore this is unduely conservative.
For eccentrically braced frame lateral load-resisting
systems with links in the shear mode, use: mo is calculated for a typical storey height and
mass over the top third of the building and
To ≈ 0.07 H 0.75 (66.6.3) expressed in kg/m height of building.
Limiting Levels of Wind-Induced Acceleration T = duration of record = 10 minutes (600
at the Top of the Building seconds)
R = return period = 1 year
This is given by equation 66.7, which has been
developed by Melbourne and Palmer [8]. Equation 66.7 is shown graphically in Fig. 66.3 for
return periods of 0.5 years to 10 years. It can be
alimit seen from this figure that the 10 milli-g limit is

( 
)
=  2In fo T  0.68 +

In R 
5 
e
(-3.65 - 0.4ln fo)  1000 
  9.81 
appropriate for a 1 year return period only for a
frequency of 0.3 Hz, with the limit being frequency
  
dependent.
(66.7)
Equation 66.7 is used, in this procedure, for R = 1
where: year. It is valid for building fundamental
alimit is given in milli-g frequencies from 0.06 Hz to over 1.0 Hz [8]. The
In = natural logarithm latter limit (1.0 Hz) will cover the stiffest steel
fo = fundamental period, as previously framed buildings which may be wind sensitive
determined under serviceability conditions.
Figure 66.3
Horizontal Acceleration Criteria for Occupancy Comfort in Buildings (from [8])
Example of Application Level 2 assessment
Details of building
(1) Determination of V (H)
Building is 15 storeys of apartments, 3.0 m
structural interstorey height, giving H = 45 m. This uses the draft AS/NZS 1170.2 standard [4] to
It is located in open terrain (Terrain Category 2 determine V (H) for R = 1 year. Refer to the two
from [6, 4]), with no shielding or topographical step procedure detailed on pages 4 and 5 in this
effects. Location is Auckland. Calculation is for article.
the worst wind direction (ie. non directional wind
speed). Vsit, β = VR Md (Mz, cat Ms Mt ) = 30.4 m/s
Building is square in plan, 20 m each side.
VR = 26 m/s (Table 3.1 of [4], region
Total floor area, Aft = 400 m2. A6 (Auckland), R = 1)
Occupiable floor area, Afo = 300 m2. Md = 1.0 (Table 3.2 of [4], any
Lateral load-resisting system comprises perimeter direction)
moment-resisting frames with deep columns along
all sides. Mz, cat = 1.17 (Table 4.1 (A) of [4], TC 2,
z = H = 45 m)
Building loads are:
Ms = Mt = 1.0 (no shielding or
Gfloor and frame = 4 kPa (this includes all dead loads topographic effects)
and is applied over the total floor
area) As the most severe directional effects have
Qb = 1.5 kPa (applied over the been included in determining Vsit, β; Vdes, θ = Vsit, β
occupiable floor area). = 30.4 m/s.
The building will first be checked for serviceability
wind-induced acceleration against the simple but Vdes,θ 30.4
V (H) = = = 19.4 m/s
conservative threshold limit of NZS 4203 (1 + gvIH ) 1.57
Commentary Clause C5.2.2.3 [6], which is also
given in the Draft AS/NZS 1170.2 as Equation G1.
gv = 3.7
This is termed the level 1 assessment.
It is then checked using the Cenek et. al. [5] IH = 0.153 (Table 6.1 of [4],TC2,
procedure as presented herein. This is termed the z = H = 45 m).
level 2 assessment.
(2) Calculation of fundamental frequency, fo
Level 1 assessment
fo = lesser of (i) 46/H = 46/45 = 1.02 Hz
h1.3/mo > 1.6 is required.
(ii) C1 (1/To) = 1.5 (1/1.91)
h = H = building height = 45 metres. = 0.78 Hz
Weight/floor = 1.0 G Aft + 0.7 ψlQbψ aAfo To = 0.11 hn0.75 = 0.11 x 45 0.75
= 1671 kN/floor = 1.91/seconds
where:
fo = 0.78 Hz adopted
G = 4 kPa
Aft = 400 m2
(3) Calculations of amax
Qb = 1.5 kPa
ψl = 0.4, from NZS 4203 Table 2.4.1 This uses equation 66.2 herein
ψa = 0.56, from NZS 4203 Eqn. 3.4.2 for
Afo = 300 m2
 0.41 V (H) 3   1000 
amax =     = 6.9 milli - g
mo = ((Weight / floor) x 98.1) / interstorey height  fo mo   9.81 
= 1671 x 98.1 / 3.0 = 56,627 kg/m height  
= 56.63 t/m height
451.3 V (H) = 19.4 m/s
(h1.3/mo) actual = = 2.5 > 1.6 NG
56.63
fo = 0.78 Hz
1.3
As (h /mo) actual > 1.6, the building fails this level 1
assessment. mo = 56,627 kg/m height
(4) Calculation of alimit One solution to improving the performance in this
case would be to introduce bracing at the short
This uses equation 66.7 herein. ends of the building. This bracing could
[ ]  1000 
alimit = (3.51)(0.68) e - 3.55   = 7.0 milli - g
 9.81 
incorporate the features listed in items (1) and (3)
below.
fo = 0.78 Hz
T = 600 seconds
R = 1 year
(5) Conclusion
As amax < alimit, the building can be

considered satisfactory with regard to
wind-induced serviceability limit state
acceleration at the preliminary design stage.
Fig. 66.4
As the two values are very close, however, it would
Example of Building With Potentially
be advisable to determine the building’s wind
Significant Torsional Response
serviceability performance more accurately as part
of the final design, to confirm its suitability. (See
opposite). Options If The Building Fails This Preliminary
Design Assessment
Type of Buildings Covered / Not Covered By
When the building’s response has been checked
This Procedure
for each orthogonal direction and amax < ≈ 0.85 alimit
This procedure is applicable to buildings with the in each direction, no further check on in-service
following characteristics [3, 5]: response to wind induced vibration need be made.
(1) The mass per unit height is near uniformly When this check shows 0.85 alimit < amax < alimit, the
distributed throughout the building, response should be evaluated more carefully as
especially over the top third part of the final design check. This may require the
seeking of expert advice; it will certainly
(2) The plan shape of the building does not vary require more detailed determination of fo.
significantly from that used in the
assessment over the height of the building When amax ≥ alimit, then the following options to
improve the building response are available:
(3) The fundamental frequency and building
structural damping levels are within the limits (1) Add stiffness – eg. through changing from a
for the procedure, as specified above. moment frame to a braced system or
through adding additional bracing. This
(4) The fundamental frequencies in the bracing could be designed and detailed to
translational modes (x and y) are lower than operate at serviceability conditions and to
that for the torsional mode fail under ultimate limit state earthquake
conditions, thus not endangering the stability
The procedure must also be applied with caution to of the building in the latter case.
buildings with a height aspect ratio (height to plan
width) of > 5, as the building shape has an (2) Add mass – eg. increase the depth of
influence on the response for buildings with higher concrete in the floor slabs. This will increase
aspect ratios [5]. mo, thus reducing amax . It also slightly
increases acoustic performance (see DCB
As noted in (4) above, the procedure is not No. 57). However, it will increase the
necessarily applicable to buildings which have a requirements on the gravity and seismic
strongly torsional fundamental mode of response. load-resisting systems and on the
Such an example would be a building that is foundations, especially if the increased mass
rectangular in plan, with a plan aspect ratio (long is significant.
plan dimension/short plan dimension) of greater
than, say, 2.5 and where the lateral load-resisting (3) Add damping – the effect of added damping
system comprises a central stiff core (shear walls must be considered in this assessment by
or braced core). Such a building would be using equation (1) from [5] in lieu of equation
susceptible to torsional movement under wind, with 66.2 herein. Furthermore the additional
the accelerations most noticeable at the ends of damping must raise the level significantly
the building. This situation is shown in Fig. 66.4. above the 1% incorporated into equation
66.2; preferably to 5% or more. This
requires use of specialist devices and expert Results of Comparison with Advanced
advice. Such dampers could be readily Analyses on Slab Panels
installed in a V-brace CBF system, where
they would be positioned between the These analyses are presented in [11]. They have
intersecting braces and the collector beam been made on a 9 m x 9 m slab panel and a
at each level. 9 m x 18 m slab panel. Comparing the SPM
method with these analyses shows that:
(4) Seek expert advice from a specialist in this
area, such as Peter Cenek from Opus (1) For the square panel, with two unprotected
International Consultants, Wellington. His secondary beams and with light levels of
contact details are: slab reinforcement (mesh area 142 mm2/m
peter.cenek@opus.co.nz width, which is equivalent to 665 mesh),
phone: 0-4-587 0600 good agreement is reached.
(2) For the square panel and with heavy

Amendments to the SPM reinforcement (mesh area 393 mm2/m width,
Method for Fire Engineering which is equivalent to 12 mm dia. bars at
285 mm centres) the SPM predicts a greater
Design of Floor Systems increase in load-carrying capacity than is
predicted by advanced analysis. However,
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA square panels will only require light
reinforcement because of their shape, hence
this effect will only show in situations outside
General
of actual design application. Nevertheless,
DCB No. 60 presents a detailed design procedure, the method gives high enhancement factors
called the SPM method, which takes account of the for square panels and, in light of the findings
inelastic reserve of strength available from a from Ian Burgess’s research team, as
composite concrete floor slab supported on reported in [11] and follow up discussions, it
unprotected secondary beams or joists in severe is prudent to place an upper limit on the
fires. The scope and background to this procedure enhancement factors used until this issue is
is presented in the first part of that Bulletin, with the more thoroughly researched. This limit will
detailed procedure presented as Appendix A. only apply in a small number of realistic
design applications. Details are given
DCB Issue Nos 62 and 64 present updates on below.
aspects of the procedure and the use of the
(3) For panels with an aspect ratio of 2:1, the
associated software program.
SPM gives good agreement with advanced
analysis [11] for light and for heavy
In early March, 2002, the Structures in Fire
reinforcement
Workshop, SiF’02, was held. Charles Clifton
presented a paper [10] on the SPM method to that (4) The inclusion of the unprotected secondary
Conference. This paper, entitled Design of beam contribution in the determination of
Composite Floor Systems With Unprotected Steel slab panel capacity is appropriate and
Secondary Beams or Joists for Dependable makes the SPM procedure more accurate.
Inelastic Response in Severe Fires, presents a
reasonably detailed overview of the method. Limits on Tensile Membrane Enhancement
Factor
The method was given a thorough airing at SiF’02
and immediately following, where the results from This is the factor e given by equation 60.A41 of
its use have been compared with some of the DCB No. 60.
advanced finite element analysis (FEA) undertaken
on slab panels by UK researchers. Discussion The limits recommended below have been
with these researchers, from the University of determined by applying the SPM method to the
Sheffield led by Professor Ian Burgess, and slab panels reported in [11] and adopting a cut-off
application of the procedure to the UK floor slabs factor corresponding to that obtained from
analysed, have identified two errors in the current applications where the method gives answers in
procedure. good agreement with the results of the University
of Sheffield analyses.
A brief outline of the results from the follow-up
The limits so obtained are:
comparison work is given below, followed by limits
on e, placement of insulation and then details (1) e ≤ 2.5 for slab panels incorporating the
of the two errors in the procedure given in contribution from secondary beams into the
DCB No. 60. determination of slab panel moment/tensile
membrane capacity.
(2) e ≤ 3.5 for slab panels with no secondary the maximum temperature reached in the
beams input into the determination of slab protected column (380oC) and in the unprotected
panel moment/tensile membrane capacity beams (over 1100oC). This would have maximised
(eg. slab panels formed from solid slabs or the potential for heat to flow from these beams into
from Speedfloor joist systems spanning in the column, however the influence of any such
the Lx direction). heat flow was minimal.
These limits will only be reached for slab Another source is evidence from Corus standard
panels which have a near to square aspect ratio fire tests on unprotected beams, where the
(Ly / Lx ≤ approximately 1.5). temperature of the beam end 150 mm outside the
line of the furnace has been shown to be under
The limits will be reviewed after mid-2002 following 60oC, when the maximum steel beam temperature
completion of the planned slab panel fire test within the furnace is over 600oC. Finally, a BRANZ
series, which is mentioned on pages 35 and 36 of study on pipe penetrations through fire walls
DCB No. 64. (reported on in DCB No. 42) has shown that, by a
distance of 150 mm away from the fire face, the
Insulation for the Ends of Unprotected Beams temperature will have decreased to well under the
Connecting Into Protected Members general insulation criterion of 140oC max. over
ambient.
There will be many instances when using the SPM
method where unprotected beams frame into From these sources, the following
protected beams or into protected columns. In recommendations can be made:
severe fire conditions, the unprotected members (1) When an unprotected beam member is
could be at a much higher temperature than the connected into a protected beam or a
protected members and therefore have the protected column member, the insulation
potential to conduct heat locally into the protected material used on the protected member
members, raising their temperature around the should extend onto the ends of the
connection region. It is important that this unprotected member so as to:
tendency for increased local temperature rise is
effectively suppressed. (1.1) Completely cover the connection region, any
connection components and connectors,
This can easily be done by extending the insulation and
material applied to the protected member a
minimum distance into the unprotected member. (1.2) Extend at least 200 mm into the span of the
The question to be answered is; what distance is unprotected beam from its end.
needed to be effective? (2) The insulation material should be the same
type and thickness as used on the protected
The answer to this can be determined from a member and must be detailed to dependably
number of sources, the most relevant of which is remain in place during a fire. (The latter is
the Cardington steel building test data [14]. In the important for boarded insulation materials, in
most severe of their large-scale realistic fire tests, terms of how they are fastened at the ends
the Demonstration Furniture Test, the primary of the otherwise unprotected members).
beams and secondary beams were unprotected.
The primary beams were connected to the (3) When an unprotected Speedfloor joist
columns with flexible endplate (FE) connections is connected to a protected beam (see
and the secondary beams were connected with Fig. 60.14, DCB No. 60) the insulation
web plate (WP) connections. The columns were material should completely cover the area of
protected full height, including through the beam to the joist shoe through which the joist is
column connection region, with a 25 mm thick connected to the beam and the area of the
ceramic fibre blanket. This covered the flexible joist web connected to that joist shoe.
endplate and bolts in the primary beam to column (Refer to the steel beam support detail in
connections and was packed around the web cleat [15]) for details of this shoe.
in the web plate connections to the secondary
beams. It did not extend onto the ends of the (4) Protected beams supporting Speedfloor
beams. For the column inside the test enclosure, joists should use spray applied protection or
there were two incoming primary beams and two ceramic fibre blanket protection, which is
incoming secondary beams. A view of this column able to easily cover the surfaces involved in
and the incoming beams is given in Fig. 59.2, DCB (3) and will dependably remain in place
No. 59. (pinned where necessary) in a severe fire.
These requirements cannot be easily
In that test, the column temperature recorded in achieved with board protection in that
the connection region was no higher than that application.
away from the connection region. Furthermore, in
that test, there was a very large difference between
(5) Intumescent paint protection of the protected The only other change is to the commentary in
beams is an option, however for the high section CA4.2.6(1)(i), where the cover slab depth
structural fire severities expected it would be is to – hrc, not 2he – to as currently stated.
expensive. There is also the issue of
ensuring that the target limiting temperatures (2) Error in Equation 60.A37, for e1bx
are met for beams and columns (see DCB
No. 59), where these limiting temperatures This error comes from the original report [13] on
are less than the typically 620oC limiting the tensile membrane method. It involves the
temperature for which intumescent paint omission of a pair of brackets, which has made the
thicknesses are determined. equation slightly underestimate the magnitude of
enhancement that is actually available. The
Errors In Published Procedure correct equation is;
(1) Incorrect representation of cover slab

thickness
 α b β b2 2
e1bx = 2n  1 + x (k - 1) - x
2 3

k - k + 1 ( )
 
When determining the heat flow into the slab mesh
for slabs cast onto profiled steel decking (section
( (
+ (1 - 2n ) 1- α x b - βx b 2 ))
(new(60.A37))
A4.1.1, page 31, DCB No. 60, and Fig. 59.12, DCB
No. 59), the heat path dimension, u3, should be The effect of the change to equation 60.A37 in the
taken from the centreline of the mesh to the top of example from DCB No. 60 is to increase e1bx from
the slab rib for trapezoidal decks and from the 0.81 to 0.97, which increases e from 1.36 to 1.54.
centreline of the mesh to the underside of the pan
for effectively solid slabs. (3) Corrections to Fig. 60.2
This means that, for a trapezoidal deck profile, the These corrections do not affect the method. In the
cover slab thickness is needed, while, for a profile expression for the force developed along the
giving a solid slab (eg. Traydek), the total slab failure line, L should be l. The force T1 should be
depth is needed. T1 /2, as the model is for half of the slab panel.
In equation 60.A3.1, which gives u3,mesh, the New Version of SPM Program Available
expression (2he – to) is used to generate the
required thickness. This is correct for the A new version of the SPM Program is available
solid slab case and for the trapezoidal decking which incorporates these changes. It is entitled
case where the ribs are symmetrical (ie. where SPM_03_02 and will operate in all Windows
he = t + hrc/2, where t = cover slab thickness systems from Windows 95 onwards.
(from [12]) and hrc = deck rib height). The
principal decking profile used in New Zealand, Those wanting a copy, which will be sent via email,
Dimond Hi-Bond, is a symmetrical profile, so the should contact Charles Clifton at
results are correct for it. structural@hera.org.nz.
However, where the ribs are not symmetrical, the The program can be installed simply by double-
expression (2he – to) ≠ t. It is proposed, therefore, clicking on the icon and following the instructions.
to replace equation 60.A3.1 with the following: It will be sent with an updated sample calculation
file, being the design example presented in DCB
u3, mesh = to – hrc – cmesh - dmesh (new(60.A3.1)) No. 60 generated by the revised program.
where: Design of Circular Bolted Flange

to = total depth of slab
hrc = rib height for trapezoidal profile Annulus Connections:
= 0 for profile giving a solid slab Part 2 of 3
cmesh = cover to mesh = 30 mm (typical)
dmesh = diameter of bar = 7.2 mm for D147 mesh This part 2 article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
with bars at 300 centres. Structural Engineer. Drawings are by Tanya Miller,
Undergraduate Student from the FH Ravensburg – Weingarten
on Study Leave at HERA.
The same change is required in equation 60.A20,
which becomes: 1. Introduction and Scope of this Part 2
Article
m'x = φfire Rtx,isb (to – hrc – er,isb - ecθ) (new (60.A20))
At least partially as a result of an increased
The same change is required in equation 60.A44, number of large diameter circular communications
which becomes: towers currently being designed for New Zealand,
the HERA Structural Division has been asked for
dv = to – hrc – er,isb – 0.67ecθ (mm) (new (60.A44)) an appropriate design procedure for bolted steel to
steel and steel to concrete flange annulus 2. Design Example for Steel to Steel
connections for circular members. This form of Connection
connection is shown in Fig. 65.9 of DCB No. 65 for
the steel to steel connection and in Fig. 65.10 for 2.1 Scope of design example
the steel to concrete connection. It is
characterised by the flange plate extending only a The design example covers design of a stiffened
small distance into the interior of the circular flange annulus connection subject to a design
section, thus allowing full access up the inside of moment, M*, and design shear, V*. The design
the column. covers checking for moment-induced tension
capacity, compression capacity and shear
Detailed design procedures for each of these capacity. These checks involve different regions of
applications have been developed and are the connection, as shown in Fig. 66.5.
presented in the Part 1 article, DCB No. 65,
pp. 16-30. The adequacy of these procedures is 2.2 Details of joint
being confirmed by a finite element analysis (FEA)
verification study, an overview of which was given Details of the joint layout have already been
in the DCB No. 65 article, section 7, pp. 29 & 30. presented on pp. 29 & 30 of DCB Issue No. 65 and
are repeated herein for completeness.
At that time it was envisaged that a design
example illustrating the application of the method
Fig. 66.6 shows the dimensions for a typical
would be presented in the Part 2 article, this issue
segment of the joint under design.
of the DCB, along with full details of the FEA.
However, there have been some problems with Details of the connection size, layout are as
getting the final accuracy of modelling required follows:
from the FEA, due principally to limitations on the
hardware available at HERA coupled with the size • Column details are:
of the model required. (As seen in Fig. 65.21 of do = 2000 mm
DCB No. 65, the model required is complex tw = 16 mm
and contains 16 fully tensioned M30 8.8/TB Grade 250 steel
bolts). Because of this, we have been unable to
obtain the final answers from the FEA work in time • Flange annulus details are:
for inclusion in this issue. wf = 150 mm
m1 = 65 mm
The approach being taken, therefore, is to present m2 = 72 mm
only the steel to steel design example in this issue n = 55 mm
and to present the results of the FEA verification tf = 25 mm
study in a Part 3 article, to be in DCB No. 67. Grade 250 steel
• Bolt details are:

32 number M30 8.8/TB
N*cw M* N*tw
• Stiffener details are:
Shape, spacing as shown in Figs. 66.5 and
Shear quadrant
66.6
Grade 250 steel
ts = 16 mm
A D
Design actions at the connections, S*, are

M*
Compression
Quadrant
Tension
Quadrant
M* = 3681 kNm
Due to Due to V* = 740 kN
Moment Moment
2.3 Design check on tension quadrant

Region Region
checked for B C checked for
compression tension 2.3.1 Calculation of design tension action in
column wall over the tension quadrant
of connection connection This is given by section 3.2 of DCB No. 65
Fig. 66.5
Connection Showing Critical Regions for
Checking in the Design Example
(1) Determination of effective width
Leff,stiffened = max (Leff,1 ; Leff,2) = 595 mm

16
Leff,1 = 4m1 + 1.25n + p = 586 mm
Stiffener
m1 = 65 mm (Fig. 66.6)
n = 55 mm
p = 257 mm
(measured along chord; see
m2
72
16 Fig. 66.6)
Leff,2 = 0.5αm1 + 2m1 + 0.625n + p = 595 mm

m1 n
Ls =378 65 55 Using Fig. 65.16; λ 1 = 0.54, λ 2 = 0.60 ⇒
α = 5.35
P
257
(2) Determination of the design capacity of

M30 bolt
the tributary region of flange
This uses section 3.3.2, p. 22 of DCB No. 65.

φN tw,1 = 0.9  
m2
Ws
m1 + tw /2 
110  
= 601 kN
0.9 Cf Mp,f + 0.9 Cw Mpr, w + nΣφNtf

φN tw,2 =
m1 + tw /2 + n
= 424 kN
Fig. 66.6 For the equations:

Layout and Dimensions of Design Example
(all dimensions are in millimeters) Mp,f = 0.25 Leff tf2 fy,f
= 0.25 x 595 x 252 x 250 x 10-6 = 23.2 kNm
Mp,w = 0.25 x 595 x 162 x 250 x 10-6 = 9.5 kNm

1.108 M *
*
N tmw/m = = 1036 kN/m length of wall φNs = 0.9 tw fy,w Ltrib
(do - t w )2 = 0.9 x 16 x 250 0.378 = 1361 kN
M* = 3681 kN
 2
do = 2.0 m Mpr,w = 1.19 x 9.5  1 -  392   ≤ 9.5 = 9.5 kNm
tw = 0.016 m   1361 
 
*
Naw/m = 0 (no applied axial load; self weight is 1.85
being neglected in this example) Cf = = 0.38
3.08 + 1.85
*
N tw = (N *
tmw/m + Naw/m
*
)
Ltrib = 392 kN (stiffened) Cw = 1 – Cf = 0.62
Ltrib = Ls (see eqn. 65.3, DCB No. 65) n = 2 (2 bolts in the tributary length;
= 378 mm (for stiffened see Fig. 66.6)
connection ; see Fig. 66.6)
ΣφNtf for M30 8.8/TB = 373 kN
2.3.2 Check on stiffened flange adequacy
This uses section 3.3, pp. 21 & 22 of DCB No. 65. φNtw = min (φNtw,1 ; φNtw,2) = 424 kN
(3) Check on stiffened flange tension 212
adequacy v *w, f = = 1.13 kN/mm
2 x (110 - 16)
*
N tw = 392 kN < φNtw,s = 424 kN OK choose an 8 mm leg length, E48XX FW, cat. SP,
φvw = 1.3 kN/mm
Stiffened flange tension capacity is adequate
For stiffener 120 mm long and 16 mm thick in
2.3.3 Check on unstiffened flange adequacy contact with the column wall.
This is to determine whether the stiffeners are
necessary. Because the bolts are relatively closely 0.45 hstsfys = 0.45 x 120 x 16 x 0.250
*
spaced, the check for yielding occurring over = 216 kN > Nstffener
multiple bolts in the bolt group will govern. It uses
section 3.4, pp. 22 and 23, DCB No. 65. ⇒ adopt stiffener height of 120 mm
Leff,unstiffened = 0.5 (pleft + pright) = 208 mm
212
w = = 1.02 kN/mm
*
v w,
Leff, unstiffened 2 x (120 - 16)
208
Mp,f = 23.2 x = 23.2 x = 8.1kNm
Leff, stiffened 595 choose an 8 mm leg length, E48XX FW, cat. SP.
208 Shape stiffener as shown in Fig. 66.5 and

Mpr,w = Mp,w = 9.5 x = 3.3 kNm
595 described on p. 24, DCB No. 65, to facilitate
fabrication.
Cf = 0
Cw = 1.0 2.5 Check on compression quadrant
φNtw,1 = 141 kN This uses section 4.2, pp. 24 , 25, DCB No. 65.
φNtw,2 = 184 kN (1 bolt only involved in this check; * * *
see Fig. 65.14, DCB No. 65) Ncw/m = - Ncmw/m + Naw/m
= -1036 + 0 = -1036 kN/m
φNtw = min (φNtw,1 ; φNtw,2) = 141 kN
(The negative denotes compression).
208
*
N tw = 393 x = 216 kN > φNtw, us = 141 kN
378 This is transferred by direct bearing across the joint
and the joint detail required for the tension
Ltrib,stiffened = 378 mm (see section 2.3.1) quadrant is carried around the compression
quadrant, ⇒ design is OK.
Unstiffened flange tension capacity is not
adequate. 2.6 Check on shear transfer capacity
2.4 Design of stiffener in tension quadrant
This uses section 4.1, p. 24, DCB No. 65.
This use section 3.6, p. 24, DCB No. 65.
0.41V *
   nb,s,quad ≥ is required
*
Nstffener
L
= max   φNtw, s - φNtw,us trib,s  ; 0.5φNtw, s  φVfn
 Ltrib,us  
  
= 212 kN 0.41V * 0.41x 740
= = 1.42 bolts
φVfn 214
 L 
 φNtw, s - φN tw,us trib,s  = 424 - 141 x 378
 Ltrib,us  208
 φVfn = 214 kN for M30 8.8N/TB
= 168 kN
nb,s,quad available = 8, from Fig. 66.5
0.5φNtw,s = 0.5 x 424 = 212 kN
⇒ shear capacity is easily adequate.
For stiffener 110 mm long and 16 mm thick in
contact with the flange plate: 2.7 Conclusion
φNs,s = 0.9 x 16 x (110 – 10) x 0.250 = 396 kN The joint detail as shown in Fig. 66.5 and
*
> Nstffener OK described in section 2.1 is adequate to resist M*
and V*.
The design is governed by transfer of moment- • application to localised damage in
induced tension forces across the tension unstiffened elements
quadrant. • application to localised damage in stiffened
elements
In this case, as in many stand-alone tower designs, • tolerances to be applied.
M* and V* are generated by wind and will be
similar from all directions, thus requiring the detail Variables given [16] in the paper are expressed in
for the tension quadrant to be used around the full both metric and imperial units.
circumference.
To obtain a copy of this paper, see the attached
In applications where M* is strictly directional, there order form.
would be scope to reduce the bolt size through the
shear quadrants and also through the compression
quadrant, if M* is non-reversing. References
Heat Straightening Repair of Steel Structures; Standards New Zealand,
Damaged Steel Wellington
This paper review has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA 2. Clifton, GC (Editor); Notes Prepared for the
Structural Engineer. Designing Stainless Steel Structures
Seminar; HERA, Manukau City, 2002, HERA
Heat straightening, if properly conducted, is a safe
Report R4-111.
and economical procedure for repairing locally
damaged steelwork, especially steelwork that can
3. Mahoney TJL; A Full Scale Investigation Into
not be readily removed and restraightened by
the Wind Induced Vibrations on a Building;
force:
Department of Civil and Resource
Engineering, University of Auckland,
However, its application is as much an art as a
Auckland, 2001, Project Report No. PCRE
science. It must be undertaken by suitably skilled
01:20.
personnal and within carefully controlled
conditions, especially where the member being
4. Draft Standard AS/NZS 1170.2:2002
repaired is under load at the time of the repair.
(expected date of publication), Structural
Design Actions, Wind Actions; Standards
Designers interested in knowing more about this
method of repair, its scope of use and limitations,
will find the paper [16] entitled What You Should
5. Cenek, P et. al.; Designing for Dynamic
Know About Heat Straightening Repair of
Serviceability Under Wind Loading; Recent
Damaged Steel of value. Published in the AISC
Advances in Wind Engineering, Volume 1,
Engineering Journal, First Quarter, 2001, it covers;
TF Sun (Editor); Pergamon Press, 1989, pp.
399-406.
• what is heat straightening
• how it works 6. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
• what are necessary limits on its use and Design Loadings for Buildings;
• how the heat should be applied Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New
• how the steel should be cooled after heating Zealand.
• what techniques are used
• determining the appropriate pattern of 7. AS 1170.2:1989, Minimum Design Loads on
heating for the type of damage to be Structures: Wind Loads, Including
repaired Amendments 1 to 3 : 1991 – 1993;
• quantifying the damage for the subsequent Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
heat treatment
• impact on mechanical properties 8. Melbourne, WH and Palmer, TR;
• impact on toughness Accelerations and Comfort Criteria for
• impact on fatigue performance Buildings Undergoing Complex Motions;
• residual stresses and distortions introduced Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
by heat straightening Aerodynamics, 41 – 44 (1992), pp 105 –
• combination repair by heating and jacking 116.
• predicting the amount of straightening that
will be obtained for a given heat input 9. Ellis, BR; An Assessment of the Accuracy of
• application to axially loaded compression Predicting the Fundamental Natural
members Frequencies of Buildings and The
Implications Concerning the Dynamic
• application to composite beams
Analysis of Structures; Proceedings of the
Institute of Civil Engineers, Part 2, 1980, No.
69, pp. 763 – 776.
10. Clifton, GC et.al.; Design of Multi-Storey

Steel Framed Buildings With Unprotected
Secondary Beams or Joists for Dependable
Inelastic Response in Severe Fires;
Proceedings of the Second International
Workshop on Structures in Fire, 2002;
2002, pp. 151 – 174.
11. Huang, Z et. al.; Comparison of BRE Simple

Design Method for Composite Floor Slabs in
Fire With Non-Linear FE Modelling;
Proceedings of the Second International
Workshop on Structures in Fire, 2002;
2002, pp. 83 – 94.
12. NZS 3404: 1997, plus Amendment No. 1:

2001, Steel Structures Standard; Standards
New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
13. Bailey, CG; Design of Steel Structures With

Composite Slabs at the Fire Limit State; UK
Building Research Establishment, Watford,
14. Kirby, BR; The Behaviour of a Multi-Storey

Steel Framed Building Subject to Fire Attack
– Experimental Data; British Steel Swinden
Technology Centre, United Kingdom, 1998.
Also data from BRE, Cardington, on the
Corner Fire Test and Large Compartment
Fire Test, 1996.
15. Speedfloor Design Manual; Speedfloor

Holdings Ltd., Auckland, 2001.
16. Avent, RR and Mukai, DJ; What You Should

Know About Heat Straightening Repair of
Damaged Steel; Engineering Journal of the
AISC, First Quarter, 2001, pp. 27-49.
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 67 April/May 2002

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the The effort and input of all reviewers of the articles herein is
beginning of the article. greatly appreciated.
Introduction The development and details of the Circular Bolted

Flange Annulus (CBFA) design procedure are
given in DCB No. 65, with a design example in
The DCB is published bi-monthly, so a small
DCB No. 66.
change is being made in the date associated with
each issue.
The form of the connection to which this procedure
is applied is shown in Fig. 67.1. The key feature of
The reason for introducing that change at this time
the bolted flange plate used in this connection is
relates to the second article covered herein. That
that it does not extend past the inner face of the
comprises matters arising from the very successful
column wall for other than a short distance,
seminar series on the design and construction of
sufficient for fabrication and erection purposes.
composite steel and concrete floor systems that
This leaves the inside of the column open through
was held at five venues around New Zealand
the connection region.
during the second half of May.
The need for this type of connection arises from
The first article is the part 3 of a series on Circular
applications where this open access is critical, eg.
Bolted Flange Annulus connections. The first two
for passage of services and/or personnel or for
parts of this topic have been presented in DCB
subsequent filling with concrete to form a
Nos. 65 and 66, covering the design procedure
composite concrete filled steel tubular (CFST)
and a design example, respectively. This part
column. Such applications are becoming more
presents details of the Finite Element Analysis
common.
(FEA) verification of the design procedure.
As noted in DCB No. 65, all of the existing design
In This Issue Page procedures for circular bolted flange connections
Design of Circular Bolted Flange 1 from the literature, and available through HERA,
Annulus Connections: Part 3 of 3 require the flange plates to be effectively
continuous across the end of the member. To
Matters Arising From the Seminars 16 cater for the situation where this isn’t the case, the
on Composite Design and CBFA design procedure has been developed by
Construction HERA, through the adaptation of existing design
guidance.
References 21
The principal two publications used in this
development have been the Steel Structures
Design of Circular Bolted Flange Standard, NZS 3404 [1], and SCI Publication
P207/95 [2], Joints in Steel Construction: Moment
Annulus Connections: Part 3 of Connections.
3: FEA Verification Study
As described in section 6 of DCB No. 65
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA (Commentary to the Design Method) a number of
Structural Engineer and Nandor Mago, HERA Finite Element significant modifications to the procedures of [2]
Analyst.
have been required to accommodate the CBFA
expected modes of failure, along with the
1. Scope and Purpose of Study
establishment of load transfer paths through the
connection for transmitting axial forces (direct or
moment-induced) and shear forces.
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 67, April/May 2002
N* cw M* N* tw
A D
M*
Compression Tension
Quadrant Quadrant
Due to Due to
Moment Moment
B C

of connection connection
Fig. 67.1
Annulus Connection Between
Two Steel Sections
Fig. 67.2
Finite Element Model Showing Main Features of the Geometry
The extent of these modifications have been such point load at the top. This subjects the joint to
as to require verification of the newly developed bending and shear in similar proportion to many
procedure. This verification has been by finite applications in practice.
element analysis. A brief overview of the FEA
study has been given in section 7 of DCB No. 65; As part of FEA work on HERA’s semi-rigid sliding
the article herein and reference [4] presents hinge joint (SHJ) research project, the sliding
details of that study. component of that joint has been analysed in
detail. (See details in DCB No. 64, pp. 24-33).
The scope and purpose of the FEA study has For this work, the property class 8.8 bolts to
been to: AS/NZS 1252 [3] were modelled as solid
elements, with the bolt head/nut bearing surfaces
(1) Determine how a stiffened CBFA assumed to be circular. The details of this model
connection behaves at levels of loading are shown on page 27 of DCB No. 64 and this
from 0.70 to 1.39 times the design capacity accurately represents what happens in practice.
of the CBFA connection and compare this
with the behaviour assumed in the design However, that approach is computationally and
procedure. numerically demanding and the application of this,
even on the half model CBFA joint, comprising of
(2) Determine how an unstiffened CBFA 16 M30 bolts, has been beyond the available
behaves under levels of loading up to 2.29 hardware resources. (Currently, HERA is in the
times the design capacity, and compare this phase of a significant hardware upgrade to a
with the behaviour assumed in the design HPX4000 Workstation, which is going to give
procedure. much greater capability to tackle these types of
problems). The solid element bolt modelling was
(3) Determine the influence on connection also unnecessary in this study, as sliding of the
behaviour if the high strength structural two flange plates across the interface will not
bolts are snug tightened (/S mode to occur in practice and so does not need to be
NZS 3404 [1] Table 9.3.1) instead of fully included in the model. For those reasons, the
tensioned (/TB mode). bolts in this study were represented by one
dimensional beam elements, which have top and
Fig. 67.2 shows the joint being modelled in the bottom ends (ie. nodes) rigidly linked to the upper
study. The joint has been modelled as occurring and lower bearing surfaces of the flanges,
1 metre above ground on a 5.96 metre high respectively.
cantilever tower, subject to design bending
moment and shear force generated by an applied
Fig. 67.3
Modelling of the Actual Bolt to Plates Interfaces With Solid Modelled Fasteners
Notes: The bearing surface radius is R = 23.35 mm on the flanges, while the bolt head/nut radius is 25 mm. The slight difference is to
provide a smooth formulation between contact pairs on the contact surfaces. Bolt hole diameter = 33 mm.
Fig. 67.4
Surfaces Where the Beam (Left) and Solid (Right) Modelled Bolt
Force is Transferred into the Flange
Fig. 67.5
Loading Cases for the Force Transfer Studies With the Beam Element Modelled Fastener
Notes:
1. On the left are the support conditions and representation of bolt pretensioning
2. On the right is the location of the subsequently enforced displacements
The modelling of that bolt/plate connection the installed bolt tension to be lost. Furthermore,
required careful consideration, in order to under subsequent design tension force across the
accurately represent the real condition. Therefore, bolt line, the plates will undergo further premature
a fundamental correlation study has been yielding, leading to local and therefore global
performed, with the aim being to identify the load-deflection behaviour being inaccurately
correct FE modelling approach for the beam represented.
element modelled fastener case. The goal has
been to obtain approximately identical bolt forces Fig. 67.5 shows the connection model used in the
(as for the solid modelled bolt case) at the various basic bolt study. This model was used to
loading levels. determine the influence of bolt pre-tensioning (left)
and subsequent application of a similar lead
The results of this basic one bolt study are pattern as in the CBFA. To determine this, the
presented first, in section 2. This is followed, in following non-linear steps were applied to the
section 3, by the details of the complex joint model shown in that figure:
models studied.
Step 1 : The bolt length is adjusted to achieve the
The results of that study are given in section 4, fully tensioned condition (modelled by
followed in section 5 by a comparison of the FEA shortening the bolt within the depth of the
predicted behaviour with that from the design connection by a specified amount
procedure. corresponding to the shortening that will
be generated by applying the part
2. Basic Bolt Study turn method of NZS 3404 [1] Clause
15.2.5.2). The base of the model is fully
2.1 Reasons for study and options covered fixed for all steps.
As outlined in section 1, the size of the model has Step 2: The bolt length is fixed at the final
meant that solid modelling of each bolt and the position at the end of step 1 (Time 1-2).
supporting plate are beyond the scope of our
system’s current capabilities. Instead, the bolt has Step 3: The top of the model is pulled through an
had to be represented by a beam element, with the enforced displacement regime; causing
bolt forces transferred to a number of plate increased tension force across the bolted
elements via rigid links. This is shown in the left joint. The response of the bolt to this
hand side of Fig. 67.4. enforced displacement is monitored
(Time 2 – 3).
In practice, when solid modelling of bolt and plates
are used and the bolt is fully tensioned, the very The behaviour of two bolt/plate models was
high tension forces developed in the bolt are determined in this study. These models were:
transferred to the plate by bearing across the
contact surfaces (Fig. 67.4, right). Provided that (1) The solid model bolt bearing on the plate.
the bolt and plate dimensions are accurately This formed the benchmark case, as the
modelled, the mesh is sufficiently fine and the model was derived from the actual
contact surfaces are correctly established, the dimensions of bolt and plate and the nominal
model will accurately convey what happens in material properties. In this model, the
practice during the tensioning of an initially snug transfer of bolt tension forces into the ply
tight bolt. That process causes the bolt shank to and the ply deformation under these forces
plastically stretch, while the plate bearing area is realistically modelled, with normal mesh
under the bolt head and the nut undergoes a small density.
amount of permanent deformation in compression.
Soft springs were added to the bolt in this
When the bolt is modelled as a beam element model to prevent rigid body motions; the
(beam or truss element), the tension force is influence of these on the result was
transferred into the plate by means of rigid links negligible, as described in [4].
between the nodes at the top and the bottom of the
bolt element and the adjacent nodes in the top (2) The bolt modelled as a beam element.
surface of the top plate and the bottom surface of In this case, the bolt is modelled by a two
the bottom plate. This is shown in the left hand noded beam element in space with axial
side of Fig. 67.4. degrees of freedom (DOF) only. The bolt
translational degrees of freedom at the top
Establishing a sufficient area of plate over which and bottom nodes are made equal to the
the bolt tension force is to be transferred for the plate annulus displacements, through linear
bolt beam element model is very important. Too constraint equations. In this option,
small an area will cause local yielding of the plate determining the appropriate tributary area of
elements under the generated bolt pretension ply that will receive the beam tension force
forces, causing the plate to squash and much of (Fig. 67.4) is critical. If this area is made too
Fig. 67. 6
Bolt Force Versus Radius for Beam
Modelled Bolt of Identical Mesh Density
(R = 21.3 mm gives closest agreement with solid model)
Fig. 67. 7
Deformed Plate (Scaled x 20) Due to External Loading
for Beam Modelled (Left) and Solid Modelled (Right)
Bolt Cases
Fig. 67. 8
Bolt Force versus Load Steps (LS) for the Beam and Solid Model Bolt Options
LS1 = bolt pretensioned; LS3 = maximum extent of
enforced displacement (plates just under yielding)
small, then the local deformation of the ply Finally, the truss model gave bolt forces within
under the incoming force is too great. Also 0.3% of the beam model for the same tributary
as shown in Fig. 67.4, the tributary area is area (R = 21.3 mm).
that given by π (R – R0)2, where R0 is the
hole diameter and R is the outside line of Further details of this work are given in [4].
bearing. The radii R and R0 are the basis
for mesh generation, which means that 3. Details of Connection Model and
there are solid element nodes on the Options Studied
surfaces of these cylinders.
3.1 General details and material properties
The principal aim of this study was to run
the analyses for increasing R, until the bolt Fig. 67.9 shows a plan view of the half connection
force after pre-tensioning was very close to modelled, while Fig. 67.10 shows a side view.
that for the solid modelled bolt. Advantage was taken of symmetry to model only
2.2 Results of bolt study half the joint, with the axis of symmetry through
the centre. The load is applied at the top, along
As stated in section 2.1 (2), the principal purpose the axis of symmetry.
of the study was to determine the plate tributary
area required (keeping the same mesh density) in The dimensions of the connection elements are
order to obtain a very similar bolt force response given on page 30 of DCB No. 65.
to the solid modelled bolt case. The result,
The bolts were modelled with beam elements,
for R = 21.3 mm, gave an installed bolt tension of
with contact from bolt to plate via linear constraint
396 kN for the former, compared with 402 kN for equations, as described in section 2. Owing to
the latter. hardware limitations, the mesh used in the full
Fig. 67. 7 shows the comparison for R = 21.3 mm, connection model had to be made slightly coarser
where both FE models have the same mesh than that for the sub-assemblage studies shown in
density. The very similar deformed slopes and Fig. 67.3. The effect of this has been to give a 3%
bolt forces obtained throughout the load steps (ie. higher bolt force following pre-tensioning for the
as shown in Fig. 67. 8 justifies the idealisation same radius R; this difference is not significant.
strategy employed to model the effect of the bolt
that holds the flanges together.
Fig. 67.9
Plan View of Half Connection Showing Applied Force at Top of Column
and Bolt Designations
Fig. 67.10
Side View of Connection With Contact Pairs (Between Flanges)
and the Position of the Linear Constraint Equations (Bolts) Highlighted
and the Multi-Point Constraints (Rapid Mesh Transition) Also Shown
The column steel, flange plate steel, stiffeners, • The upper limit of serviceability limit state
and bolts were modelled as tri-linear elastic- conditions
plastic. The material properties used for the yield • Design ultimate limit state conditions
stress and tensile strength were the nominal • Extreme overload conditions
(minimum specified) in each instance; the strain
hardening stress-strain behaviour used was To achieve this, the following loading regime was
derived for the material strain/stress relationship used for each connection option studied:
being linear from (ε y, fy) to (0.75 ε u, fu), then fu kept
constant. In practice, inelastic demand did not Step 1: The bolt length is adjusted to either of
exceed 0.75 ε u at any location. the fully tensioned condition (0.88 mm
shortening) or the snug tight condition
Full tensioning of the bolts was achieved through (0.03 mm shortening), as required.
shortening their length by 0.88 mm.
Step 2: The bolt length is fixed at its position at
Compression bearing between the flange plates the end of step 1.
was modelled with contact surfaces capable of
transmitting compression and shear friction, using Step 3: 70% of the ultimate limit state design
µ = 0.35. The contact surfaces were modelled as capacity of the stiffened connection is
100% in contact prior to full tensioning (as would applied (114% of the unstiffened
be effectively the case in practice when the snug connection capacity).
tightening phase was correctly applied).
Step 4: 92% of the ultimate limit state design
For the connection with snug tightened bolts, the capacity of the stiffened connection is
bolt pre-tension was set to 0.03 mm. This gave a applied (153% of the unstiffened
bolt pre-tension force of 80 kN, which would be connection capacity).
reasonable to achieve through the properly
applied snug-tightening process (see sections Step 5: The load is increased to 116% of the
1.5.4 and 3.3.2 of [5] for details). stiffened connection capacity (191% of
the unstiffened connection capacity).
The upper and lower part of the column and the
16 mm thick stiffeners are built from Step 6: The final increase to 139% of the
ABAQUS/Standard general-purpose four noded ultimate limit state design capacity of the
reduced-integration (S4R) shell elements, while stiffened connection is applied (229% of
the annulus connection is constructed from the unstiffened connection capacity).
8-noded reduced-integration solid elements
(3D8R) [6]. For the stiffened and the unstiffened steel to steel
connection, as designed in section 2 of DCB
3.2 Connection Options No. 66, the applied loads are (on half of the FEM):
Three CBFA connection options have been Step 2: 278 kN

studied, namely; Step 3: 370 kN
Step 4: 463 kN
1. Stiffened connection with fully tensioned Step 5: 555 kN
bolts
These loads represent the following percentages
2. Unstiffened connection with fully tensioned of the design capacity of each connection:
bolts
In this instance, the stiffened connection % Design % Design

geometry was used, however the elastic Capacity of Capacity of
modulus of the stiffener material (E) was Stiffened Unstiffened
reduced by a factor of (1/103), thus making Connection Connection
the stiffener contribution negligible
Step 2 70 114
3. Stiffened connection with snug light bolts.
Step 3 92 153
3.3 Loading regime
Step 4 116 191
The aim of this FEA study was to determine the
Step 5 139 229
behaviour of the connection at load levels
corresponding to:
Fig. 67.11
Magnified Deformed Shape (By Factor of 20) of Connection at the Tension Side for the Unstiffened (Left)
and the Stiffened (Right) Connection
Left hand side: load on unstiffened connection (229% of design capacity)
Right hand side: load on stiffened connection (139% of design capacity)
Fig. 67.12
Bolt Forces in the
Stiffened and Unstiffened Connection
Notes:
(1) See Fig. 67.9 for location of the bolts: bolt 1 is on the compression side, bolt 8 in the shear quadrant and bolt 16 on the tension
side.
(2) Time 1 ≡ pre-tensioning completed

Time 2 ≡ applied loading commences
Time 3 ≡ 70%/114% of design load applied (stiffened/unstiffened)
Time 4 ≡ 92%/153% of design load applied
Fig. 67.13
History of the Bolt Forces (Bolt 1, 8 and 16) in the Snug Tight Modes and the Full Tensioned Modes
Fig. 67.14
Force Versus Deflection at the Top of the Column
for the Three Connection Options Analysed
Notes:
1. For the unstiffened connection, 75% design load = 244 kN
100% design load = 325 kN
2. For the stiffened connection, 75% design load = 302 kN

100% design load = 403 kN
Fig. 67.15
Magnified Deformed Shape at 70% Design Capacity on the Tensional Side of
the Stiffened Connection: Snug Tightened Bolts (Right) and Fully Tensioned Bolts (Left)
Fig. 67.16
Minor Plasticity Developed Around Bolt Holes
at 70% Design Capacity for Stiffened Connection,
Tensioned Bolts, Magnified Deformed Shape (20x)
Fig. 67.17
Local Plasticity Developed Around Bolts, Stiffened Connection, 92% of Design Capacity,
Magnified Deformed Shape (20x)
Fig. 67.18
Plasticity Developed Around the Bolt Holes at 114% Design Capacity
for the Unstiffened Connection,
Fully Tensioned Bolts
Results of the Analyses exhibit slight inelastic action up to the design
ultimate limit state and show dependable load-
Important results from the analyses are presented deflection behaviour at higher loads.
in Figs. 67.11 to 67.18; more details are in [4].
Fig. 67.14 shows that these criteria are all met for
Fig. 67.11 shows the magnified deformed shape both types of connection. It also shows that the
of the tension side of the connection at 139% of lower design capacity of the unstiffened
the design moment capacity for the stiffened connection is appropriate, given its earlier
connection and at 229% of the design moment departure from linear elastic behaviour.
capacity for the unstiffened connection. (From the
design example, in section 2.3 of DCB No. 66, Fig. 67.14 also shows that, for the stiffened
pp. 14 and 15, the design moment capacity, connection, there is very little difference in the
which is governed by the tension quadrant, is overall column load-deflection behaviour between
3681 x 424/392 = 3981 kNm for the stiffened snug tight and fully tensioned bolts (provided that
connection and 3681 x 141/216 = 2403 kNm for the flange plates are brought fully into contact by
the unstiffened connection). the snug tightening process, which has been
assumed in the analyses and is required by
Fig. 67.12 shows the bolt force versus loading NZS 3404).
history for the bolt on the extreme compression
side (Bolt B1), the bolt on the extreme tension 5.2 Bolt forces for the different connection
side (Bolt B16) and the bolt at the centreline (ie. options
near the neutral axis (Bolt B8)). The influence of
the stiffener on the history of bolt forces is These forces are shown in Fig. 67.12 and
demonstrated when all bolts are fully tensioned. Fig. 67.13. Note that the vertical scale, which
gives the bolt forces, are different in the two
Fig. 67.13 shows the bolt forces for each of these figures, which gives an apparent greater variation
three bolts in the stiffened connection, with the in bolt force with loading history in the first figure.
different bolt modes (snug tight and fully
tensioned). For the compression bolts (bolt 1) that are initially
fully tensioned, the maximum bolt tension force is
Fig. 67.14 shows the load-deflection behaviour at reached during pre-tensioning and this slowly
the top of the column for the three connection reduces under increasing applied moment on the
options studied. This figure also shows the 75% joint, however the reduction is not large. For the
and 100% design load level for the unstiffened fully tensioned bolts, there is negligible difference
and the stiffened connections. in the compression bolt force variation with
loading between the stiffened and unstiffened
Fig. 67.15 shows the magnified deformed shape connection (Fig. 67.12). For the stiffened
at the tension side of the stiffened connection for connection with snug tight bolts, the small amount
the two bolt modes (/S and /TB), at the upper limit of bolt tension induced by the snug tightening is
of serviceability loading. Fig. 67.16 shows the not reduced during subsequent loading of the
local plasticity in the plate developed at that level joint.
of loading.
As expected, the bolt in the shear quadrant (bolt
Fig. 67.17 shows the same features for the 8) exhibits little change in loading following pre-
stiffened connection at 92% of the design load. tensioning. It is interesting to see that the bolt 8 in
Rapid changes in the contour colours indicate the the unstiffened connection does show an increase
necessity for a finer mesh in those regions, to in bolt force over load steps 5.5 to 6 (see
more clearly show the yieldlines. Fig. 67.12). This is due to the tension effects
propagating around the connection as far as the
Finally, Fig. 67.18 shows the plasticity and midpoint of the shear quadrant under this high
deformed shape in the plate around the bolt holes level of applied moment (229% of the unstiffened
of the unstiffened connection at 114% of the joint design moment capacity).
design load for that connection.
The tension bolts (bolt 16) that are pretensioned
5. Comparison of FEA Behaviour With initially undergo a very slight drop in force under
Design Example the applied load. This is due to negative bending
moment (tension on the top face) developing in
5.1 Load-deflection behaviour at the plate at the bolt position. This reduction is a
serviceability and ultimate limit states feature of both the bolt beam model and bolt solid
model, as shown in Fig. 67. 8. The reduction is
The load-deflection behaviour of the column with minor and the bolt force returns to the original pre-
this connection should remain nearly elastic up to tensioned level in the latter stages of loading. The
the maximum serviceability limit state loading, bolt force does not increase above that level for
the pre-tensioned bolts, which is consistent with The analysis also shows that the yieldline CF
the deformed shape showing no separation of the between the bolt pairs (Fig. 65.13) does not
plates at the bolt position (Fig. 67.16, Fig. 67.17 undergo a constant rotation along its length (see
and Fig. 67.18). This is not fully consistent with Fig. 67.11, right hand side). The behaviour along
the design procedure, as explained in section 5.3. that yieldline is closer to mode 2 than mode 1.
In contrast, the tension bolt that is initially snug Further mesh enhancement would be expected to
tightened shows a significant increase in show this more clearly.
bolt tension force during the applied loading
(Fig. 67.13). The change in slope of that force The magnified deformed shape also shows the
corresponds to the bolt yield in tension being hinging of the column wall, as expected from
reached, at load step 3. Figs. 65.17 or 65.18. Details are in Fig. 67.11,
right hand side; the effect only shows clearly,
5.3 Comparison of modes of behaviour even at 20x magnification, for the highest applied
between design and analysis, stiffened load in each instance.
connection
5.4 Comparison of modes of behaviour
The postulated yieldline pattern for the flange between design and analysis;
yielding between stiffeners in a stiffened flange unstiffened connection
connection is shown in Fig. 65.13 of DCB No. 65. The postulated yieldline pattern is shown in
The magnified deformed shape of the stiffened Fig. 65.14.
connection at 70% of the design load and above,
as shown in Fig. 67.16 and Fig. 67.17, is The actual yieldline pattern at the highest level of
consistent with that shape. loading for the unstiffened connection is shown in
Fig. 67.11, left hand side.
When calculating the stiffened flange
tension capacity, from section 3.3 of DCB From the design example for the unstiffened
No. 65, pp. 21-22, two modes must be checked flange capacity, section 2.3.3, page 15, DCB
for this yieldline shape. The first mode is No. 66, the governing failure mode is mode 1.
associated with complete flange yielding, as This involves no separation at the bolt line and no
shown in Fig. 65.17. The second mode is increase in bolt force due to prying.
associated with bolt elongation and flange
yielding, as shown in Fig. 65.18. The first mode is Fig. 67.12 shows that the tension bolt does not
associated, in theory, with no separation of the experience tension forces greater than the pre-
plates at the bolt location and hence no increase tensioning force, which is consisted with the mode
in bolt force above the pre-tension force due to 1 behaviour.
prying under load. The second mode is
associated with separation and additional prying However, Fig. 67.11, left hand side, shows that
forces. The lesser of the two modes gives the plate separation along the yieldline CD
calculated design tension capacity. (Fig. 65.14) does occur, giving a combination of
modes 1 and 2 action along this yieldline.
For the connection element sizes and
properties used in the design example of DCB 6. Conclusions
No. 66, the calculated design tension capacity,
φNtw, is 424 kN for mode 2 and 601 kN for mode 1 The key results from the modelling are given in
(DCB No. 66, p.14). This means that mode 2 section 7.3 of DCB No. 65. Although they were
governs the calculated design capacity. written from the results of preliminary analyses
only, they are supported by the results of the full
The FEA studies do show a slight separation of analyses, as presented herein and in more detail
the plates at the bolt line, for the fully tensioned in [4].
bolt stiffened connection (See Fig. 67.17).
However, there is no increase in bolt force due to The FEA study has been an essential tool towards
prying. Thus the observed behaviour from the verifying the design procedure presented in DCB
FEA is intermediate between the two modes. The No. 65. The analyses have shown that the design
lack of bolt force increase due to prying procedure is appropriate in terms of the
appears to be due to the plate undergoing performance generated at the serviceability limit
increased localised plasticity around the bolt (see state and at the ultimate limit state. The analyses
Fig. 67.15 and Fig. 67.17) to accommodate the have also shown that the influence of bolt modes
increased deformation. This may be a function of (/S and /TB) on the behaviour of the stiffened
the method of attachment of the bolt and plate, connection is minor, provided that the snug tight
masking an increase in bolt force that would occur bolts have been properly snug tightened.
in practice. However any increase in bolt force
due to prying in practice would be minor in this
instance.
Matters Arising From the with copies of pertinent papers and DCB
articles.
Seminars on Composite Floor
(2) HERA Report R4-107DD [8] Draft for
System Design and Comment: Guide to Practical Aspects of
Construction Composite Floor System Design and
Construction, Including Concrete
Introduction Placement. This guide [8], which was
released for wider review and comment at
HERA, in conjunction with Dimond and New these seminars, is presented in 3 parts.
Zealand Steel, recently conducted a series of
seminars around New Zealand on the design and The first part, Practical Aspects for
construction of composite steel and concrete floor Designers, provides information on issues
systems. The seminars were very well attended, from deflection and ponding effects of
with over 200 attendees at the five venues. unpropped construction, to prop
construction issues and, through to
During the seminars, various issues arose, some information on economical and practical
relating to the material presented and others precambering.
relating to issues not covered by those notes, but
which should have been covered. This article The second part, Specification for
addresses these matters arising from the Measurement of Surface Finish Tolerances,
seminars, following a general overview of the presents a specification for the
seminars. measurement of concrete slab surface
finish tolerances, including details on how
General Overview to reliably quantify surface flatness and
levelness.
The seminar comprised a very full and intensive
day, covering the full range of topics associated The third part, Guidelines for the Placement
with composite floor system design and and Finishing of Concrete, provides a
construction, from an overview of floor system suggested concrete placement method to
design and construction, detailed coverage of achieve the required surface flatness and
composite design principles and formulae, levelness requirements, including set up of
demonstration of the new HiBond Design Wizard, control points, sequence of concrete
followed by sessions on economical design, placement, etc.
vibration design principles and software, shear
stud design and detailing, spandrel beams, etc. (3) HERA Report R4-112 [9] Report and User’s
The key topics covered were: Manual for NZFl_Vib1, Program for the
Analysis of Floor Vibration. This spread-
• Practical aspects of composite floor system
design and construction sheet based program and comprehensive
user’s manual incorporates the
• Concrete placement guide
USA/Canadian design for vibration
• Overview, principles, and detailed design procedures given in the AISC Design Guide
formulae for composite floor design
Series 11 [10] and ATC-01 [12] into a
• Demonstration of the new HiBond Design comprehensive design tool for floor system
Wizard in-service vibration design. The program
• Deflection design has been customised for all the composite
• Acoustics issues relating to composite steel-concrete floor systems used in New
floors Zealand, ie. Hi♦Bond, TrayDec,
• Control of cracking and leaks Speedfloor, Comflor and for conventional
• Vibration design reinforced concrete flat slabs.
• Economical design and construction
• Shear stud design, testing and other floor (4) HiBond Design Wizard [12]. This CD based
systems program is a comprehensive design tool,
• Spandrel beams covering the full gambit of composite design
• Design for fire with Hi♦Bond composite systems. The
software facilitates rapid design solutions
This material is covered in three publications, and and evaluation of alternatives, thus allowing
one CD, namely: the designer to focus on the all important
higher level design issues.
(1) HERA Report R4-113 [7] Notes Prepared
for a Seminar on Design and Construction
The program covers the complete
of Composite Floor Systems. These notes
composite design needs from slabs,
[7] presented either the detailed notes or a
secondary and primary beams, including
copy of the powerpoint presentations, along
unpropped, propped, and pre-cambered With such a comprehensive range of material
design scenarios. Incorporated are presented and topics covered, it was expected
comprehensive strength and serviceability that various issues would arise, during the
checks right through to vibration design, presentation of the seminars, for which follow-up
with user control over full/partial shear coverage was desirable. These are now
connection, acceptable deflection criteria, presented, under the session headings in which
etc. they were covered. Not all sessions gave rise to
follow-up issues, which is why the sessions
Also incorporated in the program is a covered below are not the full range of sessions
powerful preliminary design mode, which presented at the seminars.
allows design, in just a few minutes, of a
complete slab-secondary-primary beam
scenario, with just six data inputs/choices.
Flooding of concrete
over this region
Fig. 67.19
Placement of Concrete by Flooding Over a Slab Panel Region
Session 1.2: Concrete Placement Guide placement operation, following which they would
screed to level over that panel.
The session introduced the draft concrete
placement guide [8] and invited critical review and As shown in Fig. 67.19 (which is based on Fig. 3.7
comment, as well as implementation of the from [8]), this involves flooding the slab panel A1-
recommendations. Quite a few comments were B1-B2-A2, thus depositing and levelling the
received, with the issues covered as follows: concrete over quadrants (1) to (4) in one
operation. This is a faster method of placement
Methods and sequence of concrete placement than that described in section 3.5 of [8], provided
that the concrete placers have sufficient
While some of the contractors present agreed with experience in free screeding to level between the
the method of concrete placement described in reference points. In terms of setting these
section 3.5 of [8], representatives from two major reference points, their placement and allowance
contractors advised that they would not use that for the expected wet concrete deflection, the
method, as it is too slow. Instead they would flood procedure in section 3.4.2 of [8] is still directly
a slab panel region (ie. the region of floor slab applicable.
between adjacent vertical supports), making
allowance for the expected wet concrete However, in setting the area to be flooded with
deflection at specific points during this concrete concrete, this would need to extend beyond the
edges bounded by the columns, so as to allow for from the seminars, these errors are easily spotted
the deflection of the interior support beams at the and have no technical impact.
panel edges due to the wet concrete loading from
the adjacent panel. This is shown in Fig. 67.19 Horizontal shear splitting is covered in session
and requires different overruns for the interior 4.3.
secondary beams than for the interior primary
beams. It is an approach that requires the The last notes page in session 2.2 of [7] presents
concrete placers to have an understanding of how rules of thumb for preliminary design and
unpropped composite floor systems will deflect evaluation. The rules for vibration assessment
under the wet concrete loading. are given in item 4. The deflection limits of 0.5
mm and 0.7 mm are expected to be satisfactory,
It is intended to include both methods in the final in terms of giving a satisfactory preliminary design
version of [8]; this involves also modifying Table solution that will also pass the final design check
3.2 on page 12. to [9-12], for floor systems with damping ratios of
0.03 or greater and acceleration limits of 0.5%g or
The contractors also advised that the area of greater. (See Table 4 of [9] for these quantities).
concrete per concrete placing gang recommended
from [8] which can be placed in a normal
For floor systems with acceleration limits ≤ 0.5%g
working day is too optimistic. In a normal
and with a damping ratio of 0.025, the preliminary
working day, a concrete placement gang can
design deflection limits may not be low enough.
lay 500 m2 to 600 m2 of concrete. However, on a
When the damping ratio is 0.02, these limits will
hot summer’s day, there is a risk of the delay
definitely be too lenient (ie. too high).
between placing and finishing becoming too long,
resulting in a poorly finished slab. This may
The final point made in this session was reference
require a reduction in the area placed.
to Table 5.1: Table of Equivalent Uniform Design
Testing for flatness: rapid determination of Loads, from the AISC Design Capacity Tables
critical areas to test with the freestanding [13]. This very useful table allows the equivalent
straightedge UDL for strength (moment or shear) or for
serviceability evaluation to be rapidly determined.
Section 2.3.5 of [8] specifies the use of the This will allow software which is based on UDLs,
freestanding straightedge to measure flatness. As such as the HiBond Design Wizard [12], to also be
illustrated in Fig. 2.8 of [8], this is applied over the used for point loading situations.
rows and columns of the grid of measurement
points established for levelness testing, as well as Session 3.1: Deflection
in between those rows and columns.
Note that Fig. 1.4 from [8] has an error in it; the
However, this method requires a lot of positions in second fraction in Fig. 1.4(b) should read 5/9 on
which to place the straightedge and undertake the the denominator, not 5/6.
recordings. During the seminars, advice was
sought on ways to cut down on the number of One of the slides in this session addressed the
testing locations required for flatness. issue of locations requiring particular care in
deflection considerations. It highlighted the case
One suggestion which has merit is to flood the of secondary beams running parallel to adjacent
floor with water, then to identify locations where vertically stiff elements, such as shear walls,
the depth of ponding water exceeds the flatness where a high local slope can develop between the
80% gap limits of section 2.3.5.6 of [8]. Such floor at the midspan of the secondary beam and
locations would then be subjected to the flatness the adjacent point at the shear wall. This situation
testing regime specified in section 2.3.5, while is also covered in section 1.9 (2) of [8]. A solution
other regions would not need specific testing for can be to place another secondary beam of the
flatness. The practicality of this will need to be same size midway between the shear wall and the
trialed; the HERA Structural Engineer is seeking adjacent secondary beam.
feedback on this from the industry.
The same solution can be employed where the
Deflection issues
lateral or vertical deflection of an unpropped
Deflections were covered in several sessions, but secondary edge beam needs to be minimised.
principally in session 3.1. Matters arising This is not a common requirement, but can occur
regarding deflections are all covered there. where a secondary edge beam is located hard
against lift shaft guide rails or similar. Edge
Session 2.2: Design Principles beams can “roll” slightly at midspan as the
concrete is placed, due to the slight torsional
Some minor editorial errors were noted in the eccentricity and pull-in from the decking wet
seminar notes. These have been corrected in the concrete loading. From a strength or a vertical
master document. For those with the copies of [7] deflection point of view, this is not critical.
However, it may cause the beam bottom flange to Top flanges of steel beams in carpark
more outwards at midspan sufficient to obstruct buildings
services etc. placed very close to the undeformed
edge of the beam. Placement of an additional Also, in this session, the issue of durability of steel
secondary beam between the edge beam and the beams in car parking buildings, which are
adjacent interior beam will eliminate this problem. receiving steel decking and through deck welded
This solution would not be necessary in typical shear studs, was discussed. HERA’s
building secondary edge beam applications, only recommendations in this instance is to leave the
in some special circumstances, such as adjacent top flange unpainted so that the shear studs can
to close tolerance lift guide rails, etc. be successfully welded through deck. DCB Nos.
49 and 20 (especially DCB No. 20, pp. 2-5)
Session 3.3: Control of Cracking and provides the design guidance on assessing the
Suppression of Leaks corrosion allowance to make on the top flange in
this case.
In the slide on performance of existing car park
suspended concrete slabs, it was stated that However, there are instances where this approach
decking does not corrode from the inside. This is is not viable. For example, on edge beams
taken from DCB No. 49 and is based on exposed to the weather or for car parks open to
observation of existing car park decks, plus prevailing wind off the sea and situated close to
consideration of the suppression of corrosion the sea – see note 2 to Table 49.3 of DCB No. 49.
obtained by the concrete in contact with the There are also instances where this approach is
decking. As stated in item (i) on page 9 of DCB not acceptable to the client.
No. 49, this protection will remain in place until the
concrete depassivates at that interface. Given In these instances, if decking is to be placed over
that depassivation has to work down from the top the beams and shear studs welded on-site, then
surface, the typical slab thickness is expected to the decking must be locally holed to accept the
provide 50+ years protection against the slab studs (50 mm square opening), the paint removed
rusting out from the inside. from the beam top flange where the studs are to
be placed, the decking fixed in place and the
However, an example was given in the studs welded directly to the beam. This sounds
Christchurch seminar of a case where the deck like a slow and expensive operation, but in
had started to rust through, from the inside, in only practice it isn’t. One deck layer/shear stud welder
a few years. In that case, there was visible offers this for an extra $1.50/stud, which typically
cracking on the slab top surface, but this was not amounts to no more than an additional $3.00/m2
considered excessive. However, there was also a of floor area. The stud welders undertake the
concrete additive used for rapid setting that would paint removal, rather than the main contractor,
have had the effect of causing rapid which is desirable as they know from experience
depassivation, leading to a severe corrosion the cleanliness of steel surface finish required to
environment being generated at the steel/concrete achieve a reliable stud weld.
interface. Thus the advice given in session 3.3 or
in DCB No. 49 on the protection against decking For more details on this option, contact
top down corrosion afforded by the concrete Ian Welch at Nelson Stud Welding Ltd, at phone
needs to be tempered with the cautionary note 04-233 9421.
that no concrete additives (or aggregates)
containing chlorides are to be used, unless the Discolouration of paint from stud welding
decking is considered as permanent formwork
only. When studs are site welded onto already painted
beams, the shear studs should be, if possible,
The HERA Structural Engineer also advised that placed on the beam centreline, so as to minimise
increasing the slab reinforcement content from the potential effect of discolouration, from the heat
minimum requirements to “strong crack control” of welding, of the paint on the lower surface
requirements can mean increasing reinforcement underneath where the shear studs are located.
areas (mm2/m width) by up to 4 times, with some The susceptibility of paint systems to this heat-
associated significant cost increase implications. induced discolouration depends on the paint
However, subsequent discussions with system used, with inorganic zinc silicates being
contractors shows that the cost increase is not not susceptible and acrylic or epoxy systems the
great, being in the order of $6/m2 floor area. This most susceptible. If the paint surface is
is typically cheaper than controlling cracking discoloured but not blistered, then its corrosion
through reducing the shrinkage by means of performance is not adversely effected. Thus it is
concrete additives. more of a visual issue and the visual impact can
be reduced by using a darker coloured paint and a
matt finish. As a last resort, on-site touchup of
locations of unacceptable discolouration can be
used. Leaving the top coat to be applied on site a repair situation. As a general alternative,
after the studs are placed overcomes this look at using channel connectors to
discolouration issue, but requires masking of the NZS 3404 Clause 13.3.2.1 (b).
decking and on-site painting of significant areas of
steelwork. Testing of shear stud weld quality
A specification is given in this session for testing

Session 4.2: Shear Stud Design, Including
of shear stud weld quality. There are two parts to
Testing, and Other Floor this specification. The first part is for shear studs
System welded to the beams with a machine that does not
Good practice provisions record weld cycle parameters. The second part is
for a machine that records weld cycle parameters.
In this session, there is a note slide covering the
topic good practice provisions in regards to the In both parts, but explicitly stated under item 6 of
welding of shear studs. However, a number of the first part, there are requirements to select a
important points were missed out of these notes. random number of extra studs for testing. The
These are: levels of studs to be selected are stated at 5% for
15o bend testing or 100% for ring testing.
• There are special Ramset pins and Ramset
guns for fixing decking to steel that are These requirements are appropriate for studs in
available. The notes correctly state that floor systems subject to fatigue loading, such as
Ramset pins (and guns) used for fastening bridge decks. However, for floor systems subject
timber to steel are not suitable, however to static loading, they are excessive and should
they do not mention that specialist Ramset be reduced to 1% for 15 o bend testing or 20% for
deck pins and guns are available. ring testing.
Performance of floor systems incorporating

• The ratio of (stud diameter / parent metal
Hollowcore units (HCUs)
thickness) ≤ 2.5 is required from NZS 3404
Clause 13.3.2.3 (c). This means that Three issues were covered in this session,
19 mm diameter studs cannot be used on namely:
steel flanges less than 7.6 mm thick. See
also the other provisions of that clause from (1) Problems due to HCU failure under severe
[1] for stud spacing, etc. earthquake action
(2) Determination of shear stud design shear
• Normally, the largest diameter shear stud capacity for composite beams supporting
possible for a given application should be HCUs
used. Also, different shear stud diameters (3) Problems due to HCU failure in severe fire
should not be used on the same floor conditions.
system.
The question was asked after one seminar as to
• When, as is typical, shear studs are to be whether these problems are particular to HCUs on
welded on site, and especially through steel beams and whether the same problems
deck, a good power supply must be would be expected for HCUs on a concrete frame.
available. Minimum recommended is 450
amps/phase, 3 phase, with a 125 amp The answer to that is as follows:
motor rated fuse.
(1) The severe earthquake action problem is
common to all framed building systems, in
• Welded headed studs are designed to be
either steel or concrete. This is well
welded with specialist stud welding
illustrated by the identical failure modes
equipment. The alternative, of welding with
being seen in a steel framed building at
a fillet weld around the base, requires the
Northridge (1994 Northridge earthquake)
use of a suitable prequalified weld detail.
and in a concrete framed building at the
Such a detail would be AF-1 from the draft
University of Canterbury research testing.
standard AS/NZS 1554.3, Structural Steel
In terms of the transverse splitting of the
Welding: Welding of Reinforcing Steel [14].
ends of the units, this is likely to be a
The choice of electrode would be as for
greater problem when the unit is supported
grade 300 rebar from that standard.
on a torsionally stiff concrete beam than
Testing of such welds would be to the 15o
when the unit is supported on a torsionally
bend test, with 1 in 4 studs so tested. This
flexible open steel section.
process is not economic compared with use
of specialist stud welding equipment and
(2) The determination of shear stud design
should be considered only for placement of
shear capacity is particular to the use of
limited numbers of studs, as for example in
HCUs on steel beams.
(3) The potential poor performance in fire Connections; HERA, Manukau City, New
comprises two aspects. First is poor Zealand, 2002, HERA Report R4-114.
performance of the units due to deformation
of their supporting beams in fire. This is a 5. Clifton, GC; Structural Steelwork Limit
potential problem only for steel supporting State Design Guides Volume 1; HERA,
beams and is overcome by insulation, Manukau City, 1994, HERA Report R4-80.
where required, as specified in [7]. Second
is poor performance due to the unit 6. ABAQUS/Standard; Finite Element Analysis
delamination under fire-induced stresses. Program; HKS Inc, Pawtucket RI, USA,
This is independent of the supporting 2001.
structural system.
7. Clifton, GC (Editor); Notes Prepared for a
At the time of writing this part of the Seminar on Composite Steel Design and
seminar notes [7], the HERA Structural Construction; HERA Manukau City, New
Engineer was not aware of any test or Zealand, 2002, HERA Report R4-113.
actual fire examples of HCU delamination in
severe fires. During the seminar series, he 8. Clifton, GC; Draft for Comment: Guide to
was advised of an example of standard fire the Practical Aspects of Composite Floor
tests from Denmark in which the units System Design and Construction, Including
suffered the postulated delamination. Concrete Placement; HERA, Manukau City,
However, these results have not been New Zealand, 2002, HERA Report R4-
officially published. 107DD.
Acknowledgments 9. Khwaounjoo, YR; Report and User’s

Manual for NZF1_Vib 1 Program (Program
The HERA Structural Engineer would like to for the Analysis of Floor Vibration); HERA,
acknowledge the contribution of all persons and Manukau City, New Zealand, 2002, HERA
organisations involved in these composite floor Report R4-112.
system design and construction seminars, with
special mention of: 10. Murray, TM et. al.; Floor Vibration due to
Human Activity; American Institute of Steel
• Geoff Bird, New Zealand Steel, and Michael Construction, 1997, Steel Design Guide
Klemick, Dimond, for their contribution to Series 11.
the seminar notes, seminar organisation
and presentations. The seminar series 11. Allen, DE et. al.;Minimising Floor Vibration;
would not have been possible without their Applied Technology Council, Allen, DE et.
inputs al.;Minimising Floor Vibration; Applied
Technology Council, Redwood City, USA,
• Dimond and New Zealand Steel, for 1999, ATC Design Guide; 1. Redwood City,
sponsorship and support of their USA, 1999, ATC Design Guide; 1.
presenters’ costs
12. Bird, GD and Klemick, MP; HiBond Design
• Speedfloor Ltd for sponsorship. Wizard for Composite Design of the Hi-
Bond Flooring System, Version 1.0;
Dimond, Auckland, 2002.
References
1. NZS 3404: 1997, plus Amendment No. 1: Third Edition, Volume 1: Open Sections;
2001, Steel Structures Standard; Standards Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. Sydney, Australia, 2000.
2. Joints in Steel Construction: Moment 14. Draft Standard AS/NZS 1554.3:200X,
Connections; The Steel Construction Structural Steel Welding: Welding of
Institute, Ascot, England, 1997 (with Reinforcing Steel; Standards New Zealand,
amendments), SCI Publication No: 207/95. Wellington.
3. AS/NZS 1252:1996, High Strength Bolts
With Associated Nuts and Washers for
Structural Engineering; Standards New
4. Mago, N and Clifton, GC; Finite Element

Analysis of Circular Bolted Flange Annulus
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 68 June/July 2002

beginning of the article. review by a number of people. The effort and input of these
reviewers is greatly appreciated.
Introduction In This Issue Page

The Sliding Hinge Joint 1
As readers will be aware, HERA and the University
of Auckland are engaged in a long-term research Member Compression Capacity of a 33
project aimed at developing new forms of semi- Solid Section
rigid joints for moment-resisting, steel framed
seismic-resisting systems (MRSFs). Two joint References 33
types have been developed from this programme
as the preferred options for the beam to column
connections of MRSFs. These are the Flange The Sliding Hinge Joint: Design
Bolted Joint (FBJ) and the Sliding Hinge Joint
(SHJ). and Detailing Provisions and
Design Example
The experimental and analytical phases of this
project are now completed and the final phase This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
(writing up and presenting of results) has begun. Structural Engineer, John Butterworth, Senior Lecturer at the
University of Auckland Department of Civil and Resource
Engineering and Tanja Miller, Undergraduate Student from the
The FBJ was the first joint to be developed. Fachhochschule Weingarten on Study Leave (Industrial
Design and detailing procedures for it have already Practice) at HERA.
been published – in DCB No. 58, principally, and
with a minor corrigenda in DCB No. 62 and an 1. Introduction and Scope of Article
extension to its original scope of application in
DCB No. 64. This joint has been used in at least 1.1 Brief history of the overall project
two building developments (one in Auckland and
one in Napier), which was the intention behind the HERA and the University of Auckland are in the
design and detailing requirements being published final stages of a long-term research project aimed
prior to the release of the full research report [1]. at developing innovative new forms of semi-rigid
joints for moment-resisting steel framed seismic-
With the completion of the analytical work on the resisting systems (MRSFs).
SHJ, the research has now reached the stage
where final design and detailing provisions for the These joints are designed and detailed to achieve
SHJ can be made. This issue presents these the following performance characteristics:
recommendations, covering the design and • Remain fully rigid up to the design level
detailing of the joint itself and the design of serviceability limit state earthquake moment
moment-resisting steel framed system
incorporating the joint. It also presents a detailed • Remain reasonably rigid above the
design example on a particular SHJ. serviceability limit state level and up to the
design level ultimate limit state earthquake
Also covered is a short article on a specific design moment
issue that has arisen in recent times.
• Allow inelastic rotation between beam and
column to occur when the design ultimate limit
state earthquake moment is exceeded
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 68, June/July 2002
• Be able to withstand the inelastic rotation records. Given that the records were selected and
demand associated with the design level scaled in accordance with the new draft, [4], while
earthquake with negligible damage, such that the FBJ frames had been designed to the existing
the post-design earthquake building response standard [2], some comparative 5 and 10 storey
under serviceability conditions is not frames were redesigned to the new standard to
significantly affected see the differences in seismic design actions, P - ∆
effects and subsequent member sizes. The
• Withstand greater levels of rotation demand member sizes for a given application turned out to
with increased damage but not failure. be the same from both standards for each case
studied.
Of the five joint types that have been researched
for this project, two joint details have emerged as For the SHJ NITH studies, the frames were all
preferred options for the beam to column designed and analysed to the draft provisions.
connections of MRSFs. These are the Flange Because the suite of earthquake records cover
Bolted Joint (FBJ) and the Sliding Hinge Joint three soil/fault conditions, the designs were
(SHJ). undertaken for these conditions. The three
These two joints are designed and detailed to meet conditions covered were:
the performance criteria in different ways. Very
briefly: (1) Class C – shallow soil [4] – with near fault
action
• The FBJ is designed for higher strength, low (2) Class C – shallow soil [4] – without near
design ductility demand applications. It is very fault action
simple to fabricate and erect. It has a low (3) Class D – soft soil [4] – without near fault
inelastic rotation damage threshold, but is action
capable of withstanding high levels of inelastic
rotation demand if necessary. Designs were undertaken for two seismic zones
(Auckland, Wellington). The near fault action
• The SHJ is designed for lower strength, high option is only applicable to Wellington.
design ductility demand applications. It is
slightly less simple than the FBJ to fabricate The SHJ NITH studies were completed in June
and more complex to erect and is designed to 2002. With their completion, the design and
withstand fully ductile levels of design inelastic detailing provisions for the SHJ have been
rotation with minimum damage. finalised and are presented herein.
The FBJ development was completed in 2001. Summary details of the NITH studies and the
Guidance on design and detailing of the FBJ and frame options will be given in DCB No. 69. Writing
MRSFs incorporating the FBJ has been given in up of the entire project is also progressing
DCB No. 58, with a minor corrigenda in DCB No. concurrently and is due for completion in the first
62. In the latter half of 2001, it became apparent quarter of 2003 [1].
from the numerical integration time history (NITH)
analyses that the originally proposed scope of A summary paper [7] of the research into both
application of the FBJ, which was for low ductility joints and systems was presented at the 2001
demand applications only, could be widened, and
NZSEE Technical Conference.
work on this was undertaken, with the results
published in DCB No. 64.
1.2 Scope of This Article
Up to the end of 2001, all NITH studies were
This article presents the design and detailing
undertaken in accordance with NZS 4203:1992 [2].
provisions for the SHJ and for MRSFs using the
However, the March 2002 version of the draft
SHJ. The former is presented in section 3 and the
replacement to that standard, which has been
latter in section 4. This is followed with a SHJ
under development for several years, contained design example, in section 5.
detailed guidance on the selection and scaling of
earthquake records for NITH. The selection and However, prior to presenting these provisions, this
scaling of earthquake records used up to the end article looks briefly at the performance of SHJs in
of 2001 was rather ad-hoc (see details in section severe earthquakes, in terms of the design
6.4 of HERA Report R4-88 [3] and summary philosophy, target performance requirements and
details in section 3.4, pp. 16-17 of DCB No. 64) behaviour from experimental tests. These issues
and so, in 2002, the opportunity has been taken to have already been mentioned in DCB No. 59 and
use the provisions of DR1170.4 [4] to produce a that article will be cross-referenced as appropriate.
revised suite of earthquake records and scale They will also be covered in detail in the thesis
factors. Details of these will be summarised in report [1] on the whole project.
DCB No. 69. The FBJ designs were then
reanalysed under this new suite of earthquake
Fig. 68.1
Sliding Hinge Joint: Isometric and Exploded View
Fig. 68.2
Layout and Notation for the
Sliding Hinge Joint
Fig. 68.3
Lever Aims for Moment Capacity Determination
Before commencing with the performance in moment from the large-scale test 4 and in
earthquakes, a description of the SHJ is in order. Fig. 68.4 herein, which shows the joint rotation
Fig. 68.1 shows an isometric and exploded view versus moment from the large-scale test 3.
of the joint. Fig. 68.2 shows an elevation with the
layout and notation, while Fig. 68.3 shows the On rotation reversal, the joint unloads abruptly,
lever arms for determination of the joint moment then the moment capacity builds up in the reverse
capacity. direction, as shown in Fig. 59.28 or 68.4. The
increase in moment with increasing reverse
2. Performance of the Sliding Hinge Joint rotation occurs in two stages; one as sliding
in Severe Earthquakes occurs along the first interface (beam to plate) and
then with a further increase in shear capacity as
2.1 Design philosophy and modes of the second interface (plate to cap plate) is
operation activated.
The slotted hole is designed to accommodate a

The design philosophy behind this joint has been
joint rotation of ± 30 mrad (radians x 10 -3)
to establish dependable behavioural
multiplied by an over rotation factor of 1.25; if the
characteristics for the SHJ and for the MRSF
inelastic rotation demand exceeds this, the joint
system for the serviceability limit state condition
undergoes further inelastic behaviour through
and for two levels of ultimate limit state conditions.
flange plate yielding, in the same manner as for
These are described in section 2.3. The first level
the FBJ (see DCB Issue No. 58). The first large-
of ULS condition is the design level ultimate limit
scale SHJ specimen, tested to destruction in test
state earthquake, as stipulated by NZS 4203 [2] or
2, still developed its design moment capacity at
DR 1170.4 [4] and the second is the more severe
maximum considered event. All the experimental over 120 mrad rotation!
and analytical work undertaken on the SHJ has Under the design level ULS earthquake, inelastic
been planned and executed with this philosophy rotation demand is expected to be not greater
in mind. than the 37.5 mrad accommodated within the
slotted holes. At this level of rotation demand,
The mode of operation of the SHJ is relatively minimum joint degradation will occur and only
simple. The beam is pinned laterally at the top minor slab cracking, such that no post-earthquake
flange level, using nominal sized bolt holes and repair is required.
FBJ details. This keeps lateral movement in the
floor slab to 2-3 mm, thus minimising undesirable Under the maximum considered event (MCE), the
floor slab participation and slab damage. Joint MRSF with SHJs will retain its integrity, to allow
rotation is achieved through sliding at the evacuation and post-earthquake assessment, but
bottom flange and the web bottom bolt level (see will suffer controlled joint damage, which may
Fig. 68.1 for the location of these components and necessitate replacement of components.
Fig. 64.10, DCB No. 64, for an illustration of this However, the results from the NITH studies show
mechanism). that, in most instances, little or no reinstatement
would be needed after most maximum considered
The sliding details are shown in the isometric view events, especially for buildings not subject to near
of Fig. 68.1. The sliding layers are between the fault action.
brass shims and plate (web plate, bottom bolts for
bottom flange plate). The holes for the web In terms of the force based seismic design
bottom bolts in the web plate and for the bottom philosophy of [2, 4], the design procedures
flange bolts in the bottom flange plate are slotted developed for these semi-rigid systems utilise
to allow this sliding to occur. The beam flange or either the equivalent static or modal response
web and the associated cap plates all have spectrum methods, in conjunction with NZS 3404
nominal sized holes. [5] and, where appropriate, HERA Report R4-76
[6]. The preliminary sizing / design method, in
When the moment demand on the SHJ from particular, is easy and rapid to use. These
earthquake generates internal beam axial forces procedures are given in sections 3 and 4 below.
which exceed the sliding resistance available
through the bottom flange bolts and web bottom 2.2 Design role of joint components
bolts, the joint will slide, allowing beam rotation to
occur. As sliding occurs, the cap plate is This is described in section 3.3.2 herein.
anchored in position relative to the beam flange or 2.3 Performance characteristics
web by the bolts, allowing the cap plate to also
slide relative to these surfaces. Once the The MRSFs with SHJs have been developed to
imposed moment reduces, there comes a point deliver the following performance characteristics
where the sliding stops and the joint becomes for the three levels of earthquake described in
rigid again. This is illustrated in Fig. 59.28 of DCB section 2.1.
No. 59, which shows the joint rotation versus
(1) For the serviceability limit state which is the only location likely to be
earthquake (ie. as represented by DR subjected to appreciable inelastic
1170.4 [4] Section 2.1.1, involving a return demand)
period of 20 years for normal structures (as
defined by Table 3.1 of AS/NZS 1170.0 (iii) In the extreme case, joint rotation
[8])): demand may cause the bolts to
impact the ends of the slotted holes,
(i) The joint and system shall remain requiring replacement of the sliding
effectively rigid, with negligible bolts and possibly bottom flange
inelastic action from any component plate replacement
(ii) This condition shall apply even when (iv) Panel zones may rotate in excess of
the system has been subjected to a 1% strain demand
prior ultimate limit state design level
event. (v) Lateral drift to be within sustainable
limits, including the influence of P - ∆
(2) For the design level ultimate limit state effects
earthquake (ie. as represented by [4, 8]
involving a return period of 500 years for (vi) The positioner bolt will need
normal structures): replacement
(i) Negligible inelastic demand in the (vii) Minor cracking only to the concrete
beams floor slab surrounding the frame.
(ii) Minimal inelastic demand in the Application of the design procedures for the force-
columns at base level (such that based method of design involves:
fixed column bases will be readily
repairable) and none at higher levels (a) Analysing the frame for the design level
earthquake using the Equivalent Static
(iii) The rotation demand on the joints is Method or the Modal Response Spectrum
not to cause the bottom flange bolts Method from [2,4], and sizing the members
to contact the ends of the slotted and connection components to meet the
holes required strength and stiffness criteria for
this event
(iv) Column panel zone rotation demand
to be ≤ 1% (b) Following the joint design and detailing
provisions given herein (section 3) such
(v) P - ∆ effects to be accounted for that the joint can sustain the MCE rotational
either through provision of suitable demands while delivering the performance
frame stiffness (ie. satisfying characteristics of (3) above.
Equation 6.1 (1) of [4]) or through
increased strength (ie. satisfying 2.4 SHJ behaviour from experimental tests
Clause 6.5.4 of (4)).
There has been extensive experimental testing
(vi) Lateral drift not to exceed 2% undertaken on the SHJ, involving both small-scale
component and large-scale assemblage tests.
(vii) The positioner bolt may need Some details of the large-scale tests are given on
replacement pages 26-30 of DCB No. 59 and a very brief
overview of these large-scale tests is given in
(viii) Minor cracking only to the concrete section 3.3 of [7]. Details of the small-scale
floor slab surrounding the frame. component tests are given on pages 28, 29 of
DCB No. 64.
(3) For the maximum considered
earthquake (ie. based on a 2000 year There has also been extensive finite element
return period event or higher): analysis (FEA) modelling of the sliding hinge joint
sliding assemblage. This work was undertaken in
(i) Negligible inelastic demand in the two stages; that from 2001 is summarised on
beams, except in the vicinity of bolts pages 24-33 of DCB No. 64 and presented in full
to the flange and web plates detail in HERA Report R4-110 [9]. That from
2002 will be summarised in DCB No. 70 and
(ii) Inelastic demand in the columns to presented in [1].
be able to be dependably resisted
(this applies especially at the base,
SHJ Test 3, 04/08/2000, Plastic Rotation vs Moment and Simultest3 from Hysteresis Model
800
600
400
200
Moment [kNm]
0
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-200
-400
-600
-800
Rotation [mrad]
Test 3 experimental data Simultest3
Fig. 68.4
Experimental and Simulated Moment-Rotation
Behaviour for Large-Scale Tests
Without Belleville Springs
Fig. 68.4 shows the moment-rotation • bolt layout and orientation

characteristics from the large-scale test 3, which • flange plate and cap plate thickness
involved the final proposed joint configuration • presence/absence of Belleville Springs
without Belleville Springs to the bottom flange • effect of loading rate: seismic-dynamic and
bolts. The moment-rotation characteristics of the pseudo-static
SHJ are markedly different to those of any other • effect of repeated loading on assemblage,
semi-rigid joint, because of the two stage sliding including after a delay time of 4 weeks
from the sliding components. In order to
accurately represent the joint behaviour in the One of the component experimental test results is
NITH analyses, a mathematical model of the shown in Fig. 64.16, DCB No. 64.
moment-rotation characteristics has had to be
developed and implemented into the computer On the basis of these component tests, a bolt
program, RUAUMOKO [10] used for the NITH design model has been developed to give the bolt
analyses. This has been done; see details in [11]. sliding shear capacity. Details of that model are
The simulated moment from that model generated given on pages 29, 30 of DCB No. 59. The basic
by the experimental rotations from test 3 is also mechanisms assumed for that model were
shown in Fig. 68.4. confirmed by FEA modelling, as described in [9]
and more briefly on pages 24-33 of DCB No. 64.
As the large-scale experimental tests could only
investigate one size and layout of bolt, plate and The completion of the experimental testing
cap plate and only at a pseudo-static rate of programme, FEA modelling and NITH studies has
loading, a series of small-scale tests on the allowed the design and detailing provisions for the
bottom flange sliding assemblage were SHJ and the MRSF systems incorporating the
undertaken during 2000/2001 on representative SHJ to be finalised. These are given in the next
connections to determine the influence of the two sections, starting with the design and detailing
following parameters. of the joint itself, in section 3.
• bolt size – range from M24 to M30
3. Design and Detailing of the Sliding Section 3.2 presents these requirements. It starts
Hinge Joint with limitations on the flange and web plate grade
and thickness, followed by the material selection
3.1 General for the brass shims.
The SHJ is intended for high ductility demand; This is followed by edge distances, bolt pitches
µdesign = 4 is used. In theory it is possible to use and gauges, then by the very important provision
µ = 6, the maximum allowed from [2 or 4]. The of clearance between the beam face and the
joint’s ductility capacity is more than adequate for column flange.
this. However, as noted in section 2.3 (1), one of
the performance criteria set for the joint is to The dimensioning of all components is then
remain effectively rigid, even after the joint has covered. This is followed by aspects of bolt
been subjected to a design level ultimate state selection and installation and forming of the
earthquake. slotted holes.
Such an event is associated with some permanent Section 3.2 ends with surface treatment
softening of the joint, hence the decision to use requirements for the ply contact surfaces.
µdesign = 4 as the ULS design ductility.
3.2.1 Material selection for the joint
Designers should be aware of the very great components
advantage that the SHJ and the FBJ offer over
The bolts used, except for the positioner bolt, are
conventional rigid-jointed MRSF systems. This
Property Class 8.8 Structural Bolts (HSFG bolts)
advantage is the ability to de-couple seismic and
to AS/NZS 1252 [13]. For calculation of bolt shear
gravity requirements in the frame and connection
capacity, threads are assumed to be in the shear
design. The approach used involves a variation
plane. These bolts are to be supplied galvanized
on the procedure for design of multi-storey wind-
(this is the default surface treatment specified by
resisting MRSFs in non-seismically active
[13]).
countries, such that:
The positioner bolt is a Property Class 4.6 black
(i) The beams are designed to resist the
bolt to AS 1111.1 [14]. Only one positioner bolt
maximum applied gravity loads (dead, live
per joint is used and it has the same diameter as
loads) in a simply supported condition
the bottom flange bolts. It must be supplied black
(ii) The joint is sized to resist only the moment finish, to make it visibly different from the HSFG
generated by the earthquake action, ie. bolts. Black finish is the default surface treatment
Mcode, µdesign. This moment is calculated and for this property class of bolt.
applied independently of the beam’s section
Grade of steel for the flange, web plates and cap
moment capacity.
plates is to be 250, 300 or 350. It is important,
(iii) The columns are designed to resist the when sizing the plates, that the use of grades 300
overstrength action developed by the joint, or 350 in order to reduce the plate thickness for a
not that from the beam. given width is clearly specified in the contract
documents so that the grade used in design is
Thus the beam depth can be chosen for gravity supplied in practice. Designers can always opt for
strength and lateral stiffness control without use of grade 250 material; this is also consistent
impacting on the column design. with the approach used in R4-100 [12].
Details of the MRSF design are given in section 4. The brass shim material must be specified as
Coverage of the joint design itself now UNS C2600 – ½ Hard Temper, eg. to AS 1566
commences, first with the all-important detailing [15]. It is very important that the ½ Hard
provisions and material selection. These should Temper is included in the specification, as that
be read in conjunction with Fig. 68.1 for general defines the hardness, yield stress and tensile
details and Fig. 68.2 for specific layout and strength required and on which all the research
notation. The notation used herein is consistent has been based.
with that of the Structural Steelwork Connections
Guide, HERA Report R4-100 [12]. 3.2.2 Limit on flange and web plate
thickness as a function of bolt
3.2 Detailing requirements and material diameter
selection
The same relationship as is used for the Flange
As with all structural components designed to Bolted Joints should be used for the bottom flange
deliver dependable performance under severe plate and web plate. This is given by equation
seismic action, the detailing requirements and 68.1 and has been determined from the
selection of appropriate materials are as important component testing;
to the final behaviour as the design itself.
ti,max = 0.9df (68.1) parallel to the line of principal applied force, shall
be ≥ df. This dimension is a'ep in Fig. 68.2.
where:
ti,max = maximum thickness of bottom flange,
web plate The distance between the centreline of the last
df = diameter of bolt pair of sliding bottom flange bolts and the
centreline of the positioner bolt is given by;
This translates to:
'
Sp,bfb→pb = Max(2aep; 0.5Lsh + aep + aep)
• 16 mm for M20 bolts (68.2)
• 20 mm for M24 bolts
• 25 mm for M30 bolts where:
• 32 mm for M36 bolts Lsh = length of slotted hole; see equation 68.6
in section 3.2.6.
For the top flange plate, which is sized on the
basis of the actions generated by the sliding bolts 3.2.4 Pitches and gauges
(bottom flange and web bottom bolts), this limit
Spf = Sgf = Sgw = 70 mm for M20 bolts
can be relaxed slightly in the larger bolt diameters,
up to: Spf = Sgf = Sgw = 90 mm for M24, M30 bolts
• 16 mm for M20 bolts Spf = Sgw = 140 mm for M36 bolts
• 20 mm for M24 bolts
• 32 mm for M30 bolts Sgf = 140 mm (preferred) for M30, M36 bolts
• 40 mm for M36 bolts = 90 mm (alternative) for M30, M36 bolts,
where the beam flange width is inadequate
3.2.3 Edge distances required to accommodate the sum of 140 mm plus at
least 4df.
For the edge distances to all the nominal sized
holes, these are ≥ 2df. This applies to the web top Note that the minimum beam flange
bolts, and the top flange bolts. The relevant width required from (Sgf + 2aet,f,b) will
distances are shown in Fig. 68.2, namely: not allow the SHJ to be used for beams
with bf < 170 mm.
aet = edge distance transverse to the line of
principal applied force Table 68.1 gives the relevant values for each
aep = edge distance parallel to the line of dimension that have been used for th range
principal applied force of practical bolt diameters for the SHJ, along
with the design sliding shear capacities,
For the slotted holes, the minimum distance from determined in accordance with equations 59.4
the end of a slotted hole to an adjacent free edge, to 59.10 of DCB No. 59.
Table 68.1
Bolt Sliding Shear Design Capacities and Detailing Properties
BOLT SLIDING SHEAR DESIGN CAPACITIES AND OTHER PROPERTIES
Bolt Plate Plate thickness limit,

Designation Thickness φVfss kN φVfss, bs kN φVfn kN df mm df ' mm aep mm aet mm Sgw mm Sgf mm Sp mm bottom flange & web
mm plates
M20 12 42 51 93 20 22 50 50 70 70 70 16
M20 16 38 47 93 20 22 50 50 70 70 70 16
M20 20 36 44 93 20 22 50 50 70 70 70 16
M24 12 65 78 133 24 26 50 50 90 90 90 20
M24 16 60 73 133 24 26 50 50 90 90 90 20
M24 20 56 69 133 24 26 50 50 90 90 90 20
M24 25 52 64 133 24 26 50 50 90 90 90 20
M30 16 104 124 214 30 33 65 65 90 90 90 25
M30 20 98 118 214 30 33 65 65 90 90 90 25
M30 25 91 111 214 30 33 65 65 90 90 90 25
M30 32 83 102 214 30 33 65 65 90 90 90 25
M36 16 162 190 313 36 39 75 75 140 90 140 32
M36 20 153 182 313 36 39 75 75 140 90 140 32
M36 25 144 173 313 36 39 75 75 140 90 140 32
M36 32 132 162 313 36 39 75 75 140 90 140 32
3.2.5 Clearance between beam face and (3) Length of bottom flange plate
column flange
See Fig. 68.2 for these terms.
This is the dimension fSHJ shown in Fig. 68.2.
'
Lbfb = fSHJ + Lsh(0.5nbfb – 0.5) + 0.5nbfp aep
The dimension is calculated on the basis that,
when the sliding hinge joint is subject to maximum + Sp,bfb→pb + aep
design negative rotation, thus causing the beam (68.5)
bottom flange to move its closest in towards where:
the column flange (see the right hand figure,
Fig. 64.10 of DCB No. 64), there is still a clear Lsh = 2.5 θpdb + d f' (68.6)
length of flange plate of 2.5tbfp available. This Sp,bfb→pb = as given by equation 68.2
gives the following requirements for fSHJ in mm; θp = 30 x 10 -3 radians
d'f = diameter of nominally sized
fSHJ ≥ 10 + 1.25 θp,desdb + 2.5 tbfp (68.3)
bolthole to NZS 3404 Clause
where: 14.3.5.2.1 (mm)
10 = gap to clear weld between column and db = depth of beam (mm)
bottom flange plate (mm)
θp,des = 30 x 10 -3 radians 3.2.7 Dimensions of bottom flange plate
db = depth of beam (mm) brass shims
tbfp = thickness of bottom flange plate (mm) (1) For both brass shims (upper and lower):
The value from equation 68.3 should be rounded Width = bbfp + 40 mm (68.7)
up to the nearest 5 mm.
where:
As specified in section 3.2.6 of DCB No. 58, the bbfp = width of bottom flange plate
FBJ has a constant clearance gap, fFBJ, of 20 mm.
In contrast, the SHJ has a variable clearance gap (2) Thickness of both brass shims = 3 mm
that, in practice, varies from 50 mm to 100 mm or
more. (3) Length of upper brass shim
The 10 mm gap for the weld applies, irrespective Lubfbs = Lbfp - fSHJ (68.8)
of the type of weld used between the bottom
flange plate and the face of the column. (4) Length of lower brass shim
3.2.6 Dimensions of the bottom flange Llbfbs = Lbcp (68.9)

plate
where:
This depends on the number of bottom flange Lbcp = length of flange cap plate, from
bolts, which are determined from sections 3.6 and section 3.2.8
3.7. Once this is determined, the dimensions of 3.2.8 Dimensions of bottom flange cap
the bottom flange plate are determined as follows: plate
(1) Width of bottom flange plate: (1) Width, bbcp
bbfp,min ≥ 4df,bfb + Sgf (68.4.1) bbcp = bbfp (68.10)

bbfp,max ≤ 1.05bfc (68.4.2)
(2) Thickness,
where:
tbcp = Min (tbfp ; 20 mm) (68.11)
df,bfb = diameter of bottom flange bolts
Sgf = bolt gauge (3) Length
(Fig. 68.2 and Table 68.1)
'
Lbcp = 2aep + 0.5(nbfp – 2) (LSH + aep )
Where possible, use a flat bar to minimise
fabrication cost. (68.12)
3.2.9 Dimensions of web plate

(2) Thickness of bottom flange plate; tbfp
(1) Depth
The initial estimate of thickness is
determined from section 3.5 and confirmed
This is the dimension dwp in Fig. 68.3. The
from section 3.7. The limiting thickness as web plate should be as deep as is
a function of bolt size from section 3.2.2 practicable for the given depth of beam,
must also be met.
leading to the following recommendations (3) Thickness of both brass shims
for hot – rolled beams.
This is 3 mm.
dwp, minimum = db – 2tfb – 58 (68.12.1)
(4) Length of inner web brass shim
dwp, maximum = db – 2tfb – 48 (68.12.2)
dwp, average = db – 2tfb – 53 (68.12.3) Liwbs = Lwp - fSHJ (68.14)
where: (5) Length of outer web brass shim

db, tfb are the beam depth, flange thickness
(mm). Lowbs = Liwbs + 30 mm (68.15)
The limits for dwp are given in mm. The additional length of the outer brass
shim is to allow it to be held for positioning
(2) Thickness during erection, once the web cap plate is
twp = tbfp is initially used and is increased in place.
only if required from section 3.9. This has
not been required in any of the designs 3.2.11 Dimensions of web cap plate
undertaken for the NITH studies.
(1) Depth
(3) Length
dwcp = 2aet (68.16)
As can be seen from Fig. 68.2, the spacing
of the web top bolts and the web bottom (2) Thickness
bolts is controlled by different criteria. The
web top bolts align with the top flange bolts, twcp = Min (twp ; 20mm) (68.16)
while the web bottom bolts align with the
bottom flange bolts. (3) Length
Thus the length of the web plate is Lwcp = Lwp – fSHJ (68.18)
controlled by:
3.2.12 Dimensions of top flange plate
Lwp ≥ Max [(fSHJ + 2aep + (nwtb – 1) Sg,w);
' '
( aep + nwbb (Lsh + aep )] This depends on the number of top flange bolts,
(68.13) which are determined from section 3.11. Once
this is determined, the dimensions of the top
where: flange plate are determined as follows:
nwtb = number of web top bolts, from
section 3.8 (1) Width of top flange plate
nwbb = number of web bottom bolts, from
section 3.6 btfp, min ≥ 4df,tfb + Sgf (68.19.1)
3.2.10 Dimensions of web brass shims btfp, max ≤ 1.05bbfc (68.19.2)

(1) Depth of web inner brass shim where:
df,tfb = diameter of top flange bolts
As shown in Fig. 68.1 and, to a lesser
extent, in Fig. 68.2, the inner brass shim Where possible, use a flat bar to minimise
extends the full depth of the web plate, with fabrication cost.
a return at the top of 15 mm. This return is
to allow the brass shim to hook over the (2) Thickness of top flange plate
web plate during erection, thus making it
self-supporting while the beam is being put This is determined from section 3.11; the
into position. limit of section 3.2.2 as a function of bolt
size must also be met.
The inner web brass shim is therefore dwp
clear depth with a 15 mm return to either (3) Length of top flange plate
the left or right as appropriate.
Ltfp = fSHJ + 2aep + (0.5ntfb – 1) Spf (68.20)
(2) Depth of web outer brass shim
where:
This is equal to the web cap plate depth. ntfb = number of top flange bolts, from
section 3.12.
3.2.13 Dimensions of optional decking • nwtb ≥ nwbb
support shim • df,bfb = df,wbb = df,wtb
• df,tfb = df,bfb is preferred
This is shown in Fig. 68.1. Its use facilitates • df,positioner bolt = df,bfb
laying of decking around the connection, reducing
cost and enhancing constructability. It is formed 3.2.15 Use of Belleville Springs
from 3 mm thick steel plate.
These are optional for the bottom flange bolts.
(1) Width They increase the bolt sliding shear capacity, as
described in DCB No. 59 pages 29, 30, through
bdss ≥ Max (btfp ; bbf) + 100 (68.21) reducing the loss of installed bolt tension due to
the interaction of moment and axial force in the
where: bolt shank when the joint is sliding. This benefit is
bbf = width of beam flange (mm) of principal importance for the bottom flange bolts
and, throughout this project, the research has
This allows 50 mm overlap each side of the concentrated on the following options:
wider of the beam flange or the top flange
plate. • no Belleville Springs
• Belleville Springs to the bottom flange bolts
(2) Thickness = 3 mm
Fig. 68.1 shows the former option, while Fig. 68.2
(3) Length shows the latter.
Ldss = Ltfp – 20 mm (68.22) If Belleville Springs are to be used, then they must
be of sufficient number and strength to develop
The outer edge of the decking support shim close to the bolt proof load, from NZS 3404 Table
and top flange plate coincide; the inner 15.2.5.1, when fully compressed.
edge extends past the face of the beam
towards the column face, as shown in Fig. From the manufacturer’s load charts [16] for
68.2, with a gap of 20 mm adjacent to the alloy/carbon steel springs, the following
column. designation and number of springs are required to
achieve this:
3.2.14 Preferred bolt sizes and bolt
groupings • For a M20 bolt, 2 No. 12-EH-168 springs
• For a M24 bolt, 3 No. 16-H-168 springs
For an initial guesstimation of bolt sizes, use M24
• For a M30 bolt, 3 No. 20-H-225 springs
for beams up to 600 mm deep and M30 for beams
above 600 mm deep. • For a M36 bolt, 3 No. 24-H-262 springs
When Belleville Springs are installed, they are to

The minimum sliding bolt group layout is:
be placed under the nut end of the bolt, between
the hardened washer and the face of the cap
• 4 bottom flange bolts (2 rows of 2 bolts) plate, as shown in Fig. 68.2.
• 3 web bottom bolts (3 rows)
When determining the nut rotation from the snug-
This is the layout shown in Fig. 68.2. tight position to apply, for the given bolt length,
from Table 15.2.5.2 of [5], an extra ½ turn must be
When increasing the number of sliding bolts to added to allow for compression of the Belleville
develop the design moment, do this as follows: Springs. This extra ½ turn applies for all bolt
diameters used (M20 to M36). A background to
• Add one row of bottom flange bolts to give 6 this will be given in [1].
bottom flange bolts (3 rows) and 3 web bottom
bolts (3 rows); then 3.2.16 Allowance for manufacturing
tolerances in the supported beam and
• Add one row to each bolt group (ie. increase inclusion of a decking support shim
the sliding bolt numbers in groups of 3 at a
time). As described on pages 23, 24 of DCB No. 56 and
in section 3.2.7 of DCB No. 58 for the FBJ,
This keeps sliding bolt group proportions in line allowance must be made for manufacturing
with those experimentally tested. tolerances in the beams by offsetting the positions
of the top and bottom flange plates.
Other constraints on bolt sizes and groupings are:
In the case of the FBJ, the magnitude of the offset Finally, note mention of the decking support shim
was not important to the operation of the joint, in Fig. 68.1. This is made from 3 mm thick Grade
thus the final recommendations were driven only 250 or 300 plate. It extends 50 mm beyond the
by constructability considerations. top flange plate on whichever side(s) of the beam
support(s) steel decking and provides a support to
However, in the case of the SHJ, it is important to the decking during construction. It is also detailed
minimise the offset between the bottom face of in item 35 of HERA Report R4-58 [17]; see
the beam and the bottom flange plate. In the first especially item 35c therein in this regard. It is an
large-scale test specimen, this offset was 3 mm, extra component to consider in fabrication and
whereas in the second test specimen, it was only erection but one which greatly facilitates placing of
1 mm. The greater offset from the first test the decking around the connection. Note also the
resulted in an appreciable loss of bolt tension and 3 mm thick plate extensions welded onto the
hence sliding shear capacity of the joint. However underside of the top tension/compression
the effect of the offset in test 1 was exacerbated stiffeners in Fig. 68.1 and Fig. 68.5 for the same
by allowing for a minimum gap between the purpose.
bottom corner of the beam and the column face of
only 15 mm under maximum negative rotation. In 3.2.17 Bolt tightening sequence and method
the second test specimen, this minimum gap was of tightening
increased to 40 mm using equation 68.3, thus
reducing the pull-down effect on the bolts by a The bolts are to be positioned in the directions
factor of 18. While this increase in clearance has shown in Fig. 68.1 and tightened from the nut end.
a significant effect, it is also desirable to limit the This is particularly important to avoid clashes
maximum net extent of mismatch likely between between the web and flange bolts during
the top surface of the bottom flange plate and the installation.
bottom surface of the beam to 2 mm. This results
in the following recommendations for The positioner bolt is used during erection to
manufacturing tolerance allowances in the SHJ: stabilise the bottom of the joint and to prevent
undue rotation.
(1) The allowances are provided as an offset of
each flange plate away from the Once the frame is aligned, the bolts should all be
specified centreline position of the beam snug tightened, starting with the bottom flange
(see Fig. 68.2) bolts and working up.
(2) The up offset for the top flange plate is as The tightening pattern should be to NZS 3404
follows: Clause 15.2.4.1. For each group of bolts (eg. the
bottom flange bolts) this means starting with the
• 3 mm for beam depths up to 610 mm bolts closest to the column face and working
• 4 mm for beam depths above 610 mm along the row away from the column face. For the
• 3 mm is added to all the above to flange bolts, this may require two or more rounds
accommodate a decking support shim, of snug tightening to get all bolts snug tight,
where used. pulling the flange plate in hard against the flange
upper brass shim.
(3) The down offset for the bottom flange plate
is as follows: The bolts are then fully tensioned, starting again
with the bottom flange bolts and working up.
• 2 mm for all beam depths Tensioning is to the part turn method of NZS 3404
• 3 mm is added to all the above to Clause 15.2.5.2. For bottom flange bolts where
accommodate the flange upper brass Belleville Springs are installed, tighten by an extra
shim, which is always required. ½ turn from snug tight over that specified in Table
15.2.5.2 of [5].
In practice, these tolerance allowances will lead to
a gap existing between the beam flange and top 3.2.18 Tightening of large diameter HSFG
flange plate in most instances; this gap is readily bolts
closed by the bolt tightening, for which the
moment developed is at least an order of The SHJ connections will routinely require the use
magnitude greater than the weak axis plastic of fully tensioned M30 high strength structural
moment capacity of the plate. bolts and occasionally the use of M36 bolts. It is
important to ensure that, when this size is
The web plate must also be offset from the specified, they are fully tensioned.
column flange centreline by an amount equal to
half the beam web thickness plus 3.5 mm. 3 mm This task is beyond the scope of a standard
of this is to accommodate the web inner brass impact wrench. Suitable equipment is readily
shim.
available; details are given on page 24 of DCB (1) Calculate the design sliding shear capacity,
issue No. 56. ΣφVfss, of the bottom flange plate bolt group
and the web bottom bolt group.
3.2.19 Forming of the slotted holes
(2) Take moments of each of the sliding shear
The slotted holes in the bottom flange plate and capacities from (1) about the top of steel
web plate (see Figs. 68.1 – 68.3 for their location) beam. The lever arms are shown in Fig.
can be formed by machine flame cutting or water 68.3. The sum of these moments = φMSHJ.
jet cutting to the required dimensions.
The design vertical shear (seismic plus gravity) is
However, they can also be formed by drilling a carried by the web top bolts; thus the design
nominally sized hole at each end of the slotted shear capacity, φVSHJ, of the SHJ = the design
hole, then gas cutting across the top and bottom shear capacity of the web top bolt group. For
of this pair of drilled holes to form the slotted hole. most applications, only one row of web top bolts
This gas cut surface need be no smoother than will be required to carry the design vertical shear,
that from good practice hand gas cutting, provided however, if this is large, two rows of web top bolts
that the rounded ends of the slotted hole are of may be needed.
drilled surface smoothness. If this method is
adopted, then the width of slotted hole, as In all the representative designs undertaken in this
measured between the adjacent gas cut surfaces, project, only one row has been needed.
must lie between d'f and (d'f + 2) mm. This has
been the approach used in all the SHJ The joint is sized to develop the following design
experimental tests undertaken. moment and shear capacities:
3.2.20 Surface treatment of the ply contact φMSHJ ≥ Mdesign

*
(68.23)
surfaces
φVSHJ ≥ VGQU + VEµdesign (68.24)
The sliding surfaces are between steel and brass.
φVSHJ ≥ VGQmax (68.25)
The steel surfaces must be clean and free of any
surface coatings, loose scale, loose rust, visible where:
grease or oil marks.
M*design = design moment for the SHJ from
The brass surfaces must be clean and free of the most critical of earthquake or
surface coatings, visible grease or oil marks. wind; see section 3.4.
Because of these restrictions on surface condition VGQU = design shear force from load
of the sliding surfaces, the SHJ is principally combination G + Qu (dead and
intended for application in corrosion category C1 live load for use in conjunction
to ISO 9223 [18] (very low rate of corrosion, with earthquake).
typically found inside heated or air conditioned
buildings with clean atmospheres). VEµdesign = design shear force derived from
out-of-balance design seismic
The contact surfaces for the bottom flange bolts moments acting on the clear
and web bottom bolts must be as specified above beam length.
for SHJs in corrosion categories C2 to C5 of [18].
Non-contact surfaces can be protected with an VGQmax = design shear force for full factored
appropriate surface treatment; the edges of the loading, eg. 1.2G + 1.6Q from [2].
contact surfaces should be sealed against water
ingress. The positioner bolt will need to be 3.3.2 Design role of joint components
painted in these applications.
Refer to Fig. 68.1 in conjunction with this section.
3.3 Design concepts for the sliding hinge The design roles of the SHJ components are as
joint follows:
3.3.1 Development of moment and shear • The top flange bolts act as the anchor point
capacity for joint rotation, pinning the beam top corner
in place relative to the column
The design moment capacity of the SHJ, φMSHJ, is
determined as follows: • The web top bolts resist the applied vertical
shear force. They are subject to only small
movement in the longitudinal direction due to
their proximity to the pinning action of the top Step 3 : Determine initial bottom flange plate
flange bolts. width and thickness and initial web plate
thickness
• The web bottom bolts and bottom flange bolts Step 4 : Determine bolt size and numbers for
develop the sliding shear resistance moment adequacy, then finalise bottom
flange plate width and thickness
• The cap plates provide the support to the bolt
end remote from the beam of the sliding bolt Step 5 : Design web top bolts for vertical shear
groups resistance
• The brass shims facilitate smooth sliding Step 6 : Design web plate
between the steel surfaces at a near constant
level of shear friction, which is essential to the Step 7 : Design top flange bolts and plate
maintenance of stable and sufficient bolt
tension when the joint is sliding Step 8 : Check on reduced tension capacity of
the beam at the bolted connection
• The Belleville Springs, which are optional
additions to the bottom flange bolts, assist Step 9 : Design welds between plates and
these bolts to retain bolt tension under sliding. column
This sustains the bolt sliding shear capacity,
Vss, at a higher level than is the case without Step 10 : Dimension flange and web plates
the springs and retains joint stiffness in the
post-sliding regime of behaviour. Step 11 : Design, detail positioner bolt and shims
• The positioner bolt is a black finish class 4.6 Step 12 : Design tension/compression stiffeners
bolt that connects between the beam flange
and bottom flange plate only, through nominal Step 13 : Calculate joint overstrength capacity
sized holes in each ply. It has the same
diameter as the rest of the bolts (which are all Step 14 : Design joint panel zone
galvanised finish property class 8.8 structural
bolts). The positioner bolt has three very The full SHJ design procedure, starting with
important roles, namely: determination of joint design moment and design
shear, is given in sections 3.4 to 3.21.
(i) It acts as a stability bolt for erection
3.4 Calculation of the design moment and
purposes, making the joint rigid for
design shear
erection by developing moment
resistance in conjunction with the top 3.4.1 Design earthquake moment
flange bolts
As has been mentioned in section 3.1, the joint
(ii) It functions as a locater bolt for the itself is sized to resist the code-derived
sliding bolts, ensuring that they are earthquake moment alone, ignoring joint moments
located in the middle of the slotted induced by gravity only, with the beam designed
holes in the erected joint to resist the full factored gravity load (ie. 1.2G +
1.6Q to NZS 4203 [2]) as a simply supported
(iii) It provides a rapid visual indicator as beam.
to whether the joint has gone into the
sliding mode following a severe For the SHJ, the design earthquake moment,
earthquake; if this happens and the ME* µdesign , is determined from [2 or 4, 5 and 6] for
joint inelastic rotation exceeds around
low-rise and medium-rise MRSFs. The joint
10 mrad, the positioner bolt shears
design earthquake moment is given in sections
through and the lower half drops out.
4.2 and 4.3 herein.
3.3.3 Sequence of design actions 3.4.2 Design shear force
The full SHJ design procedure involves the This is given by the largest of equations 68.24 and
following 14 steps: 68.25.
Step 1 : Determine design moments and shears The seismic component of shear, VE*µdesign , is
given by:
Step 2 : Determine sliding bolt group layouts
3 ME* µdesign
VE*µdesign = (68.26)
(Lb - d c )
where: 0.7 = strength reduction factor for tension
3 ≈ 1.4 x 1.1 x 2 friction action
1.4 = overstrength factor on joint 0.8 = strength reduction factor for bolt sliding
1.1 = allowance for φMSHJ / M* shear capacity determination
2 = moment pattern factor (equal 0.85 = kh for short slotted holes, from NZS 3404
and opposite end moments) Clause 9.3.3.1.
(Lb – dc) = clear length of beam
In practice, the length of slotted hole will typically
3.4.3 Design wind moment be such as to classify it as a long slotted hole.
However the cap plate provides much more
The SHJ has been developed as a semi-rigid joint robust confinement than an oversized washer,
for seismic-resisting systems. However, it must thus the value of kh for short slotted holes rather
also perform satisfactorally under wind loading. than for long slotted holes is used.
In designs for New Zealand application, in Step 3: Check if equation 68.28 is satisfied
accordance with NZS 4203 [2] or its proposed
replacement [4, 19], it is possible that ultimate φMSHJ,WSLS ≥ *
MWSLS (68.28)
limit state wind design may govern some joints in
buildings over around 10 storeys high. This will If it is, the joint design is satisfactory.
be especially the case for designs to the draft
Loadings Standards [4] which are located in the If it isn’t, then add an extra set of sliding bolts in
lowest seismic regions. accordance with section 3.2.14 and recheck. This
will affect the overall joint design and overstrength
Also, because the levels of wind loading action and require reconsideration of the joint and
associated with the serviceability and ultimate limit system design for earthquake.
states are closer (see eg. Table 5.4.2 of [2]) than
for earthquake, it is possible that either wind limit In practice, for designs to either the current
state may govern some SHJs in buildings as low Standard [2] or the new draft [4 and 19], it is likely
as 10 storeys high. that, where wind action governs, it will be the ULS
rather than SLS that is critical. This is because
For this reason, brief guidance on SHJ design for
each wind limit state is given below. the ratio of (M*WSLS / M*WULS ) will typically be less
than 0.75.
3.4.3.1 Wind ultimate limit state
Having determined the design moment and shear,
The joint design for the wind ultimate limit state
the joint design proceeds as follows. For this
moment, M*WULS , uses the principles and procedure, the ULS design moment is designated
procedures as given in sections 3.5 to 3.16. In M*design , which covers the critical ULS moment
saying this, it is conservative to apply the relevant
being from either earthquake or from wind, as
overstrength factors as ductility demand is not
appropriate.
anticipated under M*WULS .
3.5 Determine bottom flange plate width and
It follows, in checking for the wind ultimate limit initial thickness
state, that if M*Eì > M*WULS , then the earthquake
3.5.1 Bottom flange plate width
condition governs design for the ultimate limit
state. See section 3.2.6 (1) for the limits. Select a plate
width, bbfp, within these limits.
3.4.3.2 Wind serviceability limit state
3.5.2 First estimate of bottom flange plate
The SHJ must remain rigid at the wind thickness
serviceability limit state. This is easily checked as
follows: The bolt sliding shear capacity is a function of the
plate thickness, hence the joint moment capacity
Step 1: Calculate the design wind serviceability is also a function of the plate thickness. This
limit state moment, M*WSLS . means it is desirable to obtain a rapid estimate of
bottom flange plate thickness as soon as the joint
Step 2: Determine the moment associated with design moment is known. This is determined from
rigid action of the joint from equation 68.27. the following two equations.
φMSHJ,WSLS = 0.75φMSHJ,Eµ (68.27) *

1.2 Mdesign
N t,*design = (68.29)
where: db
0.75 = (0.7/0.8) x 0.85
N t,*design φVfss,bs = design sliding shear capacity,
tbfp ≥ (68.30) with BS
0.9 (bbfp − 2df' ) fy,bfp = get from Table 68.1 for bolt
size and plate thickness
where:
0.9 = strength reduction factor Fig. 68.3 shows the lever arms for the moment
d'f = bolt hole diameter for nominal sized capacity determination. The value of 26.5 used in
equation 68.33 comes from the average web plate
hole, from NZS 3404 Clause 14.3.5.2.1.
depth, from equation 68.12.3.
fy,bfp = bottom flange plate yield stress
3.6.3 Check moment adequacy
3.5.3 Check plate thickness limit in relation
to bolt size
This is given by:
Check that the limit of section 3.2.2 is satisfied; if
it isn’t, then a larger bolt diameter is needed for φMSHJ ≥ *
Mdesign (68.34)
the given plate thickness.
where:
3.5.4 Apply this estimate of thickness to M*design is from section 3.4; typically section 3.4.1.
the web plate
3.6 Determine sliding bolt size and numbers 3.6.4 Review bolt numbers and size
for moment adequacy
If equation 68.34 is easily satisfied, reduce
3.6.1 Start with the following bolt size to M20 and recalculate; this gives
φMSHJ, minimum for the given beam size.
• Bolt size, numbers and layout from section
3.2.14. If equation 68.34 is not satisfied;
3.6.2 Calculate moment capacity of joint • Either increase the bolt numbers in accordance
with section 3.2.14 and recalculate; or
(1) Joints with no Belleville Springs • Increase the bolt size and recalculate; or
• Increase the bolt numbers and bolt size and
φMSHJ = nbfb φV fss db + nwbb φV fss ewb recalculate.
(68.31)
3.7 Design of bottom flange plate
(2) Joints with Belleville Springs in bottom
flange There are four cases to consider, three of which
require calculation and the fourth of which is dealt
φMSHJ = nbfb φV fss,bs db + nwbb φV fss ewb with by detailing. These are:
(68.32)
(i) Suppression of net tension yield prior to the
where: bolts developing their sliding shear
nbfb = no. of bottom flange bolts capacity; see section 3.7.1
= 4 for initial trial, from section
3.2.14 (ii) Suppression of net tension fracture while
nwbb = no. of web bottom bolts joint is in active sliding mode; see section
= 3 for initial trial, from section 3.7.2
3.2.14
(iii) Suppression of compression yielding while
φVfss = design sliding shear capacity, no joint is in active sliding mode; see section
BS 3.7.3
= get from Table 68.1 for bolt size
and plate thickness (iv) Suppression of premature bolt shear
fracture when end of slotted hole is
• Bolt size for initial trial from
section 3.2.14 reached; this is covered by compliance with
the bottom flange plate thickness to bolt
• Plate thickness from section
diameter ratio given by equation 68.1.
3.5.2
3.7.1 Net tension yield
ewb = db – tfb – 26.5 – aet (mm)
(68.33)
*
N ty,bfp = 1.15 nbfb φVfss,bfp (68.35)
φNty,bfp = 0.9 (bbfp - 2df' ) f y,bfp tbfp (68.36) φNcu,bfp = 0.85bbfp tbfp fy,bfp (68.43)
where: where:
nbfp = no. of bottom flange bolts from 0.85 = 0.9 x 0.942
section 3.6.4 0.942 = α v from Table 6.3.3 of NZS 3404 for
1.15 = 0.9 / 0.8 = difference in φ between bolt α n = 25 and α b = 0.5
and plate
(b,t,fy)bfp = from section 3.6 φNcu,bfp ≥ Nu,* bfp is required (68.44)
d'f = function of df,bfb from NZS 3404 Clause
14.3.5.2.1 (see also Table 68.1) where:
φVfss,bfp = φVfss or φVfss,bs as appropriate, from *
Nu,bfp is given by equation 68.38
Table 68.1.
Use the resulting tbfp for the web plate.
φNty,bfp ≥ N ty,
*
bfp is required (68.37)
3.8 Design of web top bolts
3.7.2 Check for net tension failure
These are designed to resist the applied vertical
This is determined from the design action shear, in bearing, with threads included in the
developed under the design level of rotation. The shear plane.
ideal capacity of the plate is used to resist this
action, therefore the ideal capacity factor is 3.8.1 Vertical design shear force
incorporated into the design action determination,
thus: *
Vwv = Max(VE*µdesign + VGQu
* *
; VGQmax ) (68.45)
φVfss,bfp where:
Nu,* bfp = nbfb Csp 0.9 (68.38)
φ VE*µdesign = as given by equation 68.26
* *
where: VGQu , VGQmax = as given by the tributary area
nbfb = no of bottom flange bolts, from section vertical loading for the
3.6 appropriate factored maximum
Csp = 1.45 when no springs are used (dead + live) loads
= 1.55 when Belleville Springs are used
0.9 = ideal capacity factor 3.8.2 Determine the number of web top
bolts required
φNtu,bfp = 0.77 (bbfp - 2df' ) fu,bfp tbfp (68.39)
*
Vwv
nwtb ≥ (68.46)
where: φVfn,wtb
fu,bfp = ultimate tensile strength of bottom flange
plate where:
φVfn,wtb = design capacity, threads included,
φNtu,bfp ≥ Nu,* bfp is required (68.40) same bolt diameter as for web
bottom bolts. (See eg. [20] for this
3.7.3 Compression capacity information).
First the slenderness ratio of the bottom flange If nwtb < nwbb, where nwbb has been determined
plate must be checked from section 3.6, then add additional web top bolts
such that nwtb = nwbb. The additional web top bolts
Le,bfp = 0.7 (fSHJ + 1.25θpdb) (68.41) are then used to resist the forces developed by
the sliding groups of bolts, in conjunction with the
flange top bolts, in section 3.11.
 Le,bfp   fy,bfp 
λn,bfp =     (68.42)
 250  3.9 Design of web plate
 0.29 tbfp 
The web plate thickness, twp, has been set equal
Check if λ n,bfp ≤ 25. If it is, proceed to the next to be bottom flange plate thickness, from step
equation. If it isn’t, then α v for input into equation 3.7.3. The web plate’s capability to resist the
68.43 needs to be re-evaluated from Table 6.3.3 vertical shear and horizontal tension actions now
of NZS 3404 [5] for the value of λ n,bfp from needs to be determined.
equation 68.42.
Vertical shear will be resisted over the full depth of φNtu,wp ≥ 0.77(1.5d wcp - d f' )t wp fu,wp (68.54)
plate less the width involved in resisting horizontal
actions from the web bottom bolts. Horizontal
tension/compression is developed by the sliding φNtu,wp ≥ N tu,
*
wp is required (68.55)
resistance of the web bottom bolts. This is
resisted by the strip of web plate under the web 3.9.5 Sizing of web plate
cap plate for commencement of yield and by
1.5 x bwcp for tension fracture under overstrength This can now be done; see section 3.2.9.
action.
3.10 Sizing of cap plates and brass shims
3.9.1 Calculate design vertical shear 3.10.1 Bottom flange cap plate
capacity of plate
See section 3.2.8 for determining the width,
φVvn,wp = 0.9 x 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.83(d wp - d wcp) fy,wp t wp α v thickness and length of bottom flange cap plate,
using the values determined above.
= 0.27(d wp - d wcp) f y,wp t wp α v
(68.47) 3.10.2 Bottom flange upper and lower brass
where: shims
(d wp - d wcp) fy,wp See section 3.2.7.
α v = 1.0 if ≤ 82 (68.48)
t wp 250
3.10.3 Web cap plate
αv = 1.0 otherwise; see Clause 5.11.5.1 of See section 3.2.11.
NZS 3404.
3.10.4 Web inner and outer brass shims
The second 0.6 is to account for moment / shear
interaction. See section 3.2.10.
dwcp = as given by section 3.2.11(1) 3.11 Design of top flange bolts and plate
3.9.2 Check vertical shear adequacy of The top flange plate anchors the beam laterally
plate and operates as a hinge about which the beam
can slide. It is designed to resist the combined
φVvn,wp ≥ Vwv
*
(68.49) shear developed by the web bottom bolts and
bottom flange bolts, using bolts of the same
where: diameter. The shear from these is the greater of
*
the overstrength sliding shear or the threads
Vwv = design vertical shear force from equation excluded design shear capacity. The latter will
68.45. always govern and is therefore the only check
needed. Because of this it is simply a matter of
3.9.3 Check for net tension yield matching bolt numbers, incorporating any web top
bolt unused capacity to resist the lateral force.
This is checked under the design sliding shear, for
the width of web plate under the cap plate only. 3.11.1 Number of bolts required
wp = 1.15nwbb φVfss
* Using the same bolt diameter as for the web
N ty, (68.50)
bottom bolts and the bottom flange bolts.
φNty,wp = 0.9(d wcp - d f' )t wp fy,wp (68.51)

nftb required =
1
kr
( (
nwbb + nbfb - nwtb,used - nwtb,calc))
φNty,wp ≥ *
N ty,wp is required (68.52) (68.56)
where:
3.9.4 Check for net tension failure kr = reduction factor for bolts in a line
from NZS 3404 Table 9.3.2.1.
This is checked for the overstrength sliding action
associated with reaching the end of the slotted nwtb,calc = no. of web top bolts required from
hole, with this action being resisted by a depth of equation 68.46, section 3.8.2
web plate = 1.5 x depth of cap plate.
nwtb,used = no. of web top bolts used from
φVfss,wb section 3.8.2
wp = nwbb
*
N tu, C sp 0.9 (68.53) If the length of the joint, as measured from the first
φ to the last bolt, exceeds 15df, then kr < 1.0.
3.11.2 Determine the top flange plate width φNt,tfp and φNc,tfp ≤ 0.85ntfp φVfn,tfb (68.62)
required
See section 3.2.12(1) for the limits on btfp. Select If equation 68.62 is not satisfied, add an extra pair
a plate width within these limits. of top flange bolts and recheck.
3.11.3 Determine required thickness to 3.12 Check on the reduced tension capacity
suppress tension yielding of the beam at the bolted connection
region
This is sized so that the plate can develop the
sliding shear capacity of the bottom flange and The purpose of this check is to suppress yielding
web bottom bolts, without tension yielding. of the beam cross-section through the loaded end
of the beam under moment-induced tension
during the sliding phase of the joint. Such yielding
1.15 (nbfb φVfs + nwbb φVfs )
t tfp,tension ≥ (68.57) would cause unwanted loss of bolt tension and
0.9(btfp - 2d f' )fy,tfp hence sliding shear moment capacity.
where: 3.12.1 Calculate the design tension action,

φVfs = φVfss or φVfss,bs as required N*tb , on the tension half of the beam,
fy,tfp = yield stress of top flange plate from equation 68.63
d'f = diameter of bolt hole to NZS 3404
Clause 14.3.5.2.1 1.15φMSHJ
*
N tb = 0.5 x Nt (68.63)
φMsx,b
Where possible, use a flat bar to minimise
fabrication cost.
where:
φMSHJ = the joint design moment capacity from
3.11.4 Undertake a slenderness ratio check
section 3.6
on the top flange plate, if no concrete
slab is present φMsx,b = the design section moment capacity for
the beam size chosen; eg. from [20]
If there is a concrete slab in contact with the top Nt = the nominal section gross yielding
surface of this plate, which will be the typical case, capacity, determined from NZS 3404
no slenderness check is needed. Equation 7.2.1
3.12.2 Calculate the design tension capacity
If there isn’t a concrete slab, then: of the beam from the lesser of
Le,tfp = 0.7 (fSHJ + aep,tf,b) (68.58) φNtb = 0.39Anb fub (68.64.1)
 Le,tfp   fy,bfp  φNtb = 0.45Agfyfb (68.64.2)

λn,tfp =     (68.59)
 0.29 t tfp   250 
where:
Anb = net area of the beam cross section,
where: calculated in accordance with Clause
fSHJ is determined from equation 68.3 9.1.10 of [5]
aep is given in Table 68.1 for the given bolt size. fub = tensile strength of the beam
fyfb = yield stress of the beam flange
Check if λ n,tfp ≤ 25, when no concrete slab is
present. If it isn’t and no slab is present, then α v 3.12.3 Check that the following is satisfied
for input into equation 68.61 needs to be re-
evaluated from Table 6.3.3 of NZS 3404 [5].
φN tb > N tb
*
(68.65)
3.11.5 Check top flange plate and bolt
adequacy for the ULS condition If this equation is not satisfied, use a larger beam
size so that it is satisfied. Do not use beam
Calculate reinforcing plates with the SHJ.
φNt,tfp = 0.77(btfp - 2d f' )t tfp fu,tfp (68.60)  φMSHJ 

In practice, if   ≤ 0.76, the beam end

 φMsx,b 
φNc,tfp = 0.85btfp t tfp f y,tfp (68.61) capacity is likely to be adequate. For preliminary
design, one can use (M*design / φMsx,b ) ≤ 0.76/1.15
Check ≈ 0.66 as a target value for beam selection.
3.13 Welds required between column flange where:
and bottom flange plate *
vtw = φNt,tfp from equation 68.60
bmin = lesser of (btfp ; bfc)
The bottom flange plate has been sized to
btfp = width of top flange plate
dependably resist the maximum force expected
under the maximum design rotation, in 3.14.2 Design of welds
accordance with section 3.7.2. This carries the
joint-overstrength factor, which means that the Determine fillet weld size required as for the
weld need only be designed to develop the design bottom flange plate, see section 3.13.2. If tw > 15
tension capacity of the flange plate, not the mm use a CPBW.
overstrength tension capacity.
3.15 Welds required between column flange
3.13.1 Design action on bottom flange plate and web plate
weld
These welds are subject to two very different sets
* of conditions. The first is combined moment and
Ntw,bfp vertical shear generated by the web top bolts and
bfp =
*
vw, (68.66)
2bmin resisted by the clear depth of web plate for shear
and the full depth for moment. The second is
where: moment-induced axial tension generated by the
web bottom bolts at the end of their sliding
N*tw,bfp = φNtu,bfp from equation 68.39 regime, taken over a thickness of web plate equal
bmin = lesser of (bbfp; bfc) to 1.5 x the thickness of the web cap plate. The
bbfp = width of bottom flange plate two cases are considered separately and the
bfc = width of column flange design action is the maximum from the two cases,
but not required to be greater than the design
3.13.2 Select fillet weld size such that: tension capacity of the plate. All this involves:
φv w ≥ v w,
*
(68.67) 3.15.1 Calculate actions on weld from
bfp
vertical shear
where: *
Vwv
φvw = design capacity of category SP fillet *
vwv,wp,v = (68.69)
weld from [5] 2(dwp - d wcp)
Values of φvw are listed in [20] *

3Vwvey
wp,h =
*
vwv, 2
(68.70)
d wp
This is the fillet weld size required on each side of
the flange plate to column flange.
( ) + (v ) 
0.5
=  v *wv,v
* 2 * 2
vwv,wp wv,h (68.71)
3.13.3 From consideration of welding 
economics and clearance requirements,
determine if the fillet weld size from where
3.13.2 will be used or if a complete *
Vwv = design vertical shear force, from
penetration butt weld is required.
equation 68.45
dwp = average depth of web plate, from
If tw > 12 - 15 mm, use a complete penetration
equation 68.12.3
butt weld (CPBW). For most fabricators engaged
dwcp = depth of web cap plate, from section
in multi-storey construction, the changeover point
3.10.3
to a CPBW will be tw > 15 mm.
ey = fSHJ + aep,wt,b + ((nwtb – 1)/2)Sg,wt
3.14 Welds required between column flange (68.72)
and top flange plate
3.15.2 Calculate actions on weld from axial
A similar situation applies to that for the bottom tension generated by web bottom
flange plate, namely: bolts
3.14.1 Design action on top flange plate φN tu,wp

wp =
*
weld vwh, (68.73)
3d wcp
*
Ntw,tfp where:
tfp =
*
vtw, (68.68)
2bmin φNtu,wp = capacity given by equation 68.54
3.15.3 Calculate design actions on weld • Replace all terms related to the beam
between column flange and web plate flange with the same term for the bottom
flange plate, ie: Abfp replaces Afb; fy,bfp
 0.9t wp fy, wp 
( )
replaces f yb; tbfp replaces tfb; bbfp replaces
wp = Min Max v wv,wp ; v wh,wp ; 
* * *
vw, bfb; twf relates to the weld calculated from
 2 x 103  3.13.3 above.
(68.74)
• More simply, use equation 50.2 from
3.15.4 Design weld section 3.2(2) of DCB Issue No. 50 with
the same substitutions as stated above.
Select fillet weld size such that
(3) Design and detail the tension/compression
φvw,wp ≥ v w,
*
wp (68.75) stiffeners to section 3.2 of DCB issue No.
50 (with the above modification to section
where: 3.2(2) of that issue)
φvw = design capacity of a category SP fillet
weld, eg. from [20] 3.18 Joint overstrength moment, MoSHJ
The size is used on each side full length of the This is determined as follows:
web plate to column flange.
 φMSHJ 
If tw,required ≥ 15 mm use a CPBW.
o
MSHJ = φoms  (68.76)
 φ 
3.16 Selection and location of the positioner
bolt where:
φMSHJ = joint design moment from section 3.6
The role of the positioner bolt is described in φ = 0.8
section 3.3.2; its grade and appearance in section φoms = 1.4 for the SHJ with or without Belleville
3.2.1. Springs
This bolt connects between the bottom flange This overstrength factor has been derived from
plate and beam flange only. It is placed as shown the experimental testing, using the methodology
in Fig. 68.2; the distance from the centreline of as will be described in [1].
this bolt to the centreline of the adjacent row of
bottom flange bolts is given by equation 68.2. 3.19 Joint panel zone requirements
This bolt is intended to be snug tightened only, but 3.19.1 Design shear force on panel zone
can be fully tensioned to hold the bottom of the
joint in place during erection, if desired. The panel zone design moment for input into NZS
3404 Equation 12.9.5.2(1) is the joint overstrength
3.17 Tension/compression stiffener moment given by equation 68.76. However,
requirements compared to the layout of a rigid welded joint, the
top and bottom flange plates are more widely
These are determined using NZS 3404 Clause spaced apart (see Fig. 68.2) which reduces the
12.9.5.3.1, modified as described below, in unbalanced shear force on the connection.
conjunction with section 3.2, page 13, DCB Issue
No. 50. These two aspects are incorporated into equation
68.77, which gives the design shear force on the
(1) Provide tension/compression stiffeners panel zone of a SHJ.
positioned opposite the flange plates, so
that top of steel is the same for each  MSHJ
o   o 
VP,* SHJ =   +  MSHJ  - VCOL
element.
 (
 db + tbfp ) 
L (
 db + tbfp
 ) 
R
(2) Use NZS 3404 Equations 12.9.5.3(3) and (68.77)
12.9.5.3(4) to determine the area of where:
stiffener required for each design action, The subscripts L and R refer to the left and right
with the following modification: hand beams at the connection.
MoSHJ = as given by equation 68.76.
• The tension/compression stiffener
design is based on the bottom flange
For preliminary design and for most final designs,
plate dimensions for both the top and
VCOL can be accounted for as described in NZS
the bottom pair of stiffeners. This may
3404 Commentary Equation C12.9.5(1).
mean that the top pair of stiffeners are
slightly thinner than the top flange plate.
3.19.2 The design shear capacity of the The effects of the slight foundation flexibility
panel zone, φVc , is calculated to NZS should be accounted for; in lieu of a more detailed
3404 Eq 12.9.5.3.(5). analysis, use the rotational stiffness given by NZS
3404 Clause 4.8.3.4.1(b).
3.19.3 The panel zone has adequate
capacity when Design and detailing concepts for moment-
resisting column baseplate connections are given
φVc ≥ Vpz∗ (68.78) on pages 11-20 of DCB Issue No. 56.
Doubler plates, if needed, should be designed in The advice in both articles is written to utilise, as
accordance with sections 4 and 6 of DCB Issue much as possible, the standard details and
No. 57, pages 23-25 therein, which, although provisions in HERA Report R4-100 [12].
written for FBJ connections, actually covers both 3.20.3 Pinned bases
FBJ and SHJ connections.
Design actions and detailing requirements are
With the SHJ, doubler plates are not typically given in section 4.2.2, page 23 of DCB Issue No.
going to be necessary when only one beam 50. The advice therein is also written for use in
frames into the column, but will often be required conjunction with [12]. Note that, for analysis, a
when two beams frame into the column. “pinned” connection should be assigned a realistic
3.20 Connections at column bases rotational stiffness. This can be obtained from
Clause 4.8.3.4.1 (a) of [5].
3.20.1 Options available and impact on
building performance 3.20.4 Ring spring bases
The most commonly used column base Fig. 15 of [21] shows a ring spring test setup
connection type for a MRSF is a fixed base which would also be applicable to a column base
connection. This has the advantage of reducing application.
lateral deflection in the superstructure. As
mentioned in section 2.3, with fixed base columns The ring spring joint is well suited to application at
the inelastic demand on the joints under the the column base of a MRSF with SHJs or FBJs.
design severe seismic event is within the This is because it combines the benefit of the
performance criteria specified for the columns in pinned base, in protecting the column from
sections (2) and (3) therein. With pinned base inelastic action at its base, with the ability to
columns, these limits are slightly exceeded in generate a rapid increase in moment capacity with
some types of earthquake record, principally increasing rotation demand. The joint also has
those exhibiting positive near fault directional good self-centering capability, which will assist in
motion. returning the building to its pre-earthquake
position at the end of the strong ground motion
A third option is a ring-spring type detail at the shaking.
column base. This is mentioned in [21], with a
picture of such a joint shown as Fig. 15 of [21]. Design of the ring spring joint for this system is
relatively straightforward. It is referenced from
When subjected to a design level severe seismic section 6.2 of [21] and will be described in [1];
event, it is anticipated that minor damage to the further details are not given herein. Contact the
yielding regions of columns adjacent to the HERA Structural Engineer for more information.
column bases would occur in columns with fixed
base connections. For columns with pinned base 3.21 Guidance on practical aspects of sliding
connections, minor damage would be expected hinge joint design
within the baseplate detail. In each case, minimal
• The flange plates should be made as wide as
or no repair would be anticipated to be necessary possible, within the limits of sections 3.2.6 (1)
from this level of event. and 3.2.12(1)
The ring-spring base would be dependably
• The top flange plate will typically be the same
undamaged by this level of event.
thickness or the next thickness up from the
Brief guidance on each type of column base bottom flange plate and the web plate
connection is now given.
• The maximum number of bottom flange bolts
13.20.2 Fixed bases should be 8, in order to keep the required
bottom flange plate thickness within the
The design actions for fixed bases are given in maximum thickness allowed for the given bolt
section 4.2.1, pages 22,23 of DCB Issue No. 50 diameter. If the design from section 3.6
and are directly applicable to these semi-rigid indicates that nbfb = 10 is required, look at
systems. The actions are based on µdesign = 4.
increasing the bolt size. With nbfp = 8, nwbb = the number of bays (more than one scheme may
nwtb = 4 will result, with ntfb = 12, typically. be required).
• Refer to Table 68.2, section 4.2, step 7 for The SHJ has been developed for perimeter frame
typical values of φMSHJ/φMsx,b that have application and the guidance given in step 2.2 and
resulted from the many representative frames step 6 herein for the member sizes to meet frame
designed as part of this project. stiffness requirements is formulated on that basis.
(Perimeter frames and internal frames are as
4. Design of Moment-Resisting Steel defined in NZS 3404[5]).
Frames Incorporating Sliding Hinge
Joint Connections Step 2 Estimate beam sizes required
4.1 General and scope of guidance given This estimate should be made at the first level
above the seismic base level, at the level of
Section 4 presents guidance on the design of the uppermost principal seismic mass level and at
MRSF system that incorporates the SHJ. This selected intermediate levels.
guidance is very similar to that for MRSFs with
FBJs and follows the same format as that given in Guidance on the number of intermediate levels to
DCB No. 58 for the FBJ systems. consider is given on page 5.3 of [6]. For buildings
up to 4 storeys in height, do the check at every
Section 4.2 covers preliminary design, while level. For buildings up to 8 storeys in height,
section 4.3 covers final design. check levels 1, 3, 5 and 8. For buildings between
8 and 12 storeys in height, check levels 1, 3, 5, 8,
The design procedures presented herein are 11 and 12. For buildings above 12 storeys in
based, in format and content (wherever possible), height, check 1, 3, 6 then every 4th level.
around the procedures incorporating capacity However, the SHJ is probably not the most cost-
design presented in sections 5 and 6 of HERA effective system to use on buildings above this
Report R4-76 [6] for preliminary and final design, height, because of the limited ductility demand
respectively, of category 1 or 2 MRSFs with rigid required compared with what the SHJ can deliver.
beam to column connections. For such high-rise buildings, the FBJ offers a
potentially more cost-effective solution, especially
For such systems, strength and stiffness cannot in low to medium seismic zones.
be de-coupled, so the columns must be designed
to resist the beam section overstrength actions (or Step 2.1 To carry gravity loads
the upper limit seismic actions Emax).
Use the approach given in step 2.1, section 5.2 of
In contrast, for the semi-rigid systems [6], except use the denominator value of 8 in
incorporating SHJs, strength and stiffness are equation 5.1 of [6] instead of 10. This
considered separately and the columns are corresponds to a simply supported condition,
designed to develop only the overstrength which is required for design in accordance with
moment from the joint. This requires some section 3.1(i) herein.
modifications to the R4-76 [7] procedures, but is a
considerable simplification from the designer’s Use the lightest category 3 section from
view point. NZS 3404 [6] within a particular designation to
resist the design moment, such that M*≤ φMs. (In
Given that this guidance is being written at the the 1992 edition of NZS 3404, this category was
time of transition from NZS 4203:1992 [2] to the designated 3A, which is still used in HERA report
new Loadings Standard [4], wherever practicable R4-76 [6]. This point is picked up in the summary
the requirements of both documents are notes Tips on Seismic Design of Steel Structures
referenced. which are included in all post-July 2000 copies of
[6]).
4.2 Procedure for MRSF preliminary design
Step 2.2 To provide suitable frame lateral
The preliminary design procedure presented stiffness
below is based around that given in R4-76 section
5.2 for preliminary design of category 1 and 2 (1) For perimeter frame MRSFs, select beam
MRSFs. It is presented in the same step by step depths from the target span to depth ratios
format as section 5.2 of [7] and with the same given by equations 68.79.1 to 68.79.3
headings.
(1.1) For the lower half of the structure (up to
Step 1 Establish preliminary frame layouts 0.5H)
Formulate the preliminary frame layout or layouts (L/d*) = (9 or 11)10 > (11 or 13)5
in terms of the beam and column spacings and (68.79.1)
(1.2) For the three-quarter height (0.75H) of the Step 4 Determine the design bending
structure moments at the joints (ie.
M∗Eì and M∗Emax ) for load cases Eµ and
(L/d*) = (11)10 , (13 or 15)5
(68.79.2) Emax
(1.3) For the uppermost level (1.0H) of the (1) Use the procedure given in step 3.2,
structure section 5.2 of [6], except that, instead of
calculating M∗Eì as given on page 5.7 of [6],
(L/d*) = (15)10 , (14 or 15)5 (68.79.3)
use equation 68.81 below.
In equations 68.79;
ME∗ = (∑ M joint,i )/ 2nbeam,i (68.81)
• The figures in ( )10 are the target L/d* ratios for
a 10 storey building; those in ( )5 are for a 5 where:
storey building. Interpolate for building levels
between these. ∑ M joint, i = sum of the out-of-balance moments
• Where two figures are given, the first is for a at each joint on level i
frame with sufficient stiffness to meet the P - ∆
nbeam, i = number of beams in the semi-rigid
OK deflection limit of NZS 4203 Equation 4.7.1
[2] or of DR 1170.4 Equation 6.5(1). The system on level i
second is for a frame that does not meet this
limit and for which the strength is increased to (2) In applying step 3.2, section 5.2 of [6],
compensate, in accordance with DR1170.4 assume that the columns above and below
Clause 6.5.4. that level are all the same section.
L = span of beam (centre to centre) (3) Calculate both M∗Eì and M∗Emax .
d* = target depth of beam
Step 5 Check magnitude of wind moment
(2) At each level, select the lightest weight and use if this exceeds the
category 3 section, from NZS 3404 [6], for earthquake moment
which db ≥ d* (db = depth of beam).
Calculate the ULS design wind moment, M∗WULS ,
Step 2.3 Select the largest beam size from
steps 2.1 and 2.2 from section 3.4.3.1 and substitute it for M∗Eì if
required.
Step 3 Calculate the design seismic loads
Step 6 Reassess the beam size in order that
Use the procedure given in step 3.1, section 5.2 of beam web reinforcing plates are not
HERA Report R4-76 [7], except that the estimate required.
of fundamental period should be given by :
(i) For a perimeter MRSF in which This involves checking that M∗design / φMsx,b ≤ 0.66,
dcol ≥ 0.8dbeam as described in section 3.12.3.
Step 7 Estimate the column sizes required

T1 = 0.12h0.75
n (68.80.1)
Step 7.1 For the first seismic storey
(ii) For a perimeter MRSF in which
dcol < 0.8dbeam Select the lightest designation I-section cross
section that complies with the following:
T1 = 0.15h0.75
n (68.80.2)
(1) Flange slenderness complies with NZS
There are two levels of seismic load to determine, 3404 Table 12.5 [5] for a category 2
namely: member
(2) Web slenderness complies with Equation
(1) That associated with determining the 8.4.3.3(2) of [5] for ( N∗g / Ns ) ≤ 0.3. This
design joint moment. This is load case Eµ
(see section 3.4.1 herein), determined for gives
µdesign = 4.
 d1  44
  ≤ (68.82)
(2) That associated with determining the upper  w  storey 1
t fy /250
limit design seismic actions on the
secondary members. This is load case where:
Emax and is determined for µmax = 1.25. d1,tw,fy are as defined in NZS3404
(3) Check the column moment and axial load moment from section 3.18, using φMSHJ
capacity at the first level (and then at all estimated for the given beam size from
other levels where the beam size is Table 68.2.
checked) by using step 2.2, section 5.2 of
[6], in conjunction with the overstrength Step 8 Review member sizes to control
moment for the joint from section 3.18. To lateral deflection
do this requires determination of φMSHJ. For
preliminary design, the following guidance Use the procedure given in step 4, section 5.2 of
HERA Report R4-76 [6]. When applying
can be given for expected ratios of φMSHJ /
equations 5.14 and 5.15 of [6], there are two
φMsx,b, based on the range of representative
general lateral deflection regimes to aim for.
frames designed for this project. Having
These are:
determined the beam size and hence
strength from step 2.3, a preliminary (1) Meeting the P - ∆ OK drift limit, such that no
estimate of φMSHJ can be made from the increase in strength to account for P - ∆
following: actions is required
Table 68.2 (2) Meeting the maximum drift limit, as given by
Clause 2.5.4.5 of [2] or Clause 8.5.2.1 of
Indicative Values of φMSHJ / φMsx,beam [4], and applying the P - ∆ enhancement
given by Clause 6.5.4 of [4] if the P - ∆ drift
Location in Lowest limit is exceeded.
Other
MRSF seismic zone,
P - ∆ OK For buildings in the highest seismic zones, the
preferred option is (1). For buildings in the lowest
seismic zones, the joint strength required in
≤ 0.5 H 0.25 0.45 – 0.6
meeting (1) may be considerably lower than that
0.75 H 0.35 0.45 – 0.55
required to resist wind loading, thus making (2)
1.0 H 0.30 0.40 – 0.45 the preferred option. Buildings in intermediate
seismic zones may benefit from having both
(1) H = height of structure options checked.
(2) Lowest seismic zone, P - ∆ OK means design for Zmin
and for the stiffness limits of NZS 4203 Equation 4.7.1 If the member sizes need increasing, increase the
or DR 1170.4 Equation 6.5(1) to be met beam sizes to a greater extent than the column
(3) Other means design for increased strength to cater for sizes, as the beam sizes have a greater effect on
P - ∆ actions in conjunction with meeting the maximum
drift limit for the lowest seismic zone, or any design for
the MRSF stiffness.
the highest seismic zone.
Step 9 Design the connections
Step 7.2 For the levels above the first seismic
level This involves applying the detailed procedure
given in section 3 herein.
At each level where the beam size has been
determined, choose the column from the lightest 4.3 Procedure for MRSF final design
designation of I-section type cross section which The procedure for final design is based on the
complies with all the following: established capacity design procedure from [5,6]
for conventional category 1 and 2 MRSFs. It uses
(1) The column cross section (flange, web the detailed procedure given in section 6.2 of [6],
slenderness) complies with NZS 3404 wherever possible. It is presented in step by step
Table 12.5 and Clause 12.8 for a category format, using the step numbers and headings
3 member. (Category 3 rather than corresponding to those of section 6.2 of [6].
category 4 is used, because the joints
develop an appreciably higher overstrength Step 1 Analyse the frame for the required
moment than conventional MRSFs, hence load cases and load combinations
the columns above the base are marginally
more likely to be subject to slight inelastic Follow step 1 in section 6.2 of [6]; load case Emax
action than those of a conventional MRSF). is based on µ = 1.25.
For this reason, the cross sections are
made category 3 to give them a small Step 2 Assess P – delta effects and check
dependable inelastic rotation capacity the seismic lateral deflections
without loss of performance.
The frame elastic stiffness (ie. with the joints in
their closed condition) should be such as to
(2) Column moment and axial load capacity
comply with the appropriate lateral deflection
complies with step 2.2, section 5.2 of [6], in
regime (see section 4.2 step 8 above).
conjunction with the estimated overstrength
Step 3 Derive the beam bending moments movement and inelastic rotation demand in the
using moment redistribution SHJs, however at the expense of column base
damage. Pinned bases are very applicable for
This step is not required as the gravity and SHJ frames.
seismic moments are applied as separate cases
for beam design. This is a major simplification Step 8 Design the columns
from conventional MRSF design for earthquake
loading. The columns at the lowest level of fixed based
frames are designed as category 2 members in
Step 4 Determine the required beam sizes accordance with NZS 3404 Clause 12.8.3, using
(1) The positive moment capacity must be able the design actions from step 7. Note especially
to resist the maximum moment from applied the axial load/web slenderness requirements of
vertical loading (eg. from 1.2G & 1.6Q for Clause 12.8.3.1.
[2]) in a simply supported manner. This is a
more severe requirement than equation 6.2 The columns at the higher levels of fixed based
of [6]. frames are category 3 members.
(2) The second criteria on selecting beam size The columns at all levels of pinned based frames
is to provide adequate frame stiffness. The may be category 3 members, however the pinned
preliminary design beam size selection is based detail itself must be detailed for a
likely to dependably cover this requirement. dependable inelastic rotation of 30 milliradians, in
If the beam size is required to be increased, accordance with section 3.20.3 herein, which on-
the moment input through the joint into the references to section 4.2.2, page 23 of DCB Issue
column does not have to increase No. 50.
accordingly.
Step 9 Design and detail the connections
Step 5 Determine the beam overstrength
moment capacities and design shear This involves applying the detailed procedure
forces given in section 3 herein.
The general details of steps 5.1 to 5.4 of section 4.4 Guidance on practical aspects of the
6.2 of [6] are applicable, except that the MRSF design
overstrength moment capacity of the beam, 4.4.1 Estimation of fundamental period
o
Mbeam , is replaced by the overstrength moment
o The range of representative frame designs
capacity of the joint, MSHJ . This is given by undertaken for the NITH over 2001/2002 have
equation 68.76, section 3.18 herein. given an indication of the accuracy of equations
68.80.1 and 68.80.2. These frames have covered
In step 5.2, Ccol = 1.0 is used in all instances. the following:
Step 5.4 from [6] does not need to be applied, due
• 5 and 10 storey
to the nature of vertical shear force transfer from
the beam to the column via. the joint. This avoids • Auckland (low seismic zone) and Wellington
(high seismic zone)
the concentration of shear force in the beam web
immediately adjacent to the joint that occurs with • Intermediate soil conditions, with and without
rigid jointed MRSFs. positive near fault action and soft soil
conditions.
Step 6 Evaluate the overstrength factors at
each beam-column joint These designs have shown that the equations
slightly over-predict the period determined by
Follow step 6, from [6], for joints in the RUAUMOKO [10] for the frames in the most
superstructure, using the overstrength joint severe applications and underpredict it to as much
capacity calculated from step 5 above. as 15% in the least severe applications. The
extent of overprediction (which is potentially
Follow section 3.20 on pages 23 herein for joints unconservative) is not more than 5%.
at the column bases.
4.4.2 Choice of members to use for the
Step 7 Determine the design actions for the beams and columns
typical levels and for the base
Follow the guidance given previously herein in
Follow step 7, from [6], for the superstructure. conjunction with that given on pages 21 - 22 of
DCB Issue No. 49.
Follow section 3.20 on page 23 herein for the
column bases; fixed bases limit frame lateral
When using generically one-sided welded beams, to a 610 x 229 x 171W column, as shown in
these beams must be double sided welded Fig. 68.5.
through the connection region and for a
reasonable distance beyond the bolt(s) furthest in The design example is taken from level 1 of a 5
along the beam flanges or web from the beam storey MRSF for Auckland, soft soil (soil class D
end adjacent to the column. A distance of 300 from [4]). In this case, the P - ∆ provisions for
mm is recommended. stiffness are not met, so the force multiplier
provisions of Clause 6.5.4 are used. These
Because this semi-rigid system decouples increase the design seismic base shear by 1.73 in
strength and stiffness, the same beam size can be this instance.
used over many levels, with the moment capacity
of the joint reduced at successively higher levels Design of the joint shown in Fig. 68.5 is covered in
by reducing the number and diameter of the bolts. section 5.2.
This offers considerable scope for matching
moment capacity to moment demand more 5.2 Design of the joint
closely over each level of the MRSF than is
The detailing requirements from section 3.2 are all
possible with a rigid framed system, while using
met by the SHJ detail shown in Fig. 68.5 and are
the same beam size.
not elaborated on further in this example. The
allowances for manufacturing tolerances given in
5. Sliding Hinge Joint Design Example
section 3.2.16 are incorporated into the flange
5.1 Scope and introduction plate offsets from the beam centreline shown in
Fig. 68.5.
Section 5 presents a design example for the
SHJ. It relates to a 530UB82 beam connected
∗ ∗
Fig. 68.5
Sliding Hinge Joint Design Example
Notes:
(1) The beam supports a 120 mm slab on trapezoidal steel decking, deck rib height 54 mm, which is not shown.
Concrete strength = 25 MPa.
(2) The design moment and shear is:
M∗E = ME
*
µdesign = 377 kNm (both directions ) - wind moment is not considered here
∗
VG, ∗
Qu = 122.4 kN (due to G & Qu) ; VGQmax = 185 kN
(3) The beam span, between column centrelines, is 7 m.
This joint design is not using Belleville Springs ewb = 528 – 13.2 – 26.5 – 65 = 423 mm
which would be the typical case.
φVfss for M30 and 20 mm plate, = 98 kN
5.2.1 Design moment (section 3.4.1)
φMSHJ,new = 435 > M∗design = 377 √ OK accept
M ∗design = M *Eµdesign = 377 kNm
Thus the design solution involves:
5.2.2 Design shear force (section 3.4.2)
M30 bolts; nbfb = 6; nwbb = 3
3M E* µ design 3 x 377
VE∗µ design = = = 177 kN
(Lb - d c ) (7.0 - 0.61) 5.2.5 Design of bottom flange plate
∗
Vdesign = VGQu + VE∗µdesign = 122 + 177 = 299 kN (section 3.7)
∗
5.2.5.1 Net tension yield
VGQmax = 185 kN - not critical
N∗ty,bfp (equation 68.35) = 1.15 x 6 x 98 = 676 kN

5.2.3 Determine bottom flange plate width
and initial thickness (section 3.5)
φN ty,bfp (equation 68.36) = 783 kN
(1) Bottom flange plate width
bbfp = 240; d'f = 33; fy,bfp = 250; tbfp = 20
bbfp,min (equation 68.4.1)
= 4 x 24 + 90 = 186 mm
φNbfp > N*ty, bfp √ O.K.
bbfp,max (equation 68.4.2)
= 1.05 x 229 = 240 mm
from section 3.2.14, M24 bolts are used as 5.2.5.2 Net tension failure
first estimate for the 530UB82 beam size
Try bbfp = 240 mm. ∗ 98
Nu,bfp (equation 68.38) = 6 x x 1.45 x 0.9 = 959 kN
0.8
(2) First estimate of bottom flange plate
thickness φN∗tu,bfp (equation 68.39) = 1098 kN
1.2 x 377
N∗tdesign (equation 68.29) = = 857 kN fu,bfp = 410 MPa
0.528
857 x 103 φN tu,bfp ≥ N*u,bfp √ O.K.

t tfp (equation 68.30) ≥
0.9(240 − 2x26) x 250
5.2.5.3 Compression capacity
= 20.3 mm
fSHJ (equation 68.3)
fy,bfp = 250 MPa is used
≥ 10 + 1.25 x 30 x 10-3 x 528 + 2.5 x 20 = 80 mm
From section 3.2.2, tbfp,max = 20 mm for M24 bolts.
The answer for fSHJ is rounded up to the nearest
5.2.4 Determine sliding bolt size and 5mm
numbers for moment adequacy
(section 3.6) Le,bfp (equation 68.41)
= 0.7 (80 + 1.25 x 30 x 10-3 x 528) = 70 mm
φMSHJ, initial estimate (equation 68.31)
= (4 x 56 x 528 + 3 x 56 x 438) x 10-3 = 192 kNm λ n,bfp (equation 68.42)
 70  250
ewb (equation 68.33) =   = 12.1
= 528 – 13.2 – 26.5 – 50 = 438 mm  0.29 x 20  250
φVfss for M24 and 20 mm plate, As λ n,bfp < 25, equation 68.43 does not need
Table 68.1 = 56 kN modification
φMSHJ, initial estimate = 192 < M∗design = 377 NG φNcu,bfp (equation 68.43) = 1020 kN
As this is considerably below requirements,

φN cu,bfp ≥ N *u,bfp √ O.K.
increase both the bolt diameter and add one set of
bolts to the bottom flange.
5.2.6 Design of the web top bolts (section 8)
φMSHJ, new
= (6 x 98 x 528 + 3 x 98 x 423) x 10-3 = 435 kNm *
Vwv (equation 68.45) = Max (299; 185) = 299 kN
5.2.9.3 Determine plate thickness to
+ 1.6Q ≈ 1.85 (see Note (2) in Fig. 68.5)
*
V1.2G
suppress tension yielding
299
n wtb ≥ = 1.40 ⇒ require 2 bolts 1.15 x 882,000
214 t tfp,tension (equation 68.57)≥ = 25.8 mm
0.9 (240 - 66) 250
As nwtb,required = 2 < nwbb,required = 3, increase nwtb to
3. The additional bolt is used as part of the top Select ttfp = 25 mm – 4% under √ O.K.
bolt group to anchor the sliding bolts.
5.2.9.4 Check top flange plate and bolt
5.2.7 Design of web plate (section 3.9) adequacy for the ULS condition
5.2.7.1 Check for vertical shear adequacy φNt,tfp (equation 68.60) = 1373 kN
φVvn, wp (equation 68.47) = 429 kN φNc,tfp (equation 68.61) = 1275 kN
α v (equation 68.48) = 1.0 0.85 ntfp φVfn,tfp = 0.85 x 8 x 214 = 1455 kN

dwp = dwp,average (equation 68.12.3) = 448 mm
dwcp = (equation 68.16) = 2 x 65 = 130 mm Max (φNt, φNc) ≤ 0.85 ntfp φVfn,tfp √ O.K.
φVvn, wp = 429 kN > Vwv
*
= 299 kN √ OK 5.2.10 Calculate beam tension adequacy in
the connection region (section 3.12)
5.2.7.2 Check for net tension yield
435 2840
N∗ty,wp (equation 68.50) = 1.15 x 3 x 98 = 338 kN N*tb (equation 68.63) = 0.5 x 1.15 x x = 1414 kN
558 0.9
φN ty, wp (equation 68.51) = 437 kN φMsx,b = 558 kNm, from [20]

d'f = 33 mm
2840
Nt = , from [20]
φN ty,wp > N*ty,wp √ O.K. 0.9
φNtb,1 (equation 68.64.1) = 0.39 x 8124 x 0.440

5.2.7.3 Check for net tension failure = 1395 kN
3 x 98
N*tu,wp (equation 68.53) = x 1.45 X 0.9 = 479 kN fub = 440 MPa for the grade 300 beam
0.98 Anb = Ag – 4 x 33 x 13.2 – 2 x 33 x 9.6
= 8124 mm2
φNtu,wp (equation 68.54) = 1023 kN
φNtb,2 (equation 68.64.2) = 0.45 x 10,500 x 0.300
φN tu,wp > N *tu,wp √ O.K. = 1417 kN
5.2.8 Sizing of cap plates and brass shims

Min (φNtb,1 ; φNtb,2) = 1395 kN < N*tb = 1414 kN
(section 3.10)
Beam is 1% overstressed for this check – accept.
This is done in accordance with section 3.10. The
resulting sizes are shown in Fig. 68.5. 5.2.11 Design of welds between column
flange and bottom flange plate
5.2.9 Design of top flange bolts and plate (section 3.13)
(section 3.11)
1098
5.2.9.1 Number of bolts required v *w,bfp (equation 68.66) = = 2.39 kN/mm run
2 x 230
 1 N*tw,bfp = 1098 kN (section5.2.5.2)
ntfb,required (equation 68.56) = Even  (3 + 6 - (3 - 2 )) = 8
1.0 
bmin = Min (240 ; 230) = 230 mm
kr = 1.0 as Lj = 3 x 90 = 270 mm < 15df = 450 mm
bfc = 230 mm
5.2.9.2 Determine top flange plate width
φvw for a 15 mm leg length, category SP, fillet
Use btfp = bbfp = 240 mm weld made with E48 weld metal = 2.44 kN/mm
As φvw > v *w,bfp , use a 15 mm FW both sides.
(This is changed to CPBW in section 5.2.12 for 5.2.15 Determine area of
consistency with the top flange plate tension/compression stiffeners
requirements). required (section 3.17)
5.2.12 Design of welds between column This uses the procedure in section 3.2 of DCB No.
flange and top flange plate 50, with modifications as described in section 3.17
(section 3.14) herein.
 fyp 
A s,pair,required ≥ (bbfptbfp - t wc tbfp )  
1373  fys 
v *w, tfp (equation 68.68) = = 2.98 kN/mm  
2 x 230 (DCB No. 50, eq 50.2)
N*tw = 1373 kN (section 5.2.8.4) 250

≥ (240 x 20 − 15.5 x 20) = 4490 mm 2
250
As φvw for 15 mm FW < v *w, tfp , use a CPBW to the
fys = 250 MPa, as grade 250 plate is used.
top flange plate. Same weld details are then also
used to bottom flange plate for consistency. As starting point, select same thickness as bottom
flange plate, ie. 20 mm.
5.2.13 Welds between column flange and
web plate (section 3.15) bs,min ≥ (0.9 bfp – twc) / 2
(DCB No. 50, eq 50.1)
5.2.13.1 Weld actions from vertical shear
= (0.9 x 240 – 15.5) / 2
299 = 100 mm
v *wv, wp, v (equation 68.69) = = 0.47 kN/mm
2 (448 - 130) b  f 
t s,min ≥ ( s )  ys  = 6 mm
C1  250 
 
3 x 299 x 235
v *wv, wp,h (equation 68.70) = = 1.05 kN/mm (DCB No. 50, eq 50.3)
(448)2
where:
ey (equation 68.72) = 80 + 65 +90 = 235 mm C1 = 15 (based on the incoming beam
category of 3)
(
v *wv, wp = (0.47)2 + (1.05)2 )
0.5
= 1.15 kN/mm
Try 110 x 20 FL for stiffeners – Grade 250 used
As,supplied = 2 x 110 x 20 = 4400 mm2 √ O.K.

5.2.13.2 Actions on weld from moment-
induced axial tension, web bottom As,supplied = 98% of As,required √ accept
bolts
Use 2 110 x 20 plate stiffeners for each pair of
tension / compression stiffeners.
1023
wp (equation 68.73) = = 2.62 kN/mm
*
Vwh,
3 x 130 Check 2bs + tw = 220 + 15.5
= 235.5 ≈ bfc = 230 mm √ O.K.
5.2.13.3 Final design action
5.2.16 Welds between stiffeners and column
v *w, wp (equation 68.74) = Min (2.62 ; 2.25) = 2.25 kN/mm flange adjacent to incoming beam
0.9bst sfys
s,cf =
0.9 t wp fy,wp *
v w, (DCB No. 50, eq 50.4)
3
= 2.25 kN/mm 2bs
2 x 10
= 2.25 kN/mm
5.2.13.4 Sizing of weld
Use 14 mm leg length, category SP welds, E 48
φvw for 14 mm leg length category SP FW, E48 filler metal
weld metal = 2.28 kN/mm > v *w, wp
φvw = 2.28 kN/mm > v w,
*
s,cf √ O.K.
Use a 14 mm leg length FW each side.
5.2.17 Welds between stiffeners and column
5.2.14 Selection and location of positioner web
bolt
0.9bs ts fys
s,cw =
*
v w, (DCB No. 50, eq 50.5)
See details in Fig. 68.5. C2d1c
= 0.43 kN/mm
where: The spreadsheets cover the connection design,
C2 = 2.0; 1 beam frames into connection (see including the procedure given above. There are
Fig. 68.5) worksheets for the joints without Belleville Springs
to the bottom flange plate and for the joints with
d1c = 573 from [22] for the 610 x 229 x 171 W Belleville Springs.
column
The spreadsheets are written for 5 and for 10
(Assume no doubler plate required at this stage; storey buildings, however this can be altered.
with a SHJ in a perimeter frame, this will always
be the case for 1 beam framing into the column). The spreadsheets do allow rapid joint design to be
made.
Use 5 mm leg length, category SP welds
They have been produced on Microsoft ® Excel for
φvw = 0.82 kN/mm √ O.K. Office 97 and a copy of each is available free-of-
charge on a “use at your own risk” basis. They
5.2.18 Joint overstrength moment have been checked against the design example in
(section 3.18) section 5 and had quite thorough informal
checking, but have not been through a formal
1.4 x 435 quality assurance checking programme.
MoSHJ (equation 68.76) = = 761kNm
0.8
Associated with the spreadsheets is a data set of
φMSHJ = 435 kNm (section 5.2.4).
section properties that are called up by a macro
routine and used in the frame design.
5.2.19 Design shear force on panel zone
(section 3.19)
7. Acknowledgments
761
Vp,* SHJ (equation 68.77) = - 217 = 1171kN The HERA Structural Engineer, principal author of
(0.528 + 0.020) this article, would like to acknowledge the
contribution of all persons/organisations involved
Vcol = 761 / 3.5 = 217 kN in this research, with special mention of:
hc = 3.5 m
1. The undergraduate students from Germany
5.2.20 Design shear capacity of panel zone who have undertaken and continue to
undertake the setting up of experimental tests,
φVc the processing and presentation of data from
= 0.9 x 0.6 x 275 x 629 x 15.5 x 1.0 x [1.10] x 10 -3 this testing, the development of analytical
= 1599 kN modelling data and other essential work.
tfc = 27.9 mm; 2. Dr John Butterworth Hank Mooy and Jos

twc = 15.5 mm; Geurts, University of Auckland, for assistance
dc = 629 mm with planning and undertaking the extensive
fywc = 275 MPa pseudo-static and seismic-dynamic
experimental testing involved in this project.
5.2.21 Panel zone adequacy (section 3.19)
3. Dr John Butterworth, for his guidance and
φVc = 1599 kN > Vp,* SHJ = 1171 Kn input as principal PhD supervisor to Charles
Clifton.
No web doubler plates are needed. 4. The Foundation for Research, Science and
Technology, for providing the principal funding
for this project.
That ends the design example. See Fig. 68.5
for the joint details.
6. Spreadsheet Programs are Available
Detailed spreadsheets have been developed for

the design of the representative 5 and 10 storey
frames. The design of the frames is to the
seismic provisions of the new draft loadings
standard [4], however the same approach is used
with the current standard [2].
Member Compression Capacity the points of end restraint. However the cross
section at any point along the member length
of a Solid Section will not undergo distortion, it will simply move
as an entity in the manner shown in Fig. 9.4
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA (a) of the HERA Limit State Design Guides
Structural Engineer. Volume 1 [23]. However, if the member is
restrained also along its sides, its behaviour
Recently a design query has been received changes markedly, as described in section 9.2
regarding calculating the member compression of [23]. With both end and side support, kf ≠
capacity of a solid section supported at its ends 1.0 in all instances and must be calculated to
and loaded in compression through those ends. Clause 6.2.4.
Two questions were raised, namely:
2. The compression member section constant,
1. What value of form factor is applicable? α b, is given in Table 6.3.3 (1) of NZS 3404 [5]
2. What value of member section constant is for most types of cross section, but not
applicable? for solid cross sections. For such sections,
α b = -0.5 is used.
The answers to those are as follows:
Another point with regard to solid rectangular
Calculation of design member compression
capacity, φNc, is undertaken to NZS 3404 [5] cross sections is that r = I / A = 0.29t, where t is
Clause 6.3. It is a two stage operation, the first the thickness in the direction of buckling. This
stage being the calculation of section means that rectangular cross sections supported
compression capacity, φNs, to Clause 6.2. only at their ends typically have low values of r,
resulting in high slenderness ratios and a member
When calculating the compression capacity of a compression capacity much lower than their
steel member, the issue of buckling under the section compression capacity.
compression load is of paramount importance.
This subject is comprehensively dealt with in References
Section 6 of the Standard [5]. Put simply:
1. Clifton, GC; Thesis Report on the
Development of New Semi-Rigid Joints for
• Local buckling of elements of a cross-section Moment-Resisting Steel Frames. In
under compression load is an issue when preparation, due for publication first quarter of
determining the section compression capacity 2003.
and is addressed in Clause 6.2. This form of
buckling involves one part of a cross section 2. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
undergoing buckling relative to another part. and Design Loadings for Buildings; Standards
• Member buckling involves the member
moving out-of-plane between points of 3. Clifton, GC et. al.; Development of Moment-
restraint. In member buckling, the whole Resisting Steel Frames Incorporating Semi-
cross section moves from its at-rest position, Rigid Elastic Joints 1995/96 Research Report;
with this movement being effectively zero at HERA Manukau City, 1996, HERA Report R4-
the points of restraint and reaching a 88.
maximum within the midspan regions furthest
away from the points of restraint. 4. DR 1170.4 PPC 5 DR4/V Draft Joint
Earthquake Loadings Standard, July 2002
With this background and through reference to the Version; Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
NZS 3404 provisions, the above two questions
can be readily answered. 5. NZS 3404: 1997, plus Amendment No. 1:
1. The form factor, kf, is associated with the New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
effectiveness of the cross section against
local buckling. kf = 1.0 means that the 6. Feeney MJ and Clifton G C; Seismic Design
cross section will not undergo any local Procedures for Steel Structures; HERA,
buckling. A solid cross-section is in this Manukau City, 1995, HERA Report R4-76 ; to
category, so kf = 1.0 is the appropriate value be read with Clifton, GC; Tips on Seismic
to use. This applies even for a thin plate Design of Steel Structures; Notes from
member restrained only at its ends and Presentations to Structural Groups mid-2000;
loaded through those ends in compression. HERA, Manukau City, 2000.
Such a member will have low compression
capacity, limited by member buckling between
7. Clifton, GC et.al.; Two New Semi-Rigid Joints 21. Clifton, GC et.al.; Moment-Resisting Steel
for Moment-Resisting Steel Frames; NZSEE Framed Seismic-Resisting Systems With
2001 Conference, Wairakei; New Zealand Semi-Rigid Connections; SESOC Journal,
Society for Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1998, pp. 21-41 and 43-52.
Wellington, 2001.
22. Structural Sections to BS4: Part 1 and BS
8. AS/NZS 1170.0:2002 Structural Design 4848: Part 4; Corus Sections, Plates and
Actions Part 0: General Principles; Standards Commercial Steels, Redcar, Teeside, UK,
New Zealand; Wellington. 1999.
9. Mago, N and Clifton, GC; Sliding Hinge Joint 23. Clifton, GC; Steelwork Limit State Design
FEA Study; HERA, Manukau City, 2001, Guides Volume 1; HERA, Manukau City,
HERA Report R4-110. 1994, HERA Report R4-80.
10. Carr, AJ; RUAUMOKO – the Maori God of

Volcanoes and Earthquakes; University of
Christchurch, 1998.
11. Pantke, M; Development of analytical Models

for SHJ and SHJs; Report Produced for
Second Industrial Internship, HERA; Manukau
City, 2001.

Report R4-100.
13. AS/NZS 1252:1996, High Strength Bolts With

Associated Nuts and Washers for Structural
Engineering; Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
14. AS 1111.1; 2000 ISO Metric Hexagon

Commercial Bolts; Standards Australia,
Sydney, Australia.
15. AS 1566:1997, Copper and Copper Alloys –

Rolled Flat Products; Standards Australia,
Sydney, Australia.
16. Belleville Springs (Product Manual): Solon

Manufacturing Company, Chardon, Ohio,
USA.
17. Manual of Standard Connection Details for

Structural Steelwork, Second Edition; HERA,
18. ISO 9223:1992, Corrosion of Metals and

Alloys – Corrosively of Atmospheres –
Classification; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
19. AS/NZS 1170.2: 2002, Structural Design

Actions Part 2; Wind Actions; Standards New

Third Edition, Volume 1: Open Sections;
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 69 August/September 2002

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the The material herein has been the subject of review by a
beginning of the article. number of people. The effort and input of these reviewers is
greatly appreciated.
Introduction
Errors in the Web Opening
Welcome to the first Bulletin issue for the
2002/2003 year; the eighth year for this Design Procedure of DCB No. 53
publication. General
The first topic covered herein is a short but DCB No. 53 contains a design procedure for
significant errata to the web openings design design of openings in the webs of beams. It is
procedure presented in DCB No. 53. written principally for openings in webs of
composite beams, but also covers openings in the
The second topic covered relates to determining webs of non-composite beams and beams that are
the effective section modulus of a Tee section, as notched and frame into simple supports.
well as brief coverage of lateral buckling (member
moment capacity) determination for this section. The detailed design procedure is contained in the
appendix of that issue on pages A1-A20 therein.
This is followed by an update of the What’s in the The introduction and background to the procedure
DCB summary first presented in DCB No. 63. This is presented on pages 1 – 6 of that issue.
summary is now updated to Issue No. 68, ie. up to
mid-2002, in advance of an interactive access When the procedure was published in December
function being developed on the HERA website. 1999, it was presented as a draft for comment.
More details to follow on that in December, 2002. The procedure is a “New Zealandised” version of a
procedure developed by the UK Steel Construction
The last topic covered involves a calculation Institute and feedback was sought on ways of
method for plastic analysis, developed by Esli improving it; Clark Hyland of the SSAS has
Forrest. This is a stand-alone paper, with slight simplified and streamlined it and developed a
differences in format to a typical DCB article, and spread-sheet based program based on his
presents a significant simplification to the moment- procedure. However, both the procedure and
area method for calculating displacements and software require further development prior to
associated forces in the elastic and inelastic release. This is a task we have planned to do in
regime of behaviour. the next calender year (2003).
In This Issue Page Meanwhile, the procedure presented in the
Errors in the Web Opening Design 1 Appendix A53 remains valid to use. However,
Procedure there are two errors in it that need to be corrected.
Details of these are as follows:
Effective Section Modulus of a Tee
2
Section
Appendix A: Design Procedure Details
What’s in the DCB From Nos 1 to 68
6
(14.2) Check high-moment side moment
capacity
A Calculation Method for Plastic
Analysis 19
There is an error in the high-moment side moment
References 29 capacity check for the partial shear connection
case, presented on page A9 of DCB No. 53. This
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 69, August/September 2002
is the case where N*T1 > N1 φsc qr . The equation Effective Section Modulus of a
for φMside 2 in this case should read: Tee Section
For partial shear connection ( N*T1 > N1 φsc qr ; see Structural Engineer.
step 4.2):
Introduction
φMside 2 (
= φMvc + φMpt 1 - N*T2 - N*C0 / φNst ) This article arises from the answering of a design
query on how to calculate the effective section
 N* 
(
+ φMpb 1 - T1  + N*C1 d - x eb + hrc + 0.5xC1
 φN 
) modulus to NZS 3404 [1] under major axis bending
for a Tee section. The caller had first tried to
 sb  reconcile the values given in Table 3.1-5 (B) of the
+ N*C0 (d - x et - x eb ) Design Capacity Tables [2] for a given tee section
with the provisions of NZS 3404 [1] and, having
Both errors relate to the fourth term on the right had problems with this, then raised the issue with
hand side of that equation. Firstly, the term is the HERA Structural Engineer. Given that it is
positive, not negative. Secondly, within the term, likely the caller was not the only engineer having
0.5C1 should be 0.5xC1. questions over this topic, the HERA Structural
Engineer considers it advisable to answer the
(23) Additional deflections question more widely.
On page A13, the expression Σ(δa/δo) ≤ 1.2 should The article commences with an overview of the
read Σ(δa/δo) ≤ 0.2. This corresponds to the elastic and plastic stress distributions in a Tee
requirement that the additional deflection from all section under x-axis bending. It goes on to the
openings should be kept below 0.2δo, which is calculation of the effective section modulus for
correctly stated in the line above. x-axis bending and ends with consideration of
lateral stability in the determination of member
moment capacity. The article draws on material
from the HERA Structural Steelwork Limit State
Design Guides Volume 1 [3].
Fig. 69.1
Elastic and Plastic Stress Distributions
in a Tee Section Under Principal
X-Axis Bending
In this figure:
- ≡ compression stress
+ ≡ tension stress
Elastic and Plastic Stress Distributions in a For the same Tee sections, when under negative
Tee Section Under X-Axis Bending moment, so that the tip of the stem is under
maximum compression strain, the plate element
Fig. 69.1 shows the elastic and plastic stress slenderness limits of Table 5.2 Case number 2
distributions in a Tee section under x-axis bending. apply. Depending on the depth of the stem, the
Under negative moment, the flange is in tension, stem plate element slenderness may be lower or
while under positive moment, it is in compression. higher than the yield limit (which is 25 for a hot-
rolled section). It is unlikely that this slenderness
Under limit state design, the upper limit of elastic will be sufficiently low to be under the plasticity limit
section behaviour is reached when the stress at when the stem tip is in compression.
the tip of the stem reaches yield or the element in
compression undergoes local buckling, whichever This means that, when the Tee section is subject
occurs first. to x-axis positive moment, the stem tip is in
maximum tension and is stable with regard to local
For Tee sections cut from hot-rolled I-sections, the buckling. The section slenderness will be
flange outstands are typically of sufficiently low determined by the flange outstand slenderness
slenderness to be within the plate element and the sections will typically be compact or near
plasticity limit, in accordance with NZS 3404 [1] the compact (NZS 3404 Clause 5.2.3) end of the
Clause 5.2.2 and Table 5.2 Case number 1. non-compact range (Clause 5.2.4).
Those flange elements which are not within the
plasticity limit will be within the yield limit. This
applies to Tee sections under positive moment.
Fig. 69.2
Elastic and Plastic Bending for Various
Cross-Sections (from [3])
In this figure:
(a) I-section; double axes of symmetry
(b) plated I-section; double axes of symmetry
(c) channel section; single axis of symmetry in plane of bending
(d) tee section; single axis of symmetry not in plane of bending
(e) unequal angle; no axis of symmetry
In contrast, when the Tee section is subject to Zx,stem is the elastic section modulus used in the
x-axis negative moment, the stem tip is in determination of Zex.
maximum compression and will determine the
section slenderness. The section will typically be The plastic section modulus, Sx, is the first moment
near the slender section end of the non-compact of area of each area above and below the plastic
range (Clause 5.2.4) or may even be slender neutral axis about that axis. This generates only
(Clause 5.2.5). one value.
When the applied negative moment exceeds the Having determined Zx , Sx and the section
point at which the stem tip stress reaches yield, the slenderness, the determination of Zex follows the
yielding region will spread along the stem provisions of NZS 3404 Clause 5.2. This will often
(assuming that local buckling under compression is give a different value of Zex, flange (used for the
suppressed). By the time the top surface of the flange in compression, ie. positive moment) and
flange commences yielding, a significant portion of Zex, stem (flange in tension, ie. negative moment).
the stem will have yielded. When the cross section The reason for this difference lies in the section
is fully plasticised, the uneven progression of slenderness applicable to each case. As
yielding means that the position of the neutral axis described in the previous section, for the flange in
has changed. This change is shown in Fig. compression, the flange element slenderness is
69.2 (d). The shift in neutral axis from the elastic usually under the plasticity limit, thus the section is
state to the fully plastic state occurs because the compact. From NZS 3404 [1] Clause 5.2.3, for a
bending is not taking place about an axis of compact section:
symmetry. Zex = min (1.5 Zx, min ; Sx) (69.1)
Elastic and Plastic Stress Distributions in a where Zx,min = Zx,stem
Tee Section Under Y-Axis Bending For a section exactly on the non-compact / slender
boundary (Clause 5.2.4),
For principal y-axis bending of a Tee section in
which the stem is positioned at the centreline of the Zex = Zx,min = Zx,stem (69.2)
flange (ie. the typical case), the flange is effectively In the former case, 1.5 Zx,stem < Sx will always be
a rectangular flat plate in major axis bending about the case, so this will govern for compact Tee
its own centroid and the stem makes virtually no sections bent about the principal x-axis.
contribution. If the Tee section is prevented from
lateral buckling (a Tee section bent about either of In contrast, for the stem in compression, the
the principal y- or x-axes may be prone to lateral section will typically be non-compact and may even
buckling, depending upon its moment of inertia in be slender, hence Zex will range from below Zx,stem
each direction, as mentioned later) then the (for the slender sections, in accordance with
section slenderness is controlled by the half of the Clause 5.2.5.2 of [1]) up to near 1.5 Zx,stem.
flange outstand in compression. For a Tee section Typically, though, the stem in compression Tee
formed from a hot-rolled section, the slenderness section will not reach compact status.
ratio of this outstand flange element will always be
close to and usually beneath the plasticity limit Effective Section Modulus for Y-Axis Bending
given by NZS 3404 Table 5.2 Case number 2. So This follows the same concept, with the elastic
the section will typically be compact (Clause 5.2.3) section modulus about the principal y-axis, Zy, and
or very near the compact end of the non-compact the plastic section modulus, Sy, being very close to
range (Clause 5.2.4). the values determined for the flange alone in
bending about its own strong axis. Where the
Effective Section Modulus for X-Axis Bending flange is compact in this instance, which is typically
As advised in section 5.2.2.1 of DGV1 [3], when a the case:
section is bent elastically about an axis which is
Zey = min (1.5 Zy ; Sy) = 1.5 Zy (69.3)
not an axis of symmetry, the elastic section moduli
determined about the outer faces of the section are If the flange outstand element slenderness is
not equal. In this instance, for limit state design, slightly above the plasticity limit, then Zey will be
the minimum of the two values is used as the slightly less than 1.5 Zey , as determined by Clause
elastic section modulus for determination of the 5.2.4 of [1].
effective section modulus. In the case of a Tee
section, the elastic section modulus taken about Which are the Minor and Major Axis?
the top of the flange (Zx,flange ) will always be larger With a Tee section of the typical proportions
than that taken about the tip of the stem (Zx,stem), formed from a hot-rolled section, there will be a few
because the distance from the elastic neutral axis instances where Ix is smaller than Iy. In this
to the outer fibre of material is much smaller in the instance, the x-axis becomes the minor principal
former case. This can be seen from Table 3.1-5(A) axis. Examples where this occurs from [2] are
of [2], where Zx,flange > Zx,stem for all the Tee sections most of the Tee sections formed from a 200UB
listed. When calculating Zex for a Tee section, beam.
relative to the y-axis moment of inertia of the
section as a whole makes it more susceptible
to lateral buckling, again as shown in Fig.
69.3.
This difference is dealt with in NZS 3404

Clauses 5.6.1.2.1 and 5.6.1.2.2, through the
use of the monosymmetry constant, βx.
When determining this constant for a Tee
section, the dimension df can be taken as:
df = d - tf (69.4)
For heavy steel (ie. coming under the scope

of NZS 3404) I-sections, channel sections
and rectangular hollow sections, when they
are bent about the principal x-axis, they are
potentially prone to lateral buckling and both
moment capacity and member moment
capacity must be checked. When they are
bent about the principal y-axis, they are not
prone to lateral buckling and section moment
capacity only need be checked.
Fig. 69.3 However Tee sections for which Iy > Ix will be

Monosymmetric Beams in Uniform Bending prone to lateral buckling when bent about the
(from [3]) y-axis and not prone to lateral buckling when bent
about the x-axis. In these cases, member moment
For the three heaviest Tee sections from this capacity must be checked for y-axis bending. This
beam, Table 3.1–5 (A) of [2] shows the magnitude can be readily done by substituting Ix for Iy in
of Ix and Iy and indicates the reversal of major and NZS 3404 equation 5.6.1.2. In this instance, Icx is
minor axis roles. This has implications in the required. This is determined by taking the second
determination of lateral buckling and hence the moment of area of the half of the flange in
determination of member moment capacity, as compression about the x-axis. Using the
discussed in the next and final section. It is also terminology of [1, 2], this gives;
the reason why the previous sections have not
used the words “major” and “minor” in relation to 0.5bf t f3
Icx = + 0.5bf t f (yc - 0.5t f )2 (69.5)
the x-axis and y-axis, respectively. 12
Member Moment Capacity for a Tee Section where:

bf = flange width
Because a Tee section does not have two parallel tf = flange thickness
flanges offset from each other (as do I-sections yc = distance from elastic neutral axis to top of
and channel sections), warping stiffness makes no flange
contribution to resisting lateral buckling. Thus,
when determining the member moment capacity Most Tee-sections are not used in bending about
for a Tee section, Iw = 0 is used in calculating the the y-axis, so the typical check for member
elastic buckling moment, Mo, in accordance with moment capacity about the x-axis (ie. using Iy in
NZS 3404 Clauses 5.6.1.2 and 5.6.1.6. the calculation of Mo) will usually apply. However,
designers need to be aware that Iy can exceed Ix
For a Tee section, the flexural torsional buckling is for some Tee sections and, in these rare instances,
initiated by the element in compression. Where the member moment capacity check about the
the bending is about the x-axis and the flange is in y-axis is required.
compression, its high local moment of inertia about
the other principal axis (Icy) relative to the y-axis Finally, it should be noted that Iy and Ix are often
moment of inertia of the section as a whole makes relatively close together, meaning that these
it very resistant to lateral buckling, as shown in sections are not often greatly susceptible to
Fig. 69.3. strength reduction from flexural-torsional buckling.
However, when the bending is about the x-axis

and the stem is in compression, its low local
moment of inertia about the minor principal axis
What’s Current in the DCBs Report R4-99 [4]. That specification was published
in November 1998 and is still current.
from No. 1 to No. 68
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA Inspection and quality
Introduction and Scope An inspection regime for bolts in bolted

connections is given in DCB No. 46,
This article presents an update on the article in pp. 8-10. It covers snug tight and tensioned bolts.
DCB No. 63 which covered the topics presented in
the DCBs up to July 2001. A paper on quality control of metal spray coatings
This article extends that guidance through to Issue is overviewed and referenced from DCB No. 20,
No. 68, June/July 2002. pp. 5.
The principal reason for updating this article is The role of the Territorial Authority in enforcing
because this guidance is being used in the weld quality is addressed in DCB No. 40, pp.4-5.
creation of an interactive on-line service to access
the DCBs. This service is expected to be Ensuring that on-site quality control is achieved for
operational at the end of 2002 and will cover all welded shear studs and for intumescent paints is
issues up to the end of the 2001/2002 financial covered in DCB No. 44 pp. 3-7. Ensuring that
year. The DCB No. 63 article needs revising for on-site quality control of welded shear studs is
that interactive service and it makes sense to also achieved is now more comprehensively covered in
publish it in this issue, the first for 2002/2003. session 4.2 of [11] and on p. 20 of DCB No. 67.
This article supersedes the Issue No. 63 article. An inspection regime for the non-destructive
The details presented herein are grouped under examination of welds in a given project is
the same general topics as were the details in presented in DCB No. 44, pp. 2-3.
Issue No. 63. These topics are:
Design Examples, Design Queries and Design
• Contractual issues and quality Concepts
• Design examples, design queries and
design concepts There are a large number of design examples and
• Design for durability design queries presented in the 68 issues of the
• Design for earthquake DCB to mid-2002. There are also design concepts
• Design for fatigue given for a range of applications. Those which are
• Design for fire and behaviour in fire still current are listed below, in chronological order,
• Design for serviceability with the design examples listed first.
• Design of specific types of structures
Design examples cover the following:
• Design of connections
• Design of structural hollow section members
and connections • Design example 6.1, in DCB No. 6, pp. 1-2,
covers design for moment of a solid
• Design of members not listed elsewhere
rectangular flat plate loaded about the
• Design of non-ferrous metals x-axis
• Innovative and economical steel design
• Material properties and availability • Design example 17.1, in DCB No. 17,
• Publications pp. 5-8 covers design of a single angle truss
• Research results chord member to NZS 3404 [1]. The
• Steel Structures Standard, NZS 3404 example, written for the 1992 edition of NZS
• Composite construction 3404, is however still relevant. This
• Miscellaneous items example replaces the single angle design
example in DCB No. 3, pp. 1-3 and
Use of this format means that some items are
amendment in DCB No. 3, pp. 3-4
referred to more than once, however it significantly
increases the useability of the information
presented. • Pages 2-5 of DCB No. 17 present the design
concepts and background to single angle
Contractual Issues and Quality member design
Specifications
DCB No. 44 presents an overview of the HERA monosymmetric beam comprising a Tee
Specification for the Fabrication, Erection and section with CHS bottom chord which is
Surface Treatment of Structural Steelwork, HERA subject to wind uplift. DCB No. 69, pp. 2-5,
covers further aspects of Tee section design
horizontal cantilever canopy flat plate rib Design queries and concepts cover the
beam for major axis bending following:
• DCB No. 40, pp. 6-8, covers the ultimate • DCB No. 1, pp. 2-3, addresses the question
limit state design of a cantilever column as to whether local wind pressure
carrying a vertical axial load. The purpose coefficients from NZS 4203 [7] need be
behind this example is to illustrate applied to elements of cladding for design
application of NZS 3404 [1] for second-order for serviceability limit state wind conditions
effect determination and subsequent
member design • DCB No. 1, p. 3, covers how the torsion
constant and warping constant are
• DCB No. 41, pp. 7-9, covers calculation of calculated for a monosymmetric I-section
the lifting capacity of a spreader beam. This with lipped compression flanges
is one of the more challenging applications
of the beam member moment capacity • DCB No. 4, p. 5, covers how the effective
(lateral buckling) provisions section modulus of a half round steel section
carrying water is calculated
• DCB No. 51, pp. 16-22 presents two fully
worked beam to column MEP connection • DCB No. 5, p. 6, covers calculation of Zey for
design examples. These utilise the material an I-section which is symmetrical about the
in HERA Report R4-100 [5] as well as y-axis
performing all the additional checks required
on the column section. They should be read • DCB No. 7, p. 4-5, covers a restraint query.
in conjunction with DCB No. 52, pp. 13-16, However this and all other restraint queries
which introduce an improved method of up to DCB No. 34 have been superseded by
panel zone doubler plate reinforcing and HERA Report R4-92 [8]
apply it to the MEP design examples from
DCB No. 51. See also DCB No. 57 for a • DCB No. 16, pp. 3-4, covers the
detailed article on panel zone design and determination of α m factors for segments
detailing that supersedes all previous unrestrained at one end and subject to a
articles on this topic load pattern not covered by NZS 3404 Table
5.6.2. The expression for α m presented on
• DCB No. 55, pp. 2-15, presents a very page 4 of that issue has been incorporated
detailed design example and commentary into the program MemDes [9]
on the design of a cold-formed, thin-walled
single angle truss chord member subject to
• DCB No. 29, pp. 5-6, covers determination
combined compression and bending. The
of the design tension capacity of plain, round
angle is formed from 3 mm thick cold bent
reinforcing bar members. The concepts
plate and the design is to AS/NZS 4600 [6]
presented therein are still applicable to
reinforcement which is now produced to
• DCB No. 58, pp. 20-23, presents a detailed AS/NZS 4671 [10], although the minimum
design example on the semi-rigid Flange specified strengths have changed
presents errata to the FBJ procedure
• DCB No. 49, pp. 1-4, presents advice on
contained in DCB No. 58; these are minor
member moment capacity determination for
segments of portal frames. This supersedes
• DCB No. 61, pp. 9-21, presents a detailed advice given in articles on this topic in DCB
design example for a brace/beam/column Nos. 22 , 23 and 25
connection in a braced steel frame (EBF or
CBF). This uses the design concepts
• DCB No. 54, pp. 1-3, presents the
presented in DCB No. 56, pp. 2-11. A short
convention on signs for member and applied
errata is presented in DCB No. 63, pp. 1-2
actions (moment, shear, axial force)
adopted, as of February 2000, for all
• DCB No. 60, pp. 9-15, presents application subsequent HERA publications
of the Slab Panel Method for the design of
floor slabs incorporating unprotected
• DCB No. 55, pp. 18-28, presents a detailed
secondary beams in FHC 2 and FHC 3
background to the concepts involved in
situations. DCB No. 62, pp. 2-6, presents
more data on application of this method,
capacity for shear studs used in composite
as does DCB No. 64, pp. 33-36 and DCB
construction. This should be used to
No. 66, pp. 10-12. A significant first revision
determine the shear stud capacity for
is being published in December, 2002
applications that are not covered by • DCB No. 68, p. 33, covers determination of
NZS 3404 [1] but should be read in the member compression capacity of a solid
conjunction with section 4.2 of [11] section to [1]
• However, for shear studs used on beams • DCB No. 69, pp. 19-28, present a calculation
supporting precast hollowcore concrete method for plastic analysis
slabs, the guidance given in DCB No. 45,
pp. 8-11, can be used, but only for Design for Durability
hollowcore units of up to 250 mm deep.
This whole topic is now covered in session A wide scope of design guidance for durability is
4.2 of [11] which should be read first by covered, as noted below. This is presented in
anyone wanting composite action from chronological order, covering those articles which
hollowcore slabs on steel beams. It are still current.
provides the most up-to-date design criteria
including making allowance for hollowcore • DCB No. 20, pp. 1-2, presents general
units on steel beams to deliver acceptable guidance on selecting the appropriate
behaviour under design severe earthquake environment for corrosion protection of
attack external structural steelwork
• DCB No. 52, pp. 18-28, covers the lateral
restraint and load bearing capacity in the • DCB No. 20, pp. 2-5, covers allowance for
corrosion of unpainted beam top flanges in
support regions of continuous beams
car parking buildings
• DCB No. 54, pp. 26-27, presents the
concept of using rigging to restrain member • DCB No 36, p. 6, covers galvanizing of
buckling of long, isolated columns in HSFG bolts
compression
• DCB No. 41, pp. 1-5, presents an article on
• DCB No. 19, pp. 7-8, presents the general single coat Inorganic Zinc Silicate paints
design principles for composite connections
• DCB No. 46, pp. 2-6, presents design long-
• DCB No. 56, pp. 2-5, presents a method for term corrosion rates for steel piles, with
proportioning design actions from the braces follow-up material in DCB No. 62, pp. 6-8
into the supporting members of
brace/beam/column connections. This • DCB No. 46, pp. 5-7, presents design
supersedes all the guidance in DCB No. 47, corrosion rates for long-term exposure of
pp. 5-8 unprotected structural steel to exterior
atmospheric conditions. The guidance in
• DCB No. 56, pp. 5-11, presents design that article on allowance for microclimatic
concepts for brace/beam/column effects has been superseded by DCB
connections in braced steel frame seismic- No. 62, pp. 8-16
resisting systems
• DCB No, 46, p. 18, presents a short article
• DCB No. 56, pp.11-20, presents design
on the use of steel with no applied corrosion
concepts for moment-resisting column
protection in benign interior environments
baseplate connections in seismic-resisting
systems
• DCB No. 47, pp. 1-3, presents detailing
• DCB No. 58, pp. 1-20, presents design requirements for steel to concrete interfaces
concepts for connections and systems using in exterior environments. This references
the semi-rigid Flange Bolted Joint (FBJ), back to DCB No. 46, as required
followed by a design example. Refer also to
DCB No. 62, pp. 16-18, for revisions to the • DCB No. 49, pp. 7-14, covers the durability
design procedure. DCB No. 64, pp. 3-23, of car parking buildings, with follow-up
extends the application of the FBJ material in DCB No. 56, p.25
• DCB No. 68, pp. 1-32, presents the design • DCB No. 51, p. 8, overviews a coatings
and detailing requirements for connections guide for steel bridges
and systems using the semi-rigid Sliding
Hinge Joint (SHJ), followed by a design • DCB No. 51, pp. 12-14, provides guidance
example. This refers back to DCB No. 59, on assessing the remaining structural
pp. 26-32, which covers the design concepts capacity of corrosion-damaged steel beams,
for the SHJ with an update in DCB No. 52, p. 4
• DCB No. 52, pp. 5-7, introduces the • DCB No. 50, pp. 20-26, covers general
changes to the galvanizing standards and concepts and derivation of design actions for
gives a list of galvanizing baths available in connections in seismic-resisting systems.
NZ, as of October, 1999 This includes specific guidance on design
actions for column bases of MRFs, EBFs
• DCB No. 62, pp. 8-16, provides detailed and CBFs, material which is not covered in
guidance on allowing for microclimatic R4-76 [13]
effects such as unwashed surfaces
• DCB No. 49, pp. 15-19 and DCB No. 50,
• DCB No. 65, pp. 31-32, cover selection of pp. 5-7, cover issues relating to P-∆
stainless steel for durability. This topic is response and design of steel seismic-
greatly elaborated on in R4-111 [12] resisting systems
Design for Earthquake • DCB No. 47, pp. 20-21, presents details of a
cost-effective X-braced, tension only CBF
The principal source of design for earthquake is system with site welded strap braces
HERA Report R4-76 [13]. It was published in 1995
• DCB No. 46, pp. 16-17, presents details of a
for application with the 1992 edition of
cost-effective V-braced CBF system with site
NZS 3404. However, the changes required to use
welded braces. This system has been used
it in conjunction with NZS 3404: 1997 [1] are minor.
in a 17 storey building in Wellington
Details of these changes are given in the useful set
of notes entitled Tips on Seismic Design of Steel
• DCB No. 45, p. 16, covers derivation of Cs
Structures [14], which are overviewed in DCB factors for CBF roof bracing systems
No. 56, p.28. These tips are also now included in
each new copy of R4-76. • DCB No. 40, p. 3, contains a modification to
The items relating to design for earthquake [13] when calculating the column design
covered in the DCB, and which are additional to seismic axial force in columns of tension
the material covered by [13, 14], are as follows braced CBF seismic-resisting systems
(presented in reverse chronological order);
• DCB No. 40, p. 4, presents the most recent
• Design of bolted hollow circular columns for empirical equations for preliminary
earthquake can be undertaken using the determination of seismic-resisting system
Circular Bolted Flange Annulus connection, fundamental period of vibration
which is presented in DCB Nos. 65,
pp. 16-30, 66, pp. 12-16 and 67, pp. 1-16 • DCB No. 36, p. 6, presents an extreme
upper limit on seismic design actions for
• Design of connections and systems using connectors and connection components.
the Flange Bolted Joint is covered in DCB These should be used where the system is
No. 58, pp. 1-20, and DCB No. 62, pp.16-18 such that the minimum design actions
and DCB No. 64, pp. 3-23 specified by NZS 3404 Clause 12.9.2 would
be obviously excessive for the system
• Design of connections and system using
the Sliding Hinge Joint is covered in DCB • DCB No. 24, pp. 7-8, present the revised
No. 68, pp. 1-32 expressions for determining the post-
buckling compression capacity of CBF
braces that are given as Equations
• DCB No. 57, pp. 14-28, covers design and
detailing of panel zones in moment-resisting C12.2.3(1) and C12.2.3(2) in NZS 3404 [1]
beam to column connection. That
supersedes all earlier DCB articles on panel single-brace concentrically braced framed
zone design and detailing systems. (These are not covered in R4-76
[13] but the provisions from that report are
• DCB No. 56, pp. 2-5, covers design easily adapted for their use)
concepts for proportioning design actions
from the braces into the supporting • DCB No. 18, pp. 1-10, present guidelines
members of brace/beam/column for assessing the seismic performance of
connections pre-1975 moment-resisting steel framed
buildings. These guidelines are currently
• DCB No. 51, pp. 14-23, covers design of being incorporated, in part, into a new
MEP connections for seismic-resisting document on this topic being prepared by a
systems. See also DCB No. 57 for revised NZSEE Study Group for the BIA
panel zone design criteria
• DCB No. 8, pp. 1-6, DCB No. 9, pp. 1-4, and • DCB No. 60, whole issue, presents the
DCB No. 10, pp.1-3, present reports on the detailed design procedure for design of
Great Hanshin (Kobe) Earthquake of multi-storey steel framed buildings with
January, 1995 unprotected secondary beams or joists for
dependable inelastic response in severe
Design for Fatigue fires. The design method is called the Slab
Panel Method (SPM). This is followed up in
The DCB to date has not provided direct guidance DCB No. 61, pp. 1-2 by details of a flexible
on design for fatigue, but instead has referenced fire separation joint that can be used with
good sources of design guidance. Details are as the inelastically responding floor system.
follows: DCB No. 62, pp. 2-6, presents guidance on
applying the revised SPM design program
• DCB No. 57, pp. 28-30, provides coverage that has been developed to implement this
of three sources of fatigue design guidance method. (An error in the units for shear
covering welded construction in general and capacity shown in the output screen of that
welded hollow section joints in particular program, Fig. 62.2, has now been corrected
from mm2 m to kN in the version of the
• DCB No. 32, p. 4, references a report program available from HERA). Further
available from HERA on the fatigue testing updates are in DCB No. 64, pp. 33-36 and
of riveted bridge girders DCB No. 66, pp. 10-12
Design for Fire and Behaviour in Fire • DCB No. 59, pp. 2-25, presents research
results that have then been used in the SPM
Design for steel structures response in fire and procedure development
one of the principal topics covered in the DCB and • DCB No. 58, pp. 25-30, in conjunction with a
by the HERA Structural Division in general. The Canadian paper described and referenced
most current overview of fire engineering from therein, covers the design of concrete
application to multi-storey steel framed buildings in filled steel hollow section columns for a
New Zealand is given in [15], which was written in specified fire resistance rating
October 2002. HERA Report R4-105 [16] Notes
Prepared for a Seminar on The Behaviour and • DCB No. 54, pp. 3-26, presents a state-of-
Design of Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings for the-art report, as of February 2000, on the
Severe Fires, Revised June 2001 covers Fire performance and design of modern, multi-
Engineering Design (FED) of multi-storey buildings storey steel framed buildings in fully
and contains/supersedes much DCB material on developed fires. However, as this is such a
FED of multi-storey buildings published prior to rapidly developing area, that article was
then. HERA Report R4-91 [17] Notes Prepared for getting out of date by February 2001. It was
a Seminar on Design of Steel Buildings for Fire revised and updated for the seminars on
Emergency Conditions provides design and Behaviour and Design of Multi-Storey
detailing guidance for low-rise buildings. Various Buildings for Severe Fires held in March
DCB articles since [17] was published, in 2001 and is now presented as session 4 of
November 1996, have revised application of the [15]. For example, it now references the
procedures to keep them up to date with changes SPM design method, presented in DCB
to key documents such as C/AS1:2001 [18], the No. 60, a copy of which is also included in
Approved Document for Fire Safety. the notes under session 2
This contents listing covers the DCB articles on • The collapsed wall condition concept, for
behaviour and design for fire that are still current. determining whether the steel columns
Because so much of the earlier published material supporting fire rated external wall elements
on fire has been superseded by later articles or of single-storey buildings are required to be
other documents, they are listed in approximate passive fire protected, was first introduced in
reverse chronological order: DCB No. 20, April 1996. It was then
developed further in subsequent DCB
• DCB No. 66, p. 16, gives an overview of a articles and presented in detail in HERA
useful paper on the heat straightening repair Report R4-91 [17], in November 1996.
of damaged steelwork, which is relevant to Some errors in that report were noted and
fire design corrected through DCB No. 30, pp. 3-4 and
more mention of the collapsed wall condition
• DCB No. 65, pp. 4-13, gives a number of design concept made on page 6. The
design examples on the design of members original condition was developed for a
for fully developed fires previous edition of the BIA Acceptable
Solutions for Fire Safety and needed
modification to be applied to the current • DCB No. 27, pp. 1-8, provides interesting
provisions C/AS1 [18]. Its application has material on the link between the fire
been made easier by the radiation resistance ratings provided, the structural
provisions of [18] now employing the same fire severity and the resulting performance
concept of a limiting width on the emitter as in severe fire. That information, especially
is incorporated into the collapsed wall pp. 4-5, is still of background interest;
condition concept. There have been two although the design recommendations
rounds of modifications made, namely in arising from it have been superseded
DCB No. 51, pp. 3-5 and DCB No. 52
pp. 2-3 • DCB No. 27, p. 8, provides an overview of
HERA Report R4-89 [19], Fire Protection
Designers using the collapsed wall condition Manuals, Section 7 (Passive Protection) and
concept should start with the advice given in Section 8 (Active Protection)
DCB No. 52, pp. 2-3 under the articles
Extending Use of the Collapsed Wall • DCB No. 15, p. 8, makes reference to HERA
Condition for Support of External Wall Report R4-82 [20] Calculation of the Design
Panels…. That article refers back, as Fire Resistance of Composite Concrete
required, to DCB No. 51 and to [17]. Pages Slabs With Profiled Steel Sheeting Under
4 and 5 of DCB No. 51 give the method of Fire Emergency Conditions. An error in the
application itself in terms of determining the equation for he on page 15 of [20] is noted
emitter height and width and corrected in DCB No. 35, p.5
• DCB No. 51, pp. 2-3, provides guidance on • DCB No.12, pp. 6-8, covers the fire
modifying the S rating given by [18] to resistance of composite beams with profiled
account for the thermal inertia of the steel decking, in particular addressing the
bounding elements of the enclosure. This issue as to whether the voids between top of
modification is very important, as the S steel and decking in a ribbed deck need
ratings given in [18] are based on the most filling with passive protection material when
severe condition possible in buildings and the beams are protected
require significant reduction for any building
incorporating concrete floor slabs • DCB No.11, p. 6, covers fire stopping and
penetration seals for the construction
• DCB No. 51, pp. 5-6, provides guidance on industry
the fire resistance ratings for structural
elements of steel framed car parking • DCB No. 6, pp. 4-6, covers the accuracy of
buildings the structural fire severity time equivalent
equation, te = ef fb wf, used to develop the S
• DCB No. 50, pp. 9-10, overviews a useful rating provisions. Further brief background
paper on assessing the integrity of structural to the ventilation factor, wf, is given in DCB
steelwork after exposure to fire. The other No. 8, pp. 7-8
two FED articles in that issue have been
superseded Design for Serviceability
• DCB No. 48, pp. 3-13, presents results from Acoustic performance:
HERA’s fire research programme on key
aspects of the behaviour of a multi-storey • DCB No. 57, pp. 2-14, presents guidance on
steel framed building subject to fully the acoustic performance of steel framed
developed natural fires apartment buildings
• DCB No. 46, pp. 10-13, presents details on • DCB No. 45, pp. 11-13, covers acoustic
eliminating the need for passive fire insulation provided by Dimond Hibond floor
protection in multi-storey apartment and systems
hotel buildings by using the shielding effects
of the linings Deflections:
• DCB No. 44, p.7, mentions a publication • DCB No. 49, pp.4-7, together with DCB
available from HERA on the fire engineering No. 50, pp. 2-4, provide guidance on the
design of oil platforms and similar structures stiffening effect of the cladding on portal
frame deflections under lateral loading
• DCB No. 28, pp. 2-3, provides a summary
of the scope and contents of HERA Report • Deflection of composite floor systems
R4-91 [17] and the links between deflection and
concrete placement are now covered
in HERA Report R4-107-DD [21]. This was • DCB No. 48, pp. 17-18, provides an
presented in conjunction with R4-112 [23] overview of a BHP publication on the use of
and R4-113 [11], at a composite steel in houses, which is available from
construction seminar series in May 2002. A HERA. The publication is written for
followup on this seminar series is given in Australian conditions, however much of it is
DCB No. 67, pp. 16-21 directly relevant to New Zealand and all of it
has at least some relevance. There are
• The guidance given in DCB No. 37, plans underway to produce a New Zealand
pp. 9-10, on vertical deflection limits for version
crane runway girders, is superseded by the
requirements of AS 1418 Part 18 [21]. This Single-storey buildings
very important new standard is overviewed
in DCB No. 61, pp. 6-9 • DCB No. 50, pp. 2-4, covers the stiffening
effect of cladding on portal frame buildings
Vibration of floor systems
• The latest US/Canadian based design • DCB No. 52, pp. 2-3, covers design of
procedure for design of steel/concrete floor external walls for fire resistance
systems for satisfactory in-service floor
vibration response is overviewed in DCB • DCB No. 40, pp. 1-3, covers design of
No. 56, pp. 25-27. The principal source of haunches, tapered universal beam sections
design guidance is HERA Report R4-112 in portal frame rafters
[23], which comprises a program that
operates this procedure, a comprehensive • DCB No. 21, pp. 5-6, covers the minimum
users manual and set of design examples. required pitch for profiled metal roofing and
The program covers all floor system types references an excellent publication for
supported on steel beams except precast profiled metal roofing design and installation
concrete. For floor systems involving
Dimond Hibond supported on steel beams, Multi-storey buildings
the Hibond Design Wizard [24] covers the
full preliminary and final design, including • DCB No. 49, pp. 20-24, presents general
vibration assessment concepts in selecting structural form and
Wind-Induced Serviceability Vibration multi-storey steel framed buildings
• DCB No. 66, pp. 1-10, presents a procedure • DCB No. 50, pp. 20-26, presents connection
for the preliminary design assessment design and detailing issues in selecting
of multi-storey buildings for satisfactory structural form and detailing for maximum
in-service response to wind induced cost-effectiveness in multi-storey steel
vibrations. When that procedure was framed buildings
written, the appropriate wind standard was in
draft form. That draft has now been • DCB No. 52, pp. 22-25, covers optimising
published as AS/NZS 1170.2 [25] and the the cost of multi-storey steel framed
procedure should be used in conjunction buildings in New Zealand
with the published standard. (All Clause
references and technical details from DCB • DCB No. 49, pp. 7-14, covers durability of
No. 66 are unaltered) multi-storey car parking buildings. This topic
is also covered in section 3.3 of [11] with
Design of Specific Types of Structures matters arising presented in DCB No. 67,
This section of the content listings covers articles pp. 16-21
relating to specific types of structures, typically
covering a range of topics in relation to that type of Pallet racking systems
structure. The listing is not exhaustive, especially
in that it does not cover articles on components or There have been various articles on pallet racking
other items that are applicable to more than one systems in the DCB, however the following two
type of structure. Its principal purpose is to identify issues present the current guidance and
articles that would not be referenced elsewhere supersede earlier articles;
within this contents overview
• DCB No. 31, pp. 1-10, covers general issues
Houses and design of selective pallet racks
• DCB No. 52, pp. 9-10, covers guidelines for • DCB No. 53, pp. 6-12, covers design of
light-weight steel framed house construction drive-in pallet racks
Design of Connections Connections: general issues
Background DCB No. 50, pp. 20-25, covers the following

general issues:
This section incorporates the summary guidance
presented in DCB No. 53 and DCB No. 63, with
• General principles of design for connections
new material that is presented in Issue Nos. 64-
not subject to potential inelastic demand
68. It uses the same sub-headings as those used
in the Issue No. 53 article. • General principles of design for connections
which are subject to potential inelastic
Introduction demand
• Design actions on connections at the bases
The principal publication for design and detailing of of MRF, EBF and CBF seismic-resisting
connections is the Structural Steelwork system columns
Connections Guide, HERA Report R4-100 [5].
DCB No. 57, pp. 14-28, covers the design and
However, there is also a considerable amount of detailing of panel zones in moment-resisting beam
connection design and detailing information to column connections and supersedes all
presented in previous DCB issues that is previous guidance on that topic. It covers rigid and
complementary to the guidance presented in [5]. semi-rigid connections to I-section and to hollow
Some of that information was prepared in response section columns.
to connection issues arising during the preparation
of Report R4-100, other topics have been covered DCB No. 56, pp. 29-32, covers determination of
independently and subsequently. the tension capacity of bolt/plate combinations, for
any combination of bolts and plate.
The information is spread through many DCB
issues. The purpose of this article is to briefly Flexible end plate connections
present the location and scope of this information
to assist designers in making full use of it. The • Required width of supporting column flange
guidance is presented under a series of headings (or web) is covered in DCB No. 50, p. 12
starting with general issues and then moving on to
each connection type. Welded moment connections
Prior to starting this article, a quick reminder to
readers of the connection types covered in HERA • Design of tension/compression column
Report R4-100 [5]. These are: stiffeners is covered on pp. 12-14 of
DCB No. 50
• Web side plate (Designation: WP)
• Flexible end plate (Designation: FE) • Design of the web panel zone, including
• Beam to column welded moment doubler plate reinforcement, is covered on
(Designation: WM) pp. 14-28 of DCB No. 57, especially p. 25
• Beam to column moment-resisting bolted
end plate (Designations: MEP and STP) Moment end plate connections
• Beam to beam moment-resisting bolted
endplate splice with flush endplates • Design of tension/compression column
(Designation: MEPS) stiffeners is covered on pp. 12-14 of DCB
• Bolted welded beam splice (Designation: No. 50
BWBS)
• Bolted compression splice in columns • Column flange requirements (width, tension
subject to combined actions including axial capacity) are covered on pp. 15-16 of DCB
compression (Designation: BCS) No. 50. Design of the web panel zone,
including doubler plate reinforcement, is
• Bolted tension splice in columns subject to
combined actions including axial tension covered on pp. 14-18 of DCB No. 57,
(Designation: BTS) especially pp. 25-27
• Pinned column baseplate, column carrying
compression and shear (Designation: BP-P). • MEP connections in category 1 or 2 seismic-
resisting systems are covered on pp. 15-16
DCB No. 61, pp. 3-6, presents an amendment to of DCB No. 51 (this extends the coverage of
the FE connection provisions of R4-100 [5] [5] to these two categories; R4-100 covers
category 3 and non-seismic connections)
This summary covers only design and detailing Note that the panel zone design is now
information complementary to and additional to covered by DCB No. 57, pp. 14-28
that presented in Report R4-100
• Two design examples are presented on pp. • A fully worked connection design
16-22 of DCB No. 51 and updated on pp. using these concepts is given in DCB
15-16 of DCB No. 52 and pp. 22-27 of DCB No. 61, pp. 9-21, with a minor errata in
No. 57, in relation to the panel zones DCB No. 63, pp. 1-2
Beam bolted welded splices • Design of a gusset plate is given on pp. 4-5
of DCB No. 47. This is the only part of the
• R4-100 covers splices between the same article on beam / brace / column gusset
beam size; extending this to splices between connections given on pp. 3-8 of that issue
beams of different weights within the same that is still current; the rest is superseded by
designation is covered on pp. 17-18 of DCB DCB No. 56, pp. 5-11
No. 50
Column base connections
Column splices
• Design actions on connections at the bases
• R4-100 covers splices between the same of seismic-resisting system columns are
column size; extending this to splices covered in DCB No. 50, pp. 22-25. That
between columns of different weights within guidance extends the coverage of R4-76
the same designation is covered on pp. 18- [13] into the column base area for moment-
19 of DCB No. 50 resisting and for braced framed systems
• Extending this further to splices between • General design guidance on connections at

columns of different designations is covered the bases of seismic-resisting system
on pp. 19-20 of DCB No. 50 columns is given in DCB No. 50, pp. 25-26
Semi-rigid joints • For moment-resisting column baseplate

connections in seismic-resisting systems,
• DCB No. 58, pp. 1-24, presents the design comprehensive design and detailing
and detailing provisions for the Flange concepts are given in DCB No. 56, pp.
Bolted Joint (FBJ). There is a minor revision 11-20. This article either references or
in DCB No. 62, pp. 16-18 and an extension incorporates the relevant details from DCB
to the original scope of application in DCB No. 50, pp. 22-26, mentioned above
No. 64, pp. 3-24
Design of connections for fire endurance
• DCB No. 64, pp. 24-33, covers finite element
analysis work undertaken to October 2001 Connections that will undergo inelastic rotation
on the Sliding Hinge Joint (SHJ). The full during severe fire attack must be suitably designed
design and detailing procedure for the SHJ and detailed to deliver this. The connections in
is presented in DCB No. 68, pp. 1-32 R4-100 [5] have been designed and detailed to
achieve this.
• Three dimensional views of both joint types
are given in DCB No. 65, pp. 13-15 The semi-rigid connections (FBJ and SHJ) will also
achieve this.
Brace/beam/column gusset plate connections
• DCB No. 58, pp. 28-30, presents
• Design guidance for proportioning the recommendations on connection design and
design actions from the braces into the detailing for fire endurance between beams
supporting members of brace / beam / and concrete-filled SHS column members
column connections is given in DCB No. 56,
pp. 2-5. This design guidance allows the Circular bolted flange annulus connections
analysis to proceed on the basis that the
centrelines of all members intersect, then A design and detailing procedure for externally
the joint to be reconfigured to achieve an bolted flange joints between CHS columns of
economical layout without violating this around 650 mm diameter or larger has been
assumption. This article supersedes developed. The flange plate does not run into the
previous advice on this topic in DCB No. 47 interior of the column, thus leaving this space free
for access or for concrete filling. The guidance is
• Design concepts for brace / beam / column contained in three DCB Issues, namely:
connections in a braced steel frame seismic-
resisting system are given in DCB No. 56, • DCB No. 65, pp. 16-30, presents the design
pp. 5-11 procedure. It is applicable to splice joints
and to joints at the column base onto a
concrete support. It is applicable to splice • DCB No. 58, pp. 25-30, covers design of
joints in associated structural system SHS columns for fire endurance
columns and those that form part of a
seismic-resisting system • DCB No. 38, pp. 1-2, reviews two
publications, available from HERA, that
• DCB No. 66, pp. 12-16, presents a worked provide detailed design guidance on a range
design example of a splice joint in a 2 metre of SHS connection types
diameter column
• DCB No. 39, pp. 3-4, reviews the design
• DCB No. 67, pp. 1-15 presents results of the guidance, available from HERA, on the
finite element analysis verification study DuraGal range of members
Design of unstiffened bolted flange CHS joints, • Refer also to HERA Report R4-104 [26] for
where the flange plate is continuous over much information on research and design of
the interior of the column, is covered in DCB tubular members, structures and
No. 63, pp. 3-4 and also for a different method in connections
DCB No. 46, pp. 17-18, with an update on pp. 2-3
of DCB No. 61 Design of Members Not Listed Elsewhere
Miscellaneous connection topics This section covers articles on design of members

that are not listed elsewhere herein.
• Use of AISI 4140 steel rods as hold-down
bolts is covered on pp. 5-6 of DCB No. 39. Beams and columns
Tightening of these bolts is covered on
pp. 19-20 of DCB No. 56 • DCB No. 53, pp. 1-6 and pp. A1-A20,
presents a design procedure for openings in
• Obtaining high strength structural bolts, nuts beam webs. An errata is presented in DCB
and washers in sizes above M36 is covered No. 69, pp. 1-2
in DCB No. 52, pp. 3-4, which references
back to DCB No. 51, p. 14. This also gives • DCB No. 54, pp. 26, 27 covers rigging
guidance on sizing of nuts when these must restraint for long, isolated columns in
be custom made compression
• Suitable bolt tightening equipment for fully • DCB No. 52, p. 9, briefly mentions
tensioning MSFG bolts larger than M24 (for precambering of hot rolled beams, but
which an impact wrench is not practicable) is this topic is now much more
covered on p. 24 of DCB No. 56 comprehensively covered in R4-107-DD [21]
• Details of the Riedbar Brace LOK™ Load • DCB No. 52, pp. 11-13, covers lateral
rated turnbuckled system are given on restraint and load bearing capacity in the
pp. 2-3 of DCB No. 64 support regions of continuous beams
• An interesting example of applying lateral • DCB No. 64, pp. 38-39, covers restraint of
thinking in baseplate design is given on load-bearing stiffeners in simply supported
pp. 1-2 of DCB No. 14 I-section beams
Design of Structural Hollow Section Members Preliminary design guidance of beams and
and Connections columns is covered in the following:
The DCBs cover a range of topics in regard to SHS • For floor systems incorporating Hi-bond
members and connections. These are as follows; decking, use the excellent preliminary
design option from the Hibond Design
• DCB No. 65, pp. 16-30, presents a design Wizard [24]
procedure for circular bolted flange annulus
connections • DCB No. 37, pp. 7-9, preliminary design of
composite members using published charts
• DCB No. 63, pp. 3 - 4, DCB No. 61, pp. 2-3,
DCB No. 46, pp.17-18, cover design of • DCB No. 33, pp. 4-5, covers rapid
bolted circular flange joints in tubular assessment of φMsx, preliminary sizing of
structures portal frame members, preliminary design of
simply supported composite floor beams.
(These are presented in earlier DCBs
referenced from this issue, especially DCB costing provisions are now contained in
No. 2, pp. 1-2. The preliminary design HERA Report R4-96 [29]
guidance for connections presented on
pp. 5-7 of DCB No. 33 is superseded by • DCB No. 44, pp. 7-8, presents an overview
R4 100 [5]) of the Structural Steelwork Estimating Guide
[29]. This is the principal source of
Crane runway girders and rails estimating guidance for all cost items
relating to structural steelwork
of crane runway girders and monorail beams • DCB No. 52, pp. 22-25, optimising the cost
to the provisions of the new standard, of multi-storey steel buildings in New
AS 1418 Part 18 [22] Zealand, presents summary guidance on
choice of deck, floor beams, gravity columns
• DCB No. 47, pp. 18-20, covers crane rails: and seismic-resisting systems for car
materials and attachment systems parking buildings, apartment / hotel buildings
and office buildings
• DCB No. 64, pp. 37-38, raises three issues
• DCB No. 46, pp. 16-18, introduces the that can cause significant unnecessary
Cold-formed Steel Structures Standard, fabrication costs. These relate to weld
AS/NZS 4600 [6], and accompanying design details and to the late changing of member
guidance sizes
• DCB No. 55, pp. 2-15, presents a detailed, • DCB No. 65, pp. 2-3, covers a new deep
fully worked design example with deck profile which has been manufactured in
commentary for a cold-formed member New Zealand since mid-2002. More details
subject to combined actions on it are given in [30]
• DCB No. 39, pp. 1-3, covers material grades A series of innovative structural steel articles
for cold-formed SHS members have been published, covering the following:
Design of Non-Ferrous Metals • DCB No. 45, pp 13-15, steel structure

supporting a new second storey of
The DCBs are written principally for structural steel classrooms built over existing buildings
application, so the coverage of non-ferrous metal
design is limited to the following: • DCB No. 46, pp. 16-17, cost-effective
V-braced CBF seismic-resisting system with
• DCB No. 16, p. 5, overviews an excellent site welded braces. This system has
book available from HERA on design for recently been used in a 17 storey building in
aluminium alloy structures Wellington
• Reference [27] is good summary paper, • DCB No. 47, pp. 20-21, cost-effective
written in October 2002, on design of X-braced, tension only, CBF seismic-
stainless steel members. It cross-references resisting system with site welded strap
to the comprehensive seminar notes on braces
stainless steel material properties, selection
and design presented in R4-111 [12] and to • DCB No. 54, pp. 28-30, low-rise car parking
the design standard, AS/NZS 4673 [28] providing increased carpark capacity
• An overview of [28] is given in DCB No. 65, • DCB No. 61, pp. 21-22, 14 storey apartment
pp. 31-32 building with timber floors (currently the
tallest residential building in the world with
Innovative and Economical Steel Design no concrete in the structure or floors)
The following articles on innovative steel Material Properties and Availability

applications and economics/costing of steelwork
are covered: Articles on material properties and availability of
components are as follows:
the rational way of costing steelwork. The • DCB No. 39, pp. 1-3, cover the grades of
concepts are still current, but the detailed steel plate, flat, sections and SHS commonly
available. That article supersedes earlier
articles on the same topic, except where • DCB No. 58, pp. 31-32, covers the status of
these are referenced from that issue the HERA Structural Steelwork Design
Guides Vol. 2, as of October 2000
• HSFG bolt, nut and washer availability in
sizes above M36 is covered in DCB No. 51, • DCB No. 62, pp. 18-19, covers the SCI
p.14, with further guidance on nut availability publication Appraisal of Existing Building
in DCB No. 52, pp. 3-4 Steelwork
• Details on the Lindapter range of fasteners • DCB No. 63, pp. 16-17, covers an SCI
is given in DCB No. 38, p.4 and 43, pp. 5-6 publication on the use of steel sheet piles as
permanent walls, thereby maximising the
• Use of AISI 4140 steel rods for hold-down use of steel in basements
bolts is covered in DCB No. 39, pp. 5-6 and
DCB No. 56, pp. 19-20 Research Results
• DCB No. 8, pp. 4-6, covers availability and Results from HERA’s research projects and other
use of the Torque Control (TC) high strength structural steel research projects are presented
structural bolt throughout the DCB. Articles presenting research
results have already been listed in relation to the
• DCB No. 5, p. 2, covers the designation of topic or topics they cover.
steels of UK origin
Steel Structures Standard, NZS 3404
Shear stud availability is covered seperately, under
Composite Construction: Welded shear stud The following articles relate to NZS 3404:1997 [1],
design, supply and installation on page 18 herein. or were written for the 1992 edition and are still
current. They are presented in chronological
Publications order:
There are a number of articles on • DCB No. 16, pp. 3-4, covers α m factors for
publications/conferences in the DCBs. Details are segments unrestrained at one end and not
as follows (the publications are not listed in the covered by Table 5.6.2 of [1]
references unless they are referenced from
elsewhere in this article): • DCB No. 17, pp. 2-8, covers single angle
design
• DCB No. 36, pp. 4-5, covers the Composite
Floor Preliminary Design Charts • DCB No. 29, pp. 4-5, provides the
background to Equations C12.2.3 of [1]
• DCB No. 38, pp. 1-4, covers the following:
- Design of Structural Steel Hollow design to NZS 3404:1997 made simple.
Section Connections, First Edition This topic is covered in more detail in a
- Hollow Structural Section Connections comprehensive set of seminar notes [31]
and Trusses and an excellent SESOC publication [32]
- Design of Semi-Continuous Braced
Frames • DCB No. 36, pp. 1-3, presents follow up
- Semi-Rigid Connections in Steel questions and answers from the mid-1997
Frames seminar series on NZS 3404
- Seismic Behaviour of Steel Plate
Shear Walls • DCB No. 37, p.9, summarises a reference
- Various Winstone Wallboards paper to the NZS 3404 provisions for SHS
publications covering fire and noise members. This paper is included in [26],
control which provides much more comprehensive
- Two publications giving properties of coverage
members to overseas design
standards • DCB No. 43, p. 5, gives a change to the
significant axial force provisions that has
• DCB No. 39, pp. 3-5, covers the following: been introduced in Amendment No. 1
- Range of DuraGal publications • DCB No. 45, pp. 7-8, presents more
- Building Design Using Cold Formed changes introduced via. Amendment No. 1
Steel Sections: Construction Detailing
and Practice
• DCB No. 48, pp. 1-2, presents a partial twist capacity of shear studs. Use when the
restraint scenario not covered in the 1997 application is outside the scope of
edition of [1] and which is introduced via. NZS 3404, except for
Amendment. No. 1
• DCB No. 51, pp. 9-12, gives the background shear capacity of shear studs with precast
to two significant changes introduced via. hollowcore slab units. However, those
Amendment. No. 1. These relate to bearing provisions should only be used for HCUs of
at a pin and lateral restraint of inelastically up to 250 mm thick and in accordance with
responding members the restrictions of [12]
• DCB No. 55, pp. 16-18, give the background • DCB No. 44, pp. 3-6, covers the testing of
to the revised web slenderness limits shear studs during construction placed with
introduced via. Amendment. No. 1 for conventional stud welding machines, while
rectangular and square hollow section DCB No. 52, pp. 7-9, covers testing of shear
members studs placed with advanced all- weather
machines which record the weld current for
• DCB No. 64, pp. 38-39, covers the restraint each application. These machines allow the
of the ends of load bearing stiffeners in option of using the printed output to
simply supported I-section beams determine stud weld quality in lieu of visual
inspection. If, however, visual inspection to
Composite Construction DCB No 44 is to be used with an all-weather
stud welding machine, then the Part 1
The listing of DCB articles on composite requirement on page 8 of DCB No 52 is not
construction is presented in two groups; first are required
those relating to composite systems and members
and second are those relating to the design supply • DCB No. 22, p. 7, and DCB No. 29, p. 7,
and installation of shear studs. both give details of all-weather stud welding
equipment which was introduced at that time
Much of the material on composite design
and construction has been incorporated All these issues are also covered in section 4.2 of
into or replaced by the material contained in R4-113 [11] and pp. 20, 21 of DCB No. 67.
R4-107-DD [21], R4-112 [23] and R4-113 [11].
Those publications should be referred to as the Miscellaneous Items
principal sources of guidance on this topic.
This article on what’s in the DCB from Issue No. 1
The DCB articles that are still current as stand- to Issue No. 68 ends with a listing of miscellaneous
alone advice on a particular topic are given below. items that are still current but have escaped
In all instances, they also form part of R4-113 or mention earlier. They are presented in
are referenced from there. chronological order.
Composite members and structures • DCB No. 1, pp. 1-2, introduces the HERA
Limit State Design Guides Volume 1 [27]
• DCB No. 67, pp. 16-21, covers matters
arising from the May 2002 composite • DCB No. 21, p. 5, gives details of Gib
seminar series. This should be read in Fireboard, which was introduced at that time
conjunction with [11, 21, 23] (May 1996)
• DCB No. 53, most of issue, covers design • DCB No. 23, pp. 5-7, covers results from the
for openings in the webs of composite experimental testing of large-scale, beam to
beams. An errata is presented on pp. 1-2 of column joints, undertaken to verify the
DCB No. 69 (this issue) design model presented in R4-76 [13] (and
also in DCB No. 11, pp. 2-6)
• DCB No. 35, pp. 4-5, overviews the
COBENZ 97 spreadsheet program for • DCB No. 28, p. 5, references a US paper
composite beam design giving the design capacity of bolted moment-
resisting endplate connections with multiple
• DCB No. 29, p. 7, gives a reference for the bolt rows at the beam tension flange. An
design capacity of Hilti shear connectors alternative to the use of that paper is to
determine the capacity from first principles,
Welded shear stud design, supply and using the SCI Publication No. 207/95 as is
installation covered in DCB No. 56, pp. 29-32
• DCB No. 55, pp. 18-28, covers the concepts

involved in determining the design shear
• DCB No. 31, p. 10, gives a short article on statical moment of the BM diagram, divided by EI,
the difference between nominal and taken about the first point C.
characteristic yield stress and the
significance of each in design
ie. d = ∑ Ax
EI
• DCB No. 32, pp. 4-5, covers calculating the
bending moment in a pin
where:
• DCB No. 36, pp. 5-6, overviews an ΣA = area of BM diagram between A and C
interesting paper on the design of slender, x = lever arm from centroid of ΣA to point
monotubular steel arches under consideration
• DCB No. 44, p. 7, gives a very brief report Those theorems, in conjunction with equation 2a
on the 1998 Second World Conference on on page 20 below, provide the basic grounding
Steel in Construction with which to understand Esli’s paper.
• DCB No. 46, p. 1 and p. 18, mentions some

of the structural steel topics covered by the
1998 Australasian Structural Engineering
Conference
• DCB No. 63, pp. 15-16, gives an overview of

design aids for structural steelwork
published by or obtainable from the
Australian Institute of Steel Construction
A CALCULATION METHOD FOR

PLASTIC ANALYSIS
This paper has been written by Esli Forrest, retired consulting
engineer and editor the SESOC Journal. It has been reviewed
by a number of academics and consulting engineers.
The format is also slightly different to a typical Bulletin article

format. The figure numbers and references follow the standard
format, however equations use Esli’s designation system. Prior
to commencing the paper, the HERA Structural Engineer Fig. 69.4
presents the two theorems that lie behind the concepts Esli has Cantilever Member Showing Application
developed.
of Moment-Area Method
Back to Basics: The Moment-Area Method
1. Introduction
The developments in this paper are based on the
two theorems of the moment-area method. This is Our traditional approach to moment-force analysis
described in many engineering textbooks, such as is based on pre-yield elastic concepts. It centers on
the Steel Designers’ Manual [33]. a concept of increasing load, with linear elastic
stress response from zero load to yield point. In
Theorem 1 states that the change of slope earthquake design, however, we are forced to
between any two points, for example between think beyond the yield point. This applies to both
points A and C in Fig. 69.4, in an originally straight steel and concrete. With timber, failure occurs
member, is equal to the area between without a very long curvature increase beyond the
corresponding points in the bending moment (BM) yield point and so a single linear approach is
diagram, divided by EI. acceptable. With steel and reinforced concrete,
however, a bilinear or even tri-linear system of
ie. θ = ∑A analysis for bending moment and displacement is
EI necessary. Due to the yield plateau that occurs in
structural grade steels, with Ι-sections, the whole
where: ΣA = area of BM diagram between A and C section for practical purposes develops plasticity.
Theorem 2 states that the deflection due to The stress and strength increase after yield, due to
bending of a point, say point C in Fig. 69.4, in an strain hardening, is generally not considered in
originally straight member, in the direction design. However, in reality it is important as it
perpendicular to the original axis of the member,
measured from the tangent at a second point on
the member, say A in Fig. 69.4, is equal to the
allows the plastic (hinge) zone to spread, and
hence sustain high rotations before a failure strain δθ
is reached. The section, in analysis, at the yield
point is considered to be a “hinge” for post elastic δl
rotations. The second part of the bilinear diagram
is therefore usually assumed as flat. With large
rotations and cyclic behaviour this assumption is Ry
not always valid. My
Traditionally, in earthquake design, we analyse
everything as elastic and then adjust δθ
displacements by a pre-guessed ductility factor
designated as µ. This factor also dictates the load ÿ
level we apply elastically as it dictates the ∆ = δθ x ÿ Fixed position
structure’s assumed response. To refine the
design, we then work backwards and check the δl Neutral axis
structure’s actual limit displacement and hence δθ
ductility, to make sure it is not less than what we y Lower yield
assumed in the response. Would it not have been plateau
better to consider the structure as yielded, and
consider pre-yield and post yield displacements εy
first off? We would then be able to compare load
capacity against response demand.
The aim of this paper is to present a simple

calculation method for doing this. It demonstrates
Fig. 69.5
that all rotation-displacement analysis is a simple
function of yield strain and member depth and
length. It is concentrated on steel but with minor
adjustments the methods can apply to reinforced manipulative tool. We will designate this property
concrete. as kmE which, if divided by the depth in
millimeters, gives the rotation due to the yield
2. Bending At Yield stress in millirads. If fy = 300 MPa, E = 200 G and y
= d/2, where d = the section depth, then:
Let us begin by considering an elemental finite
length, δl, of member in a structure acted on by a kmE åy fy 300 3
moment My producing yield strain at the extreme = = = = ∴ kme = 3
d y E.y 200 × d d
fiber of εy.
2
Figure 69.5 shows the effect of this strain in 2b
producing an element of rotation at the neutral axis
of δθ. The neutral axis is at a depth of y from the From
M f E
= = , which is the classic theory of
extreme fiber and as δl approaches zero, δθ can Ι y R
be expressed as: bending, kmE is also equal to an element of
moment area at yield: (Mohr’s theorem 1868)
εy fy 1
δθ( millirads ) = = = 2a
y E.y Ry kmE fy My
= = 2c
where E is the Elstic Modulus in GPa, Ry the radius d Ey EΙ
of curvature, and fy the extreme fibre yield stress in
MPa. where Ι is the section Moment of Inertia.
fy
The expression can become a combined kmE ÷ d can therefore be regarded either as an
E.y
element of rotation or Moment Area. If all the
material and section property by making y a elements of rotation, in ratio with this, are summed
proportion of the depth. Where there is a over a member length, they give the slope change
symmetrical section this becomes a very easy over the member length. (Theorem 1 on page 19).
Their centroid can be considered as the centre of
rotation action. The distance from any point to the
centroid, multiplied by the rotation (sum of the
slope) therefore gives the displacement at that
point relative to the tangent drawn from the
position on the member where the curvatures were
included in the calculation of the rotation (Theorem If a timber beam has a maximum stress of
2 on page 19). 17.7 MPa and a E of 8.0 GPa, it has a kmE value of
4.425 for rectangular beams. All the expressions in
3. The Use of the Coefficient Appendix B need to be modified by 4.425 ÷ 3 or
1.475. A 400 mm x 100 mm beam stressed to this
As with the bi-linear concept with the coefficient, all level has a moment capacity of 47.2 kNm. If
rotations and displacements both beyond and however, it was assumed to have a design yield
below the yield point are proportional, therefore stress of 12 MPa it would then have a kmE value of
calculating the yield and ultimate rotation and 3, and all the expressions would apply unmodified.
displacement is made simple. A method similar to Its capacity moment would then be assumed to be
Moment-Area [33] can be used for this, and the 32kNm. On a 5 metre span its deflection will be:
point where the structure reaches the limit rotation
or displacement allowed in the code is determined. 52 5
× = 0.019 metres
400 16
While the first yielding positions are considered
hinged and in rotation on the yield plateau, the last
If loaded with 5 kN/m it has a mid-span moment of
yield positions are still elastic and the total
15.6 kNm. The deflection is therefore:
deformation of the structure is still governed by
elastic concepts. It is in an elasto-plastic condition.
15.6
× 0.019 = .0093 metres
Characteristic expressions for various loads and 32
moment shapes which can be applied to members
to calculate end slope and total slope over the All the characteristic expressions of Appendix B on
member length are developed in Appendix B using pages 27 to 29 are based on a kmE of 3. If Grade
kmE of 3, which is applicable to 300 grade steel 400 steel is being used, then kmE would be 4 and
and a symmetrical section. By keeping depth in the expressions can be multiplied by 1.33, and if
millimeters and length in metres, the answers will Grade 500 is used then this gives a value for kmE
be in radians. These expressions are characteristic of 5 ie. the expressions must be multiplied by
of attaining the yield moment – any other moment 1.667 etc., or φMy can be divided by these factors.
can be proportioned to it.
4. A Two Pin Portal Frame
The resulting expressions are very simple for
Grade 300 steel. For instance, the end slope of a We will now apply these formulae in the analysis of
uniformly loaded beam (1.0 B in Appendix B) is a portal frame. The span is 30 metres, with a knee
simply L/d. The deflection is 5/16 x L2/d. A 5 metre height of 6 metres and a ridge height of 9 metres.
span steel beam 410 mm. deep with 300 grade Rafter slope is 11.31 degrees. See Fig. 69.6.
steel, uniformly loaded so that it is at yield has an
end slope of
30m
st
1 horizontal , C2 2nd horizontal
5
= 0.012 radians and its mid-span deflection vertical
2nd
410 A1 vertical
B1
from the supports is:
6m 9m
2
5 5
× = 0.019 metres A B
410 16
If it has a φMs of 324 kNm and a load of 50 kN per Fig. 69.6

metre, it has a mid-span moment of 156 kNm. The Showing Frame with Plastic Hinges.
mid-span deflection is now:
The vertical load failure mechanism will develop
156 with plastic hinges at the knees and finally near
× 0.019 = 0.009 metres mid-span. As a first try we will adopt a member
324
size with a depth of 410 mm, say a 410UB59.7.
If a concrete member, with 300 grade steel, has a This has φMs of 324 kNm. At first yield we
depth to the steel below the neutral axis of 0.6d, therefore expect a horizontal thrust of:
then kmE = 2.5. This would be very near the
results obtained in [34], where k in Eq (4a) on 324
= 54 kN 4a
page 248 therein would be 1.67 instead of 1.7. If 6
φMy is modified by 3 ÷ 2.5 or 1.2 in calculating
slopes and deflections, then the expressions of What rafter load will produce this thrust? As a first
Appendix B apply. step we will apply a unit span load and discover
the thrust for that. The span free moment (see 6
upper diagram of Fig. 69.7) is: α= = 0.667 The centroid position from (5.0 B)
9
is:
302
= 112.5kNm 4b
8
15.297×
[0.333 + .1111] = 15.297× .5333 = 8.157m
[0.667 + .1667]
4d
The centroid height is:
5/8 x L/2.
112.5kNm
8.157
6+ × 3 = 1.6 + 6 = 7.6m
15.297
7.875m Taking moments of the rotation about the base for

cases (5.0 B) and (4.0 B) and using 4d we have:
Mcol Mraf
∆AH = × θA × lcol + × θA1 × lraf
φMsxcol φMsxra f
1 .5 L 2 × 6
9H kNm
=
Mcol
× × +
Mraf
×
3L
[1 + α]× 7.6
φMsxcol d 3 φMsxraf 2d
6H kNm
6H 1.5 x 6 9H 3 x 15.297
= x x4+ x x 1.667 x 7.6
324 410 324 2 x 410
7.6 m
4.0 m = 0.02132H
H H
4e
Fig. 69.7 As these moments of the member rotations about

the base represent the displacements normal to
The end slope is given in case (1.0 of Appendix B). the base and the displacement of H must equal
This is made up of the summation of all the δl zero, from 4c and 4e:
elements of moment-rotation, from the mid-span
yield moment to the end support. As each element 0.204 − 0.02132H = 0 and H = 9.57 kN for a unit
is a unit of rotation, then multiplying by the distance load on the span.
from any point will give the displacement at that
point caused by that element of rotation. The This produces a knee moment of 57.4 kNm.
centroid of moment area is the centre of the The span load at first yield is therefore:
summation of all the elements of rotation.
Therefore, multiplying the total rotation by the 324
distance from the base to this centroid will give the = 5.64kN/m 4f
57.4
displacement caused by the member slope at the
base. and the free span moment equal to 634.5 kNm.
The ridge moment from Hy:
The top rafter length = 15.297 m. or 30.594 overall. 9Hy = 9 x (– (9.57 x 5.64)) = – 486 kNm.
The centroid height = 5/8 x 3 + 6 = 7.875. From
(1.0 B on page 27), end slope. The rotation at the knee at yield in radians from
cases (1.0 B) and (8.0 B) is:
M M L
∆A = × θA1 × l = × × 7.875
φMsx φMsx d 634.5 30.6 486 15.3
× − × × 2.667 = −0.003
324 410 324 410
112.5 2 × 15.297 4g
× × 7.875 = 0.204 m 4c
324 410
The mid-span moment is 634.5 – 486 = 148.5kNm.
We now look at the rotations due to the force H, as The maximum moment is at 12.96 metres into the
in the lower diagram of Figure 69.7. The diagrams span, where it is 158.8 kNm. This is obtained by
are drawn on the top chord for clarity regardless of considering the rafter on one side as a span in
sign. itself, calculating the elastic reaction from the rise
of the roof and deducting it from the reaction from
the span and then dividing by the load per metre
from 4f:-
 3 × 54  We will now study lateral earthquake loads on our
15 × 5.64 − 15  ÷ 5.64 = 13.08 m 4h example portal. We will use the same principles as
  before, i.e. define and analyse all simultaneous
loads that dictate the conditions of the frame under
5. Post Yield Action capacity load and then apply a unit of load to
determine the load for which we want to discover
The final plastic hinge will develop between this the frame’s capacity.
point and the mid-span, but it is permissible as a
first step to consider it developing at this point. The The vertical loads set the simultaneous conditions
moment required to develop this last hinge is which we consider fixed in value while we discover
therefore: the frame’s capacity for lateral load. Judging from
our previous work we can safely say that the frame
324 − 158.8 = 165.21kNm at the 13.08 m point has an ultimate vertical load capacity of 6 kN per
5a metre. From this we deduce that the earthquake
dead load will be about 2.4 kN per metre. We will
15ωx12.96-13.08 2ω ÷ 2 = 165.2 then ω = 1.5 kN/m study the effect of this later. We will allow for an
This gives 168.75kNm moment on the full span. earthquake mass being supported by the portal
The rotation at the knee is post-elastic but is legs of 3 kN per metre or 1.25 of the rafter load.
caused by this elastic moment. Its value is
calculated from (1.0 B).
1kN / m horiz. on rafters
168.75 30 1.25 kN / m horiz. on legs
× = 0.038 radians 5b 15.3 kN
324 410
15.3kN
The load capacity up to the formation of this last 7.5kN 7.5 m 7.5 kN
plastic hinge is now, 5.64 + 1.5 = 7.14 kN/m. Our
structure here has become a mechanism and this 3m
is our design ultimate load capacity. The final
45.6 kN reaction
hinge position by repeating the calculation of
section 5 is 13.39 m but the difference +9.15kN -9.15kN
compared with 12.96 m is small.
Fig. 69.8
6. Vertical displacements
The vertical deflection at the center relative to First off we will apply a unit lateral load on the
the knee is now easily calculated by rafters of 1 kN per metre and 1.25 kN per metre on
multiplying the end rotations by the distance to the the legs.
rotation action centroids and by proportioning
The loads, their centers of action and the reactions
moments with φMs. The uniform load rafter are shown in Fig. 69.8.
centroid is 15 x 0.625 = 9.375 m and, for the H
loads, 8.157 m as previously calculated. The free Taking moments at joints:
span moment for 7.14kN/m is 803kNm. The end
rotations for yield moments are calculated from Left Knee = 7.5 x 3 = 22.5 kNm
(1.0 B) and (8.0 B). We have then:
Apex = 7.5 x 6 + 15.3 x 1.5 + 9.15 x 15 = 205.2
803 486
0.0746 × 9.375 × − 0.0933× 8.157× Rt. Knee= 9.15 x 30 + 7.5 x 3 – 30.6 x 1.5 = 251.1
324 324 (See Figure 69.9)
= 0.592 m
6a Distributed load cantilevers:
This is, of course, the deflection in the ultimate
design failure state including the post elastic Legs = 62 x 1.25 ÷ 2 = 22.5 kNm
rotation of the first hinge. The deflection at the
development of the first hinge is 229 mm and one Rafters = 15.3 x 1 x 1.5 = 22.95 kNm
would not expect the design load deflection to
exceed about 75% of this including design live 8. Moments and Capacity at First Yield
loads. This would still be a high deflection and so
As before we now ratio the above moments with
the center deflection may still govern the design.
the yield moment, multiply with the member
7. Lateral Earthquake Loads rotation and the distance from the base to the
centroids. This gives the horizontal displacement
Lateral earthquake loads are cyclic and strain caused by the free moment at the base. This is
hardening effects may have to be included, but are equated with the displacement from the redundant
ignored here. force.
The expressions for the slope – displacements for –22.8 x 6 + 7.5 x 3 = –114.3 kNm 8c
the free moment are not given here, as with the
vertical loads, but are shown in Figure 69.9 with We now consider the vertical earthquake load on
the calculation for each moment shape sector in the rafters of 2.4 kN per m. Using 4a and 4b this
Table 69.1. Reference to ‘Appendix B’ will explain generates a thrust of:
the calculations and the reference numbers in the
shapes of Table 69.1. 2.4 ÷ 5.64 x 54 = 22.97 kN 8d
This produces a left knee moment of –137.87 kNm.

205.2
with 186.1 kNm capacity remaining until yield. First
22.5 251.1 yield will occur on this left hand knee, where
A1
moments are of the same sign and summate. We
B1
therefore have a horizontal earthquake load
capacity at first yield, using 8c of:
A B 186.1 ÷ –114.3 x 1 = –1.63kN/m 8e
on the rafter slope or –1.66 kN/m on the projected

Fig. 69.9 span. This has an accompanying right hand
Showing the Free Moment Diagram of the Lateral horizontal reaction, using 8d and derived from 8b
Loads in Figure 69.8 and with the Sectors Taken in and 8e, of:
Table 69.1 Shown Dotted.
–1.63 x 22.8 + 22.97 = –14.19kN 8f
We now equate this to zero with the moments of
the H rotations as before but doubled for both and a left hand horizontal reaction of:
sides, from 4b and 8a.
–1.66 x 22.8 – 22.97 = –60.1kN 8g
0.974 – [0.02132H x 2] = 0 ∴H = 22.8kN 8b
The right hand vertical reaction is 20.8 kN.
on the left base and 45.6 – 22.8 = 22.8 kN on the
right base for a lateral load of unity on the rafters. 9. Positioning The Second Hinge
This produces a left knee moment of: Combining the vertical and horizontal loads into
one angular load we therefore have, from (7.0) and
derived from 8e above:
9 22.5 6
Left Leg × × 4. 5 = 0. 0041
324 410 1.662 + 2.42 = 2.92 kN/m 9a
22. 95 15. 3
9
Left Rafter × × 8.25 = 0.022
324 410 This load is at an angle of 58º to the horizontal
which is 23.37º off the normal to the rafter slope.
22. 5 3 × 15.3
2 × × 7.5 = 0.058 This resolves into a load of 2.68 kN/m normal to
324 410 the rafter, with a small axial component.
159.75 1. 5 × 15. 3
4 × × 8 = 0.221 Because the horizontal elastic reaction now has a
324 410 horizontal load component in it, the discovery of
the maximum moment point in the rafter is a little
2 Right Rafter 251.1 3 × 15.3 more complex. Using the reactions in 8f and 8g,
× × 7. 5 = 0. 651
324 410 and the right hand vertical reaction, we calculate
−22. 95 15.3 the moment at the crown, which is 63.12kNm, and
9 × × 8.25 = −0.0218 the moment at the right knee which is 51.93kNm.
324 410
Applying the 2.68 kN/m load normal to the rafter
22.95 1.5 × 15.3 and discovering the elastic reaction at the right
4 − × × 7.875 = −0. 0312
324 410 knee we find the point of maximum moment in the
rafter:
9
Right Leg −22. 5 6
× × 4. 5 = −0. 0041
324 410  63.12 − 51.93
 2.68 × 7.64 + 15.279 
÷ 2.68 = 7.91m
5 273.6 1.5 × 6 
× × 4 = 0.075
324 410
This is up the rafter slope from the knee and on the
∆A = 0.974 m 8a span is:
15
× 7.91 = 7.76m 9b
Table 69.1 15.297
This is measured from the right hand knee. 10. Finding the Value of µ
Because the load applied above the first yield load
produces a free span moment, the hinge will form The post yield lateral displacement at the knee is:
slightly to the right of this maximum moment and a
point of 7 metres from the right knee is being 6000 x 0.065 = 390 mm 10a
taken, where the rafter height is 7.4 m. The
moment here is 134.17 kNm:- The pre-yield displacement from cases (5.0) and
(9.0) is:
14.19 x 7.4 + 20.8 x 7 – 11.25 x 4.4
– 11.62 x 0.7 – 16.8 x 3.5 = 134.17 kNm 9c 364.8 6 2 22.5 62
× − × = 0.0973 m 10b
Deducting this from the yield moment we have: 324 410 324 4 × 410
324 – 134.17 = 189.7 kNm 9d This is 97.3 mm. The actual ductility factor is
therefore:
This develops as a free span moment before the
development of the final hinge. A unit load on the 390 ÷ 97.3 = 4.0 10c
span with a 1.25 proportioned load on the legs
produces a moment at this point of 208.03 kNm. 11. The Earthquake Capacity Ratio
The extra horizontal load to develop this hinge is
therefore: The value of µ is now used to find the actual
earthquake load from NZS 4203 [7] which is then
189.7 ÷ 208.03 = 0.911 kN/m 9f compared with the capacity. Assuming
intermediate soil conditions, Z = 1.2 and a period
The total ultimate load to develop the mechanism, of less than 0.45 seconds then:
derived from 8e and 9f, is:
Ch(T1,µ) = 0.38 for µ = 4.0
1.63 + 0.911 = 2.54 kN/m 9g
C = 0.28 x 0.67 x 1.2 x 1.0 = 0.22 11a
Again the section of the calculation from Clause 9
down to this point can be repeated to check on the The lateral load on the rafter slope is 0.511 kN/m
7 metre hinge point assumption, but differences or 0.522 on the span. We find the load capacity
will be small. This is the lateral load capacity that ratio by dividing our actual load by the load
we set out to discover, provided the rotation capacity of 2.09 kN/m. This means we have a
caused by it at the first hinge does not exceed the lateral load capacity ratio of:
material limit. 0.522 ÷ 2.09 = 0.25 11b
The post elastic rotation at the first hinge at the left The frame is therefore adequate in load capacity
knee caused by this additional free span load of for the earthquake loads in a zone where the factor
0.911 kN/m is in fact, 0.128 radians or 128 is 1.0 assuming a category 2 member. Because
millirads. This was calculated by adapting the the limit rotation is fully used, the rotation limit
conjugate beam theory as shown in Appendix ‘A’. capacity ratio is 1.0. The use of category 2
The allowable hinge rotation in NZS 3404 [1] member detailing would be adequate, even though
Clause 4.7.2 Table 4.7 (1) for a category the actual system ductility factor is greater than 3.
2 member (assumed category at this stage) is This is because the member detailing requirements
65 mrads, rather than 45 millirads, because the are based on the member ductility being up to 1.5
rotation will be monotonic, not cyclic for portal times the system ductility, ie. up to 4.5.
frame plastic hinges under earthquake actions,
because the frame is gravity dominated. The While it is true that the frame itself has adequate
stiffening effect of the cladding (DCB No. 50, capacity to resist the lateral earthquake forces,
pp. 2-4) is also ignored. This means we have to when it comes to the detailing of the design, the
reduce the load applied after the first yield by: provisions of Clauses 12.6, 12.7.2 and Section
12.10 of NZS 3404 need to be met. This especially
65 ÷ 128 x 0.911 = 0.460 kN/m and a total load of applies in the regions where the plastic hinges will
:- develop.
1.63 + 0.46 = 2.09 kN/m
12. Post-Elastic Rotations and Earthquake
Again, the calculation down from section 9, Displacements
positioning the hinge, was repeated and the final
hinge position is at 6.85 m. from the right hand Post-elastic moments do however, increase up to
knee. The difference with the assumed position of collapse point. If we were doing detailed
7 m is very small and ignored here. earthquake design and wanted the most accurate
load resistance of the structure at the limit
displacement under cyclic loads, we must allow for displacements just like moments and forces. Any
the strain hardening that occurs. rotation in its effects at any point can simply be
compared with the yield moment and the yield
The earthquake forces considered used the same stress. The Slope Deflection equations can be re-
methods as the vertical forces to discover capacity written and member end rotations and
seismic loads, hinge points of the mechanism, and displacements can be calculated to find directly the
their rotation after first yield. The lateral deformed structure shape. Axial strains and
displacement of the frame, at the maximum member rotations and displacements can be
allowable rotation of the first hinge was then directly related to member internal stress by
calculated. This gave us the µactual of the structure. comparison with the yield conditions.
From µactual we then determined accurately the
lateral load, compared this with the load capacity of Conclusions
the structure and determined whether this was
sufficient for the seismic zone. The actual µ is A possible variation of the method is in its
known, there was no guessing. All we needed application to varying depth members. In this
initially was a first estimate of the member size. example, depth has been a constant and stress
The φMs, member depth and the yield strain, gave has changed proportionately with the yield stress.
us all we needed to do the analysis. If we vary ‘d’, however, this is no longer the case.
The stress change along the member will vary not
The method is put forward as a simplified means of just in proportion to that produced by the
post elastic analysis which, with some yield moment but also by the square of the depth.
assumptions, is equally applicable to reinforced The characteristic expressions in cases (1.0 B) to
concrete. The suggestion is that in earthquake (10.0 B) can be adjusted to cope with this and
design we should be aiming at calculating limit accurate answers for sloping members can be
displacements first off. The method is easily obtained.
adapted to computer methods. A portal frame was
deliberately chosen to demonstrate the method The arithmetic simplicity of the case considered,
because with sloping rafters with horizontal loads it with a symmetrical section of constant depth and
is essentially more complicated than rectangular 300 grade steel changes with the use of other
frames. The method is easily adapted to materials and non symmetrical sections but the
eccentrically braced frames. principles set out still apply and the arithmetic is no
problem to a computer. The case is made here,
There are circumstances, however, where the true that the simple approach to plastic analysis is in
collapse load may need to be calculated, and in comparing the effect of all moment change along a
cyclic loading the ultimate strain may be member, with the member slope at yield. Design
approached and the determination of the strain packages exist to do this work but engineers need
hardened moment may be of importance. to know how in their own brain, not the computer’s.
What we can predict is the possible number of half A final matter of interest is the relative shear and
rotations. By setting up a further and third linear rotational stiffness of members. In cases (4.0 B)
relationship after the lower yield plateau and and (6.0 B), if the inverse of the end rotation and
finding the rotation of the member at the point deflection values are multiplied by the yield
where the stress strain diagram becomes flattened moment or φMs of the section, then the relative
as the limit stress is approached, we could rotational and displacement stiffness is obtained.
calculate the limit rotation. This would be the true We thus can distribute forces and moments easily
ultimate rotation capacity of the member. By between members and determine the degree of
dividing the post yield rotation of the first hinge as member end fixity.
predicted above into this ultimate rotation we could
obtain the predicted the cycles the mechanism (Note: It will be noticed that 3 decimal places are
would sustain. The system demonstrated here in used in these calculations. The purpose is to get
the elasto-plastic range could be easily adapted to exact results for comparison with computer
do this. analysis. Throughout, nominal depth and φMs have
been taken because all here is proportional and it
Force-Moment or Displacement does not affect results. If total accuracy is required,
My, actual and the actual depth must be used.)
Appendix B presents an easy way of expressing
the effects of any member load in terms of end APPENDIX ‘A’: Conjugate Beam Theory and
rotations and displacements. In conventional the Calculation of Slopes
structural theory, we use abstract moments and
forces on members because they present the The calculation of end slopes of beams is made
easiest approach. With the use of kmE this is no easy by adapting conjugate beam theory [35] to
longer so. We can therefore, simply analyze the the system outlined in this paper. The conjugate
structure and distribute physical rotations and beam theory states that ‘if the beam span is loaded
with the bending moment shape, then the Slope due to the lateral displacement of the knee:
reactions give the end slopes, the shear the elastic Calculate displacement along line A-B due to
slope and the moment gives the deflection’. Now in member rotations:-
the system we are considering the maximum
moment is always My. The reactions for various Lengths up slope line to rotation centroids:
slopes are given below: 1 = 3.92 m 2 = 4.41 m 3 = 5.88 m 4 = 5.88 m
5 = 5.88 m 6 = 4.41 m 7 = 3.92 m
My 3
= = an element of moment area.
EI d 251.1 1.5 × 6
(1) × × 3.92 = 0.0667
324 410
−22.5 6
My My (2) × × 4.41 = −0.0045
324 410
A. B. A. B. −22.95 15.3
(3) × × 5.88 = −0.0155
3 L 2 L 324 410
θay = × × = 3 L 3 3L
d 2 3 d θay = × × =
d 3 4 4d 274.50 2.562 x 15.3
L 1 L (4) × × 5.88 = −0.4763
θby = 3× × = θby
3 L 1
= × × =
L 324 410
d 2 3 2d d 3 4 4d
−22.95 3 × 15.3
(5) × × 5.88 = −0.0466
324 410
The rotation at the first yielded joint for lateral load
22.95 15.3
can be determined by these two cases and cases (6) × × 4.41 = 0.0117
5 & 9 in the characteristic expressions. Applying a 324 410
unit rafter load the diagrams of the free moment
are drawn below on the top of the rafter, regardless 148.5 1.5 × 15.3
(7) × × 3.92 = 0.1006
of sign, for clarity: 324 410
_______
0.5887 m
1st plastic Reaction
hinge moments horizontal displacement:
cos 11.3 x 0.5887 = 0.577 m
Distributed
load moments
vertical displacement:
15.3 kN 15.3 kN
sin 11.3 x 0.5887 = 0.115 m
A
7 6 7.5m Reaction
7.5kN 7.5 kN
moments Hinge rotation due to displacements:
3.0m
5 4 0.577 ÷ 6 + 0.115 ÷ 30 = 0.100 rad
3 41.85 kN
21
9.15 kN B Total hinge rotation due to a unit load:-

9.15 kN
0.041+ 0.100 = 0.141 rad
APPENDIX ‘B’ : Rotations and Displacements

Rafter Reaction Mom. Ridge = 9.15 x 15 + 3.75 x 3 Regardless of Sign:-
= 137.25 + 11.25 = 148.5 kNm
Rafter Dist. Mom. ridge = 15.3 x 1.5 = 22.95 kNm
Mid.Rafter Mom. from L.Wall = 3.75 x 3 = 11.25 kNm
(1.0 B) Uniform Load on a simple Beam:
Rafter Reaction Mom. rt knee = 9.15 x 30 = 274.5 kNm
Rafter Dist. Mom. rt knee = 30.588 x 1.5 = -45.88 kNm
Rt. Leg Reaction Moment = 41.85 x 6 = 251.1 kNm
Rt. Leg Distributed Moment = 7.5 x 3 = -22.5 kNm My
Slope due to bending in the rafter is: L L

274.5 30.558 45.88 30.558
× − × +
324 2 × 410 324 4 × 410 3 2 L L 5 L
11.25 3 × 30.558 251.1 6 θy = × × = Half centroid = ×
× + × − d 3 2 d 8 2
324 4 × 410 324 410 L 0. 625 L 5 L2 θy θy
22.5 3×6 ∆y = × =
× = 0.041rad d 2 16d
324 4 × 410
3 2L 2L
θytot = × = Centroid of whole = 0.5 L
d 3 d
(2.0B) Uniform Moment: (6.0 B) Fixed both ends Shear Moment:
My My My My
L Centroid = 0.1667L
My
θy
3 L 3L
θy =
1 .5 L
θy =
3L Centroid = 0.5 L θmidy = × =
d d d 4 4d
Total
3L 2 slope → 3 L2 θy θy 3L 5L 3L L 3 L2
∆y = ∆y = ∆endy = × + × =
8d 2d 4d 6 4d 6 4d
(3.0B) Triangular Moment:

(7.0 B) A Point Load Mid-Span:
My
A B
L L L L
3 L 2 L 3 1 L 3L
θy = × × = θy = × × =
d 2 3 d Centriod = 0.333L θy θy
d 2 2 4d
L θy 3L L L2
θBy = ∆y = × = Centroid = 0.5L
2d 4d 3 4d
3 L 1 .5 L
θytot = × =
d 2 d
(4.0B) Fixed one end-Triangular Shear
Moment:
(8.0 B) A Varying Moment with My at Mid-Span
My
My α My θy θy
L
θy
L
2
3 L 1 .5 L 1.5 L 2L L
θBy = × = ∆ By = × =
d 2 d d 3 d
θy =
1 .5 L
− (1 − α )
0 .5 L 0 .5 L
= [2 + α ]
d d d
∆y =
0 .5 L
[2 + α ] × Centroid from (5.0) for L÷2
(5.0B) Varying Moment: d
α My (9.0 B) Uniform load on cantilever

My α My My
My
L L
L α α 1 − α 
θy = 1+  2 + 3  Centroid = 0.25L
θy
d  2 Centroid = L  
 1− α  3 L L L 3L 3L2
α + 2  θBy = × = ∆By = ×
d 4
=
4d
d 3 d
θytot =
3L
[α + 1] total slope
2d θα y θy
(10.0 B) A Point Load At Any Position
Seminar on Composite Steel Design and
aL bL
My Construction; HERA Manukau City, New
Zealand, 2002, HERA Report R4-113.
L 12. Clifton, GC (Editor); Notes Prepared for the
A B
θyA =
(
L 1.5ab + b2 + 0.5a 2 ) Designing Stainless Steel Structures
Seminar; HERA, Manukau City, 2002, HERA
d Report R4-111.
θyB =
(
L 1.5 ab + a 2 + 0.5b2 ) ∆y =
L2
d 4d 13. Feeney MJ and Clifton G C; Seismic Design
Procedures for Steel Structures; HERA,
1.5L θya
θtot = Centroid from A = L Manukau City, 1995, HERA Report R4-76 ;
d θ tot to be read with Clifton, GC; Tips on Seismic
Design of Steel Structures; Notes from
References Presentations to Structural Groups mid-
2000; HERA, Manukau City, 2000.
14. Clifton, GC; Tips on Seismic Design of Steel
Structures; Notes from Presentations to
Structural Groups mid-2000; HERA
Manukau City, 2000.
Third Edition, Volume 1: Open Sections;
15. Clifton, GC and Feeney, MH; Fire
Engineering Application to Multi-Storey Steel
Structures; The Inaugural New Zealand
Metals Industry Conference, Rotorua, 2002,
3. Clifton, GC; Structural Steelwork Limit State
Paper No. 14; HERA, Manukau City, 2002.
16. Clifton, GC and Robinson, J; Notes
Prepared for a Seminar on The Behaviour
4. Clifton, GC; HERA Specification for the
Fabrication, Erection and Surface Treatment
Buildings for Severe Fires, Revised June
of Structural Steelwork; HERA, Manukau
2001; HERA Manukau City, 2001, HERA
Report R4-105.
Guide Incorporating Amendment No. 1;
for a Seminar on Design of Steel Buildings
HERA, Manukau City, New Zealand,
for Fire Emergency Conditions; HERA,
1999/2001, HERA Report R4-100.
6. AS/NZS 4600:1996, Cold-Formed Steel
18. C/AS1: 2001, Approved Document for NZBC
Structures; Standards New Zealand,
Fire Safety Clauses C1, C2, C3, C4;
Wellington.
19. Barber, DJ; HERA Fire Protection Manuals
and Design Loadings for Buildings;
Sections 7 and 8, Passive / Active Fire
Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New
Protection of Steel; HERA, Manukau City,
Zealand.
1996, HERA Report, R4-89.
20. Barber, DJ; Calculation of the Fire
Beam Member Moment Capacity
Determination to NZS 3404: 1997; HERA,
With Profiled Steel Sheet Under Fire
Emergency Conditions; HERA, Manukau
9. Bird, GD; MemDes V2 – Program for
Member Design to NZS 3404, Version 2;
21. Clifton, GC; Draft for Comment: Control of
BHP New Zealand Steel, Auckland, 2001.
Deflection and Placement of Concrete in
Composite Floor Systems; HERA, Manukau
10. AS/NZS 4671: 2001, Steel Reinforcing
City, 2002, HERA Report R4-107-DD.
Wellington.
22. AS 1418.18; 2001, Cranes (Including Hoists 35. Newmark, NM; Numerical procedures for
and Winches) Part 18: Crane Runways and Computing Deflections, Moments and
Monorails; Standards Australia, Sydney, Buckling Loads; Transactions of the
Australia. American Society of Civil Engineers, 108,
1161 (1943).
23. Khwaounjoo, YR; Report and User’s Manual
for NZF1_Vib 1 Program (Program for the
Analysis of Floor Vibration); HERA,
Manukau City, New Zealand, 2002, HERA
Report R4-112.
24. Bird, GD and Klemick, MP; HiBond Design

Wizard for Composite Design of the Hi-Bond
Flooring System, Version 1.0; Dimond,
Auckland, 2002.
25. AS/NZS 1170.2:2002, Structural Design

Actions Part 2: Wind Actions; Standards
26. Hancock, GJ. et.al.; Notes Prepared for the

Tubular Structures Seminar; HERA,
27. Clifton, GC; Design of Cold-Formed

Stainless Steel Structures; The Inaugural
New Zealand Metals Industry Conference,
Rotorua, 2002, Paper No. 30; HERA,
Manukau City, 2002.

Wellington.
29. Hyland, C; Structural Steelwork Estimating

Report R4-96.
30. Stickland, S; Corus Deep Composite Floor

Deck; The Inaugural New Zealand Metals
Industry Conference, Rotorua, 2002, Paper
No. 16; HERA, Manukau City, 2002.
31. Clifton, GC et.al.; Notes prepared for a

Seminar on the Steel Structures Standard,
NZS 3404:1997; HERA, Manukau City, 1999
HERA Report, R4-101.
32. Bird, GD and Feeney, MJ; Simplified Design

of Steel Members; Structural Engineering
Society, Auckland, 1999.
33. Steel Designers Manual, Fourth Edition;

CONSTRADO (Now the Steel Construction
Institute), Silwood Park, UK, 1972.
34. Priestley, MJN; Brief Comments on the

Elastic Flexibity of Reinforced Concrete
Frames and Significance to Seismic Design;
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 4,
December 1998.
P O Box 76 134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
HERA Webpages: www.hera.org.nz
No. 71 December 2002/January 2003

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the The slab panel design procedure detailed herein has been
beginning of the article. the subject of development and review by a number of
people. The effort and input of these people is greatly
appreciated.

On-line DCB Now Available 1
Almost all of this issue is devoted to the
presentation of the Second Edition of the Slab Second Edition of the SPM Design
3
Panel Method of Floor Design for Dependable Procedure
Inelastic Response in Severe Fires. Called the • Overview and General 3
SPM design procedure, the first edition was • Figures for SPM 15
officially released in DCB No. 60, 2001 and has • Appendix A: Detailed 36
undergone a thorough revision over the second Procedure
half of 2002, incorporating results and knowledge
gained from a landmark series of Slab Panel fire References 72
tests undertaken in mid-2002.
Preceding this are two very short articles. The first On-line Design & Construction
announces the new on-line DCB now available. Bulletin Is Now Available
Second is a rebuttal to the analysis of Santa
Claus - thus closing the debate on that fellow for Pages 6 to 19 of DCB No. 69 contain an article
Christmas 2002! that covers all the current guidance presented in
the DCBs from July 1995 to August/September
Before commencing with the first article, a long- 2002. Only current guidance is included; where
awaited announcement: later guidance on a topic supersedes earlier
guidance, either this is stated or, more typically,
AS/NZS 2312:2002 is available the earlier guidance is not mentioned.
After a longer than anticipated gestation period, The details presented in the ‘what’s current’ article
the replacement to the 1994 edition of the are grouped under the following topic headings:
steelwork corrosion protection standard is
available. • Contractual issues and quality
• Design examples, design queries and
AS/NZS 2312:2002 [1], Guide to the Protection of design concepts
Structural Steel Against Atmospheric Corrosion by
• Design for durability
the Use of Protective Coatings, represents a very
• Design for earthquake
significant advance in the specification of cost-
• Design for fatigue
effective corrosion protection solutions that will
meet the durability requirements of the NZBC [4] • Design for fire and behaviour in fire
and the client. • Design for serviceability
More details on this new standard and the • Design of connections
advantages it offers will be given in DCB No. 72, • Design of structural hollow section members
February/March 2003. and connections
• Design of members not listed elsewhere
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 71, December 02/ January 03
• Design of non-ferrous metals The analysis presented in DCB 70 applies
• Innovative and economical steel design Newtonian mechanics and philosophical
• Material properties and availability viewpoints to a problem nested in the relativistic
• Publications domain. Santa does not have to visit 100 million
• Research results homes in one night. Instead, by use of time
• Steel Structures Standard, NZS 3404 transformation techniques he simultaneously visits
• Composite construction all 100 million homes.
• Miscellaneous items A basis for this lies in the recent works of
Similsone on Clifford Algebras. This work is an
Each topic heading gives brief details of each item extension of the work in the mid '70's of Prigigione
covered under that topic and its location, with in theoretical thermodynamics. His analysis
the location specified in the format DCB No. xx demonstrates that ensembles or collections of
pp. a – b things exhibit a drop in entropy relative to an
uncollected state.
This material can also be accessed on-line, as of
the beginning of January 2003. To do this, users For example, the collection of neurons in the
simply access the HERA web-site at human biocomputer is one of the most organized
www.hera.org.nz, click on the On-Line Design and collections to be found. The entropy drop is
significant, and in fact life itself can be shown not
Construction Bulletin link in the lower left hand
corner and follow the instructions. to exist without this drop. The universe taken as a
collection exhibits an entropy drop nearly 100
Two levels of access are available. The first, million times as great as the human mind, leading
which is available at no charge, accesses just the to conclusions by theologians of a self-aware and
topic headings that are given above. The second fantastically intelligent universe.
level gives full access, which allows users to bring An alternative interpretation of this work is a
up the details of each item covered under a given distortion of time, folding not just space but also
topic, then to click on the DCB No. xx, pp. a – b time back upon itself so that a single point in time
link that will take them to the beginning of the can exist an infinite number of times. A further
selected article. interpretation is that all time may only be one
instant.
Please note that Full Access is available to DCB
Subscribers only. Current subscribers have This suggests that from our viewpoint, Santa visits
already been sent the required password. a lot of places instantaneously. From Santa's
viewpoint, however, he visits each home
The earlier DCB’s were not produced in a format individually in sequence. The time required for this
that could be accommodated on-line, so this on- is in the base time (i.e. based on the planetary
line access starts with DCB No. 38 and then rotation) so that Santa does not age appreciably.
covers all issues from Nos. 40 to 69. This covers Rumours coming from the Aurora Borealis Bar,
most of the material that is still current. If the indicate that in fact Santa visits this place daily
‘what’s current’ article refers to an earlier issue, after delivering to two dozen or so homes. He and
then a note appears saying that this material will Rudolph hang out there for several hours. The
be sent by post on request. other reindeer, piqued at the apparent favouritism
toward Rudolph, tend to go to the Southern Cross
The HERA Structural Engineer would like to (Bar names are notoriously illogical) where they
gratefully acknowledge the work of Diana drink J&B on the rocks. Despite his Germanic
Reichwein, from the Fachochschule Ravensburg - origins, Santa has a decided predilection for
Weingarten, who has developed this interactive Armagnac while Rudolph, loyal to his Scandinavian
facility. origins, drinks aqua vie. Any rumours of a prurient
nature are totally unfounded as Rudolph is often
Santa Claus – The Rebuttal!! seen leaving with one or more female reindeer.
Santa appears to be quite faithful to Mrs. Claus.
In a moment of pre-Christmas whimsy, the HERA Structural
Engineer presented an Engineer’s view of Santa Claus! Due to the concurrency of time at this time, it is not
Regretfully, this view (which he must admit came from an uncommon to see several hundred thousand
unknown source) concluded that Santa couldn’t exist! Santas and Rudolphs simultaneously. The Aurora
Showing the versatility for which New Zealand Academics are Borealis is the second most successful lounge on
famed, John Butterworth of the University of Auckland has sent earth, second only to the Southern Cross in fact,
in the following rebuttal, which is based on the observation that, where over a million flying reindeer are seen at any
as Santa does deliver the goods, he must exist!
given time.
This closes the issue of Santa (to be or not to be…) for another Kendall et al provide further evidence for the actual
year! existence of Santa. Their soon to be published
work in self-repairing DNA and RNA is also based
upon Prigigione's work. Under certain conditions, The first SPM procedure was published in DCB
induced in humans by universal love, humour and No. 60, February 2001, with the development work
generosity, the organism can repair damage to on which it was based published in that issue and
itself. There are references to this condition all in DCB No. 59. Since then, feedback from use of
through history in the literature starting with the the procedure has resulted in amendments and
epic of Gilgamesh (approx 4,500 BC) to as recently further research. The most significant
as "Lost Horizon" written in 1933. Some of the development since February 2001 has been the
research in Gaia may bear results in this area also. undertaking of a series of 6 slab panel fire tests,
details of which are given in [3, 36]. The results of
Thus it is seen that it is entirely possible for Santa
these tests have validated the concept and
to exist and that there is, in fact, substantial
enabled revisions to the procedure to give greater
evidence of his actual existence. Coupled with a
accuracy and to remove some elements of
suitable attitude and minor application of the time
conservatism. Details of these revisions are given
warp, Santa brings the goodies through to the kids.
in DCB No. 70, pp. 1-19.
Just a jump to the left…
While a considerable number of publications are
Design of Multi-Storey Steel referenced in this bulletin, when it comes to the
Framed Buildings With application the procedure is written in such a way
that it can be applied in accordance with
Unprotected Secondary Beams publications commonly available to a structural or
or Joists for Dependable fire design engineer.
Inelastic Response in Severe Naturally, this second edition of the SPM
Fires: Second Edition supersedes the first edition of the procedure and
the SPM computer program dated SPM0302.
This article and design procedure has been written by G
Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer and Christopher
Beck, Undergraduate Student on Study Leave at HERA from
The new program is entitled SPM0103.
the Fachhochschule Offenburg.
1.2 Scope and content
The basis of the design procedure is presented in
1.1 General background section 2. The structural performance that will
be delivered by the procedure is described in
This DCB presents the second edition of the Slab section 3.
Panel Method of Fire Emergency Design (SPM), The procedure is only applicable to buildings with
which allows for the use of unprotected secondary certain structural characteristics, which are
beams or joists supporting concrete floor slabs and described in section 4. As with any procedure
exposed to severe fire conditions. It is written for written to provide dependable inelastic behaviour,
application to multi-storey steel framed buildings of the detailing is as important as the design and the
Fire Hazard Category (FHC) 1, 2 or 3 and caters detailing requirements are presented in section 5.
for the maximum structural fire severity possible
from this range of building occupancies. (FHC is as Maintaining effective compartmentation is covered
defined in Comment to Paragraph 2.2 of [5]). in section 6, while controlling the onset of structural
damage is outlined in section 7. Section 8
The slab panel design procedure is fundamentally introduces the SPM0103 computer program, which
different in philosophy and procedure to traditional implements this second edition. Section 9 then
fire engineering design provisions used in New presents a design example including showing the
Zealand. This is because the procedure is written use of the program. Section 10 gives pointers
for application to large sub-assemblages in on application of the procedure for maximum
buildings subject to fully developed fire conditions cost effectiveness. This is followed by
involving unprotected steel members, where these acknowledgments, in section 11.
members may be subjected to very high
temperatures and considerable inelastic demand in Following the acknowledgments are all the figures
the event of fully developed fire. The extent of this for this issue.
inelastic demand is anticipated and a dependable
proportion of the additional reserve of strength The detailed steps of the procedure are presented
available from the building when undergoing this in Appendix A, which includes a commentary to
deformation is incorporated into the procedure. these steps.
The procedure is also written around the
temperatures that unprotected steel beams can Finally, the references to this issue are presented.
realistically reach in fully developed FHC 1, 2 and
3 fires.
2. Basis of Slab Panel Design Procedure The rest of section 2 provides a very brief overview
of some experimental testing and analytical
2.1 General modelling work that supports the basis to the
procedure.
Under ambient temperature conditions, the beams
in a composite floor system support the floor slab. 2.2 Ambient temperature testing
For example, with reference to Fig. 71.1 herein, the
load path involved in resisting dead and live loads As part of the development work for the tensile
under ambient temperature conditions is: membrane model, Bailey [9] undertook a large-
scale ambient temperature tensile membrane test,
Slab → secondary beams → primary beams → columns details of which are shown in Figs. 71.2 and 71.3.
(71.1)
Fig. 71.2 shows the general specimen set-up. This
Under severe fire conditions, when the secondary
involved constructing a slab panel with 9.5 metre
interior beams are unprotected, they lose most of
by 6.5 metre centreline to support dimensions,
their strength, such that the ambient temperature
formed by casting the floor system onto a profiled
load path in equation 71.1 cannot be maintained.
steel deck base that was removed prior to loading.
As a result, the beams form plastic hinges and the
The slab panel was reinforced only with A142
load-carrying mechanism changes to a two-way
shrinkage and temperature control mesh; the
system. Under severe fire conditions incorporating
standard mesh used in the UK for a 130 mm thick
unprotected secondary beams, two-way action
profiled slab. The bar diameter and pitch is shown
prevails, involving the region of slab and
in that figure.
unprotected secondary beams known as a slab
panel.
The slab panel reinforcement, thickness and
dimensions were chosen so that the self-weight of
The slab panel resists applied load by two-way
the slab panel equalled the calculated yieldline
action back to the supports, through a load path
load-carrying capacity of the panel, using the
involving:
actual mechanical properties of the mesh. This
meant that any additional load-carrying capacity
Slab panel → supporting beams →columns (71.2)
was due to tensile membrane action (plus a minor
contribution from strain hardening of the
This is illustrated in Fig. 71.1. The same concept
reinforcement).
is applicable to floor slabs supported on closely
spaced joists, such as the Speedfloor systems.
Fig. 71.3 shows the position of applied loads and
two patterns of cracking. The loading pattern and
The slab panel develops its load-carrying capacity
application was such as to induce effective uniform
in the deformed state through:
applied load, while allowing access to the top
Yieldline moment action, plus surface for observation and instrumentation.
Tensile membrane enhancement
The yieldline cracking pattern shown in that figure
The loads transferred from the slab panel into the had formed on the underside on removal of the
supporting beams (ie. as given by the tributary decking.
floor slab areas contained within the yieldline
patterns shown in Fig. 71.1) must be resisted by The imposed load was applied in increments, until
those supporting beams and transferred back to at an applied load of 0.8 times the yieldline load
the columns. carrying capacity, the cracking pattern associated
with tensile membrane action started to form. This
The basis of the design procedure has
pattern was fully developed at an applied load of
been described in two places; first in
0.96 times the yieldline load carrying capacity (ie. a
section 2.3, pp. 7-8, DCB No. 59 and secondly in
total load of 1.96 times the self-weight). The slab
the section Basis of Slab Panel Design Procedure,
panel did not collapse at that point; the loading
pp. 153-159 of [22]. The results from the
mechanism ran out of stroke, meaning that no
experimental fire test [3] have not changed the
further load could be applied.
validity of these two mechanisms (yieldline
moment action and tensile membrane
There was comprehensive monitoring of stresses,
enhancement), however they have shown that the
strains and deflections, as reported in [9].
mechanisms do not act sequentially in a slab panel
under severe fire attack, but rather act
These results and those of subsequent ambient
concurrently. This is elaborated on in section 5,
temperature tests from the UK confirmed the basis
pp. 17-19 of DCB No. 70.
of the design procedure under ambient
Readers are invited to study either of the above temperature, in terms of the two structural
two references for more details on the basis of the mechanisms involved and their sequence of
procedure. operation.
2.3 Fire testing of slab panels Fig. 71.10 shows the deformed shape of the D147
slab; very good agreement between predicted and
This comprises the six 4.15 metre x 3.15 metre experimental deflections have been obtained for
slab panels tested by Lim et.al. [3, 36] and this slab panel, as shown in Fig. 20 of [36].
overviewed in section 3, pp. 3-6 of DCB No. 70.
Having validated the computer modelling, the
Fig. 71.4 shows the test set-up section across the strain/stress outputs from that program can be
short span of the furnace, while Fig. 71.5 shows used to track and quantify the structural
the applied loading regime. Fig. 71.6 shows a slab mechanisms operating under fire conditions
in position on the furnace, prior to the test through the test. These details are shown in [36]
commencing. for the D147 slab. They show that the combination
of yieldline and tensile membrane action resists the
Figs. 71.7 and 71.8 show the cracking pattern on loading but in a sequence of development very
the top and bottom respectively of the D147 slab different to that under ambient temperature loading
panel (the 100 m thick panel with minimum to destruction. This is discussed further in section
reinforcement). 5, pp. 17-19, DCB No. 70.
The results of these tests have been used to These analyses also show the strain and stress
amend the first edition of the SPM procedure as state in unprotected elements of supporting
described in the Commentary to Appendix A. members (the Speedfloor joists in this instance) to
be very complex; details are outlined in sections
Only by fire testing can the performance of a slab CA4.1 and CA4.2.1 of Appendix A herein.
panel under the representative ultimate limit state
3. Structural Performance to be Delivered
environment of constant vertical load and severe
by Procedure
fire conditions of high temperatures and thermal
gradient development be experimentally 3.1 Under severe fire conditions
determined.
The structural performance that will be delivered by
In this regard, the fire tests [3, 36] have generated this procedure, in the event of fully developed fire
crucial information that the ambient temperature conditions, is as follows:
tests cannot provide.
(1) Slab and unprotected secondary beams
When it comes to verifying the internal structural may undergo appreciable permanent
mechanisms within the slab panel, however, these deformation.
can only be recorded through to failure under
ambient temperature loading, as done in [9]. The The maximum extent of this deformation is
same cannot be done in the fire tests, as the strain described in section 4.4 of DCB Issue No.
gauges all failed due to elevated temperatures at 70. In practice, the inelastic demand would
around 60-100 minutes into the tests, usually be less, for the following reasons:
corresponding to their limiting temperatures of
300oC and well short of slab panel failure. • Lower fire load
Therefore, it requires analytical modelling to track • Presence of shielding linings
strains and corresponding stresses through to slab • Non-fire rated enclosures reducing the
panel failure in fire conditions. fire size
• Fire service intervention
2.4 Analytical modelling of slab panels
(2) Support beams and columns will undergo
minimum permanent deformation, compared
This is the second major part of Linus Lim’s
to that within the slab panel
project. The results are not yet (end of 2002)
published, so brief mention here is made of the (3) Load-carrying capacity and integrity of the
analytical work using figures from the already floor system will be preserved.
published reference [36].
(4) Insulation requirements will be met for at
Fig. 71.9 shows the finite element discretisation of least the F rating times specified by C/AS1
one quarter of the slab panel. This modelling was [5].
undertaken using SAFIR; a heat-flow and structural
analysis in fire program described in DCB No. 59 (5) Local collapse and global collapse will be
and in [36]. dependably prevented.
One of the principal purposes of the analytical In practice, structural repair and reinstatement of a
modelling has been to validate the program using steel building designed to this method will be
the experimental test results. Details of the almost as straightforward as that for a building with
principal steps involved are given in [36]. all floor support beams protected, based on
experience from actual fires in modern, multi- Positions, covers are as specified in
storey framed buildings. Appendix A.
3.2 Maintaining effective compartmentation 4.2 Steel beams/joists

Effective compartmentation will be maintained, Typically all steel beams or joists will be composite
both between floors and between firecells on the with the floor slab.
same floor. The former is a consequence of the
floor system performance that will be dependably If these beams are not composite, then the
delivered by this procedure. The latter may require supporting beams around the sides of the slab
special detailing, which is covered in section 6. panel, as shown in Fig. 71.1, require shear studs to
3.3 Suppression of structural damage NZS 3404 Clause 13.3.2.3 (h); ie. a single stud at
a maximum spacing of 4to, where to = overall slab
Although this slab panel design procedure thickness.
anticipates and allows for significant floor system
deformation and associated structural damage, this Hot-rolled beams, welded beams, Speedfloor
can be minimised through: joists, beams with web openings are all suitable.
However, see commentary section CA4.2.1 for
• Shielding linings (limited effectiveness) guidance where the unprotected secondary beams
• Sprinkler protection (extremely effective) are either of non-uniform cross section or contain
web openings.
This is covered further in section 7.
See section A6 of Appendix A for the extent of
4. Building Structure Characteristics protection required to the slab panel supporting
Required for Implementation of Slab beams.
Panel Design Procedure
The design structural fire severity (FRR) to use for
4.1 Floor slabs supporting beams, when determining the extent of
passive fire protection required in accordance with
Floor slab characteristics required are;
section A6.2 step 3 option 3.1, is given by:
(1) Concrete is normal weight, (NWC)
• FRR = 1.0 teq for beams with Tl < 700oC
f c' ≥ 20 MPa.
• FRR = 0.9 teq for beams with Tl ≥ 700oC
Aggregate selection for slabs not cast onto Tl = beam limiting temperature to Clause 11.5 of
steel decking must be to section 4.7 of DCB [10].
No. 70, pp. 16, 17, to suppress spalling.
The procedure is readily expandable to light See DCB Issue No. 59 for the background to these
weight concrete (LWC); guidance on recommendations, except that the 0.8 factor given
therein has been increased to 0.9 as a result of the
determining temperatures for some slab
panel components using LWC floor slabs is fine-tuning of the method to the experimental fire
already included in Appendix A. test results [3].
(2) Mesh reinforcement Intumescent paint protection of the protected

beams is an option, however, for the high structural
As decribed in the notes to Fig. 71.12, all fire severities expected it would be expensive.
mesh reinforcement is to be grade 500L to There is also the issue of ensuring that the target
AS/NZS 4671 [24]. The mesh can be limiting temperatures are met for beams and
formed from deformed or plain bars. Mesh columns (section 4.3 below), where these limiting
bar spacing must be between 150 mm and temperatures are less than the typically 620oC
250 mm centres. limiting temperature for which intumescent paint
thicknesses are determined. Finally, there is an
Position, covers are as specified in Appendix issue with insulation using intumescent paint; see
A. the last paragraph in section 6.2.1 herein.
(3) Bar reinforcement 4.3 Columns

Interior support bars (ie. bars which span Bare steel columns are required to be passive
over a support into two adjacent slab panels) protected full height. The limiting temperature to
are to be deformed grade 500E to [24]. use and the FRR to apply are given in section 7.5
Edge and trimmer bars are to be deformed of DCB Issue No. 59, with this advice repeated
grade 500E or grade 500N. below.
The thickness of insulation material required for the most common examples are shown in
columns should be as follows: Fig. 71.11.
(1) For columns with cross sections complying 4.4.2 Connections to supporting edge beams
with the cross section geometry provisions
of NZS 3404 [10] Table 12.5 for category 1, These will be subjected to lower rotation and axial
2 or 3, use FRR = 1.0teq. (These columns force demands from fire, either because the beams
have a limiting temperature of 550oC) are protected or because they possess a very high
reserve of strength. However, they will typically be
(2) For columns with flanges that are more connections between supporting edge beams and
slender than the category 3 limit, use the columns (eg as shown in Figs 71.17, 71.18) and
following: therefore subject to earthquake design and
detailing requirements. These requirements will
• If profile protected, FRR = 1.25teq cover the fire condition.
• Box protected except with Promatect H,
FRR = 1.0teq Once again, connections given in [6] are suitable.
• Box protected with Promatect H,
FRR = 1.25teq 4.5 Extending passive protection into the
ends of unprotected supporting members
(These columns have a limiting temperature
of 400oC, as given below ) There are many instances where unprotected
secondary beams will be supported by protected
In both cases, the insulation material should be primary beams. In these instances, the passive
selected in accordance with the manufacturer’s fire protection on the primary beam must be
published data for the FRR, SF and limiting extended slightly into the end of the unprotected
temperature used. If the regression analysis data secondary beam, to avoid significant localised heat
is not available to allow the thickness to be altered flow from the secondary to primary beam. The
as a function of the limiting temperature, then the extent of this overlap is discussed on pp. 11, 12 of
data will have been derived for T1 = 550oC and the DCB No. 66 and the recommendations from there
use of 1.25teq is therefore necessary in instances, are as follows:
as given above, to meet the lower limiting
temperature of 400oC, which is applicable to (1) When an unprotected beam member is
columns more slender than category 3. connected into a protected beam or a
protected column member, the insulation
For unprotected, concrete-filled structural hollow material used on the protected member
section columns, see DCB No. 58, pp. 25-30 and should extend onto the ends of the
the referenced Canadian paper. Use FRR = 1.0teq unprotected member so as to:
for these unprotected, concrete-filled columns. (1.1) Completely cover the connection region, any
connection components and connectors, as
4.4 Connections
shown in Fig. 71.11, and
4.4.1 Connections from unprotected (1.2) Extend at least 200 mm into the span of the
secondary beams to supporting beams unprotected beam from its end, also as
or columns shown in Fig. 71.11.
Connections between unprotected secondary (2) The insulation material should be the same
beams and primary beams or columns are type and thickness as used on the protected
subjected to significant inelastic rotation up to the member and must be detailed to dependably
maximum temperature, then are subject to tension remain in place during a fire. (The latter is
force during the cooling phase. This is described important for boarded insulation materials, in
in more detail on pages 11, 12 of DCB Issue No. terms of how they are fastened at the ends
54 and illustrated in, for example, [12]. These of the otherwise unprotected members).
connections must be designed and detailed to (3) When an unprotected Speedfloor joist
retain their integrity during both the heating and the is connected to a protected beam (see
cooling phases. Fig. 71.16) the insulation material should
completely cover the area of the joist shoe
These requirements are similar to the severe through which the joist is connected to the
earthquake requirement to retain integrity under beam and the area of the joist web
seismic-generated inelastic rotation demand. The connected to that joist shoe. (Refer to the
same design and detailing concepts should be steel beam support detail in [14] for details
used. All the connections given in HERA Report of this shoe).
R4-100 [6] will be suitable in this regard. Two of
(4) Protected beams supporting Speedfloor (3) When unprotected concrete-filled structural
joists should use spray applied protection or hollow section columns are used
ceramic fibre blanket protection, which is
able to easily cover the surfaces involved in • FRR is provided to DCB Issue No. 58,
(3) and will dependably remain in place pp 25-30, and the Canadian method
(pinned where necessary) in a severe fire. referenced from that DCB
These requirements cannot be easily • For protected beams to these
achieved with board protection in that columns, treat the connection region
application. as shown in DCB Issue No. 42, Fig.
42.2, by running the passive
4.6 Overall structural stability protection over the column within the
depth of the connection region.
The slab panel design procedure is applicable to
all structural systems. There are no specific 6. Maintaining Effective Compartmentation
limitations on type or position of lateral load-
resisting system elements imposed by the use of 6.1 Floor to floor compartmentation
this method.
This is covered by the slab panel design
Lateral load-resisting systems will have protected procedure, which will ensure that the floors
columns, which will therefore be subject to function as fire separations throughout the fire.
negligible inelastic demand in fire, and either
protected beams or beams with a very high 6.2 Compartmentation between firecells on
reserve of strength in severe fire conditions. the same floor
These systems will therefore retain their integrity
under severe fire conditions. Fire separating walls on the same floor must cope
with the expected slab panel deformations. There
All gravity system columns will be protected and are two cases to consider; walls located under slab
hence subject to negligible inelastic demand in fire. panel support beams and walls located within the
slab panel.
Thus local and global structural stability will be
retained throughout the fire. 6.2.1 Compartment walls under slab panel
support beams
5. Detailing Requirements for Use With
the SPM Procedure These beams will not deform more than is
expected from a conventionally protected beam
As with any system designed to deliver a and no special detailing is required, as shown in
dependable level of inelastic response, the Fig. 71.19.
detailing is as important as the design.
Insulation requirements must be fulfilled and voids
(1) This especially relates to the floor slab, and service penetrations must be fire stopped.
where:
Beams protected with intumescent coatings require
• Decking must be fastened to beams
additional insulation because the temperature on
to NZS 3404 [10] Clause 13.3.2.4
the non-fire side is likely to exceed the temperature
• Mesh must be lapped to NZS 3101
rise associated with meeting the insulation criteria.
[11] Clause 7.3.21
• Bars must be lapped to NZS 3101 6.2.2 Compartment walls within the slab panel
Clause 7.3.17 region
• See Figs. 71.12 to 71.18 for detailing
of reinforcement These must be detailed to accommodate the
• Covers are important and must be expected slab panel deformation. A deformable
placed as specified in Appendix A and blanket with the necessary fire resistance (stability,
Figs. 71.12 to 71.18. insulation) must be used, as shown in Fig. 71.20.
(2) When passive fire protection is specified, it The deflection allowance recommended is for Lx/25
must be placed as specified, especially: over the middle half of the slab panel, reducing
linearly to zero at the supports. Apply this in both
• Full length of beams the x-direction and the y-direction, as appropriate.
• Full height of columns
• Into the ends of unprotected Deformable fire rated systems are available, as
secondary beams (section 4.5 and they are needed to maintain fire resistance across
Fig. 71.11) seismic gaps. An example is given on pp. 1, 2 and
Fig. 61.1, DCB No. 61. Contact HERA for details • In an unsprinklered building, the onset of
of systems and suppliers, if required. structural damage to the floor should be
delayed until a dependable period of time
7. Controlling The Onset of Structural after full fire development commences. This
Damage From Severe Fire period of time is set at 15 minutes. To
achieve this, the floor system needs to be
7.1 Establishing a satisfactory threshold for shielded from direct exposure to the fire by a
the onset of permanent floor system ceiling system capable of remaining intact
deformation for around 20 minutes of standard fire test
time. This does not have to be a fire rated
The SPM procedure takes account of the system, but one which can, on the basis of
dependable reserve of strength available from a standard fire test performance, be expected
floor system when it undergoes the significant to remain in place for the 20 minute of
deformation that will be developed by sustained standard fire test exposure. Guidance on
fully developed fire attack. It is an ultimate limit ceiling systems suitable for this are given in
state design procedure, similar in this regard to the section 7.3.
concept of design of a building for limited ductile to
fully ductile response to earthquake. • It must be remembered that the above is
simply to create a damage threshold against
This raises the very important question as to what floor system deformation commencing
is a satisfactory damage threshold for the design of immediately an commencement of fully
a floor system to the SPM procedure. This is an developed fire conditions in an unsprinklered
issue that we have considered carefully in the building. The radiation barrier is not
development of all HERA fire engineering design required to deliver the dependable floor
procedures for steel structures and our approach system response given by the SPM method.
has been as follows:
• The above approach exceeds the
• If fully developed fire conditions in a firecell requirements of the NZBC [4] and should
are allowed to develop, the damage to the meet any realistic client and/or insurer
firecell above will be extensive from smoke expectations that are in excess of those
and heat, not withstanding any structural from [4].
damage.
7.2 Sprinkler protection
• Given that even the onset of fully developed
fire conditions represents a damaging This is the preferred method; it suppresses
condition, what is the likelihood of full fire structural damage by suppressing full fire
development compared with the likelihood of development.
other damaging events such as severe
earthquake? The annual probability of fully developed fire
occurrence in a sprinklered multi-storey building of
• The answer to that is that, in an the type for which this procedure has been written
unsprinklered building, the fully developed has been assessed by Feeney and Buchanan [18].
fire condition is at least 5 times more likely to It is extremely low, as shown by the following
occur over a 50 year timeframe (the comparisons:
assumed lifetime of the building) than is the
severe earthquake, which is more likely than • Annual probability full fire development, no
any other structurally damaging event [18]. earthquake, sprinkler failure, is 1.2 x 10-5
• Annual probability full fire development
• In a sprinklered building, the probability of following earthquake, sprinkler failure,
fully developed fire occurring is very much is 1 x 10-4
lower than that of severe earthquake or any • Compare with annual probability of severe
other likely structurally damaging event. earthquake in the highest seismic regions,
which is 2.2 x 10-3.
• The approach we have taken, with the SPM
procedure, is that, in a sprinkler protected Sprinkler protection also brings many other
building, how quickly structural damage benefits with regard to life safety and property
would occur after the onset of fully protection.
developed fire is not important. This is
because damage will only occur in the very
remote event of sprinkler failure, as
elaborated on in section 7.2.
7.3 Shielding of the floor of an unsprinklered Indicative times for given types of tile for
building by a non-fire-rated radiation which a non-fire-rated suspended ceiling, with the
barrier cross-runner span ≤ 600 mm, will remain in place
for ≥ 20 mins are:
7.3.1 Overview
(i) For fire-resistant plasterboard tiles, using
Shielding does not suppress full fire development; 12.5 mm thick plasterboard: 25 minutes
it only provides a radiation barrier for a limited
period of time. This shields the floor system (ii) For fire-resistant plasterboard tiles, using 16
above the barrier from the fire generated radiation mm thick plasterboard: 30 minutes
below. Provided that the shielding system remains
in place for the period of high fire temperatures, it (iii) For steel backed tiles: 60+ minutes
will keep the temperatures of unprotected beams
above the barrier and the thermal gradient in the 7.3.3 Use of a non-fire-rated fixed ceiling or
floor slab much lower than they would otherwise lining as a radiation barrier
be, with correspondingly lower floor system
deformation. This has been graphically illustrated A fixed ceiling is one which comprises a monolithic
in Australian natural fire tests, eg [33], on well ceiling supplied and fixed in accordance with
ventilated enclosures with fire loads corresponding the manufacturers recommendations. The most
to FHC 2 and FHC 3. common product used in New Zealand is
Gib®Board, from Winstone Wallboards Ltd.
The effectiveness of shielding linings is very
dependent on the system used. For small fire The performance of the Gib®Board range of ceiling
cells, moderate structural fire severity fire loads systems has been well established under standard
(FHC 1), moderate to high levels of ventilation and fire test conditions and verified by its performance
fixed linings, the system is very effective. It is in numerous actual building fires. Winstone
routinely used in FED in such applications, eg. as Wallboards fire engineering personnel have
described in [21]. provided technical guidance on the time at which
each system can be considered to suffer breach of
For high structural fire severity fire loads (FHC
integrity under fully developed fire conditions.
2, 3) shielding linings will only be effective for part
of the time of fully developed fire occurrence These times for ≥ 20 mins in place are:
unless there is a high level of ventilation available.
Thus they will provide the desired damage (i) For a 12.5 mm thick Gib® Ultraline system:
threshold from section 7.1, allowing extra time for 20 mins
manual suppression of the fire. If this doesn’t
occur, then fully developed fire spread over at least (ii) For a 12.5 mm thick Gib®Fyreline system:
the firecell of origin is likely and the damage to the 27 mins
building (especially the non-structural damage) will
be severe. (iii) For a 16 mm thick Gib®Fyreline system:
40 mins
Selection of a suitable barrier system is covered in
section 7.3.2 for a suspended ceiling and section (iv) For a 2 x 16 mm thick Gib®Fyreline system:
7.3.3 for a fixed ceiling. Only barrier systems 70+mins
capable of meeting the 20 minute standard fire test
survival time are given. The material is taken from Note that standard Gib®Board is not suitable.
section 5.12 of [12].
The board must be installed in accordance with the
7.3.2 Use of a non-fire-rated suspended ceiling appropriate Gib®Board specification for that
as a radiation barrier product.
To achieve the desired 20 minute standard fire test 8. Revised SPM Program
survival time, the suspended ceiling must have the
following general characteristics; 8.1 New features
(1) Any support grid members directly exposed
The SPM Program has been upgraded to
to the fire are made from steel and not
implement the second edition of the procedure.
aluminium The new version is SPM0103. This upgrade has
(2) The layout of the support grid is important, also included additions to enhance the ease of
especially the distance between the simply use. An example of the input screen for this
supported cross-runners which span
program is shown in Fig. 71.21 and the calculation
between the continuous main runners. This
screen in Fig. 71.22.
distance should not exceed 600 mm.
Longer tile life in place is obtained by
reducing this span further to 400 mm.
Features of the SPM0103 version are as follows: The cover to the lower bar will be a mesh bar
diameter greater than that to the upper bar.
(1) The slab type options available are now:
The cover for the mesh is specified to the top of
• Trapezoidal (Hi-bond) the concrete, in accordance with the NZS 3404
• Flat slab (Secondary beams) convention for specifying mesh cover as top cover.
• Flat slab (Speedfloor)
• Flat slab (Traydec) Unless the designer specifies which way around
the mesh is oriented, both possibilities should be
The Trapezoidal (Hi-bond) option should be checked. The orientation giving the lowest value
chosen for any trapezoidal deck profile. The of wu is used in design. The difference will
rib height must be entered; this is 54 mm be small when the mesh bar diameter is 5.3
for Hi-bond [30]. It incorporates the thermal or 7.5 mm. However, if larger bar diameters are
insulation effect of the decking on the used, then the temperatures in the lower layer will
concrete and reinforcement temperatures be appreciably hotter than those of the upper layer
within the slab that is given by equation and the orientation of the mesh can influence wu by
71.A6.3. This would be applicable to other as much as 5-10%. The greatest differences will
Trapezoidal decking profiles of the same arise in slab panels of high aspect (Ly/Lx) ratio
overall shape. The specification of heat where bars are used as mesh, with bar diameters
flow path dimensions c1, c2 and c3 for deck 10 or 12 mm.
trough bars for Hi-bond are, c1 = c2 = 80 mm
for c 3 = 40 mm 8.2.2 For the interior support bars
The flat slab (secondary beam) option is These bars run in the x-direction and sit on
used for flat slabs not cast on decking. top of the mesh, as specified by Notes 2 and 4 to
Fig. 71.12. This means that they sit directly on
The flat slab (Speedfloor) option is the mesh y-direction bars. Thus their depth within
specifically for flat slabs incorporating the slab is known, without the need to specify a
Speedfloor joists and implements the system cover to these bars.
- specific details of section A5.
8.2.3 For the deck trough bars
The flat slab (Traydec) option is for a flat
slab on steel deck and incorporates the These are positioned a specified vertical distance
insulation effect of the decking given by off the base of the deck ribs, as shown in
equation 71.A6.2 into the concrete and Fig. 71.28. The cover, c3, is specified off the
reinforcement temperature predictions. bottom of the rib for these bars, along with the
covers to the sides of the rib, c1 and c2, measured
(2) For grade 500 mesh or bar from [24], perpendicular to the rib wall.
use fy20 = 500 MPa.
For a bar positioned 40 mm off the bottom of
(3) In the input screen, values greyed out are a Hi-bond rib, c1 = c2 = 80 mm. These are
not required and hence made non recommended standard values to use, with c3
accessible for the option chosen. measured off the bottom of the rib, not the dovetail
return in the base of the rib.
(4) The FLED is used for either one or two
operations, as required: Designers can select different values for c3, in
which case they will have to determine the
• It assigns the Fire Hazard Category corresponding values for c1 and c2.
(FHC) for all applications, using the
relationship given in COMMENT 3 to 8.3 How to obtain the program
Para 2.2.1 of C/AS1 [5].
• If the option to calculate the time The SPM Program is available as a single
equivalent is selected, it is used in this executable file entitled SPM0103. It will operate in
calculation through equation 71.A2.1. all Windows systems from Windows 95 onwards.
8.2 Application of mesh and reinforcement Those wanting a copy, which will be sent via email,
covers should contact Charles Clifton at
structural@hera.org.nz.
8.2.1 For the mesh reinforcement
The program can be installed simply by double-
As shown in Fig. 71.21, the program requires the clicking on the icon & following the instructions. It
mesh bar cover to the top of the concrete to be will be sent with a sample calculation file, being the
specified for the bars in the x and y directions. design example presented in the next section.
9 Design Example All other required input data is given in Fig. 71.24.
9.1 General description and scope of 9.3 Design adequacy of slab panel
example
This is shown in Fig. 71.25. In this instance, the
The floor system used in this design example is slab panel has satisfactory moment/tensile
shown in Fig. 71.23. It is from an actual 17 storey membrane capacity (ratio of w*/wu = 0.80) and
building, previously used in our fire research satisfactory shear capacity (ratio of v*/vu = 0.55).
programme, more details of which are given in
DCB Issue No. 48. It is also the same basic The reinforcement level for integrity is also
example used in the first edition of the SPM, sufficient, this check is to section A4.3 herein.
presented in section 8, pp. 9-14 of DCB No. 60.
9.4 Design of two supporting beams for the
However, some changes have been made as a
fire emergency condition
result of the SPM procedure revision and the new
reinforcement standard [24]. This section covers the design of two of the slab
panel supporting beams. One is a primary interior
The building was built in 1988 using Grade 250
beam, the other a secondary edge beam. The first
steel for the floor support beams. For the
beam illustrates application of section A6.2
purposes of this example, the floor beams have
been re-sized, using Grade 300 members, to give step 3 option 3.1 – ie. application of passive
smaller member sizes likely to be used in a current fire protection. The second beam illustrates
application of section A6.2 step 3 option 3.2
design. The dimensions, layout of the structural
– ie. demonstrating an adequate reserve of
systems (seismic and gravity) have not been
strength without passive protection, using an
altered.
elevated temperature capacity check.
The ratio of (Av/Af) for the firecell in this building in
9.4.1 Design of primary interior beam B3-C3
practice is 0.2; in this design example it has been
reduced to 0.125 to illustrate application to a This is a 530UB82 Grade 300 member, spanning
higher structural fire severity (teq). 8.2 metres. See Fig. 71.23. It is connected to the
The scope of this design example is as follows: columns with WP (simple) connections, eg. to [6].
(1) Fire emergency design load, simply
• Input data is given in section 9.2 supported moment (section A6.2, step 1)
• Checking the design adequacy of the slab
panel is covered in section 9.3 wu,pib = 0.5 x 4.57 (8.9 + 8.9) + 0.8
• Design of two of the supporting beams for = 41.5 kN/m
the fire emergency condition is given in (the 0.8 is the beam’s selfweight)
section 9.4
• Design of the columns for the fire w uL2
emergency condition is given in section 9.5 M ∗ss = = 349 kNm
8
• The overall outcome is summarised in
section 9.6 (2) Determination of rf (section A6.2, step 2(1))
The design example uses the procedure given in ∗
Mss 349
Appendix A, as implemented by the SPM0103 rf = = = 0.38
program. φfire Mpos 930
9.2 Input data φMsx 558

Mpos ≈ 1.5 = 1.5 x = 930 kNm
ö 0.9
The slab panel is shown in Fig. 71.23, being the
area of floor bounded by gridlines A, 3, D and 5.
(φMsx is obtained from published tables, eg.
The other slab panel (bounded by grids A, 1, D
[20]. The 1.5 factor takes account of
and 3) will have the same solution.
composite action (see DCB Issue No. 2)).
The applied load, w*, comprises:
φfire = 1.0 (NZS 3404 Amendment No. 1)
• Slab dead load, including ponding = 2.46 kPa
• Superimposed dead load = 0.5 kPa (3) Determination of Tl (section A6.2, step 2 (3))
• Self-weight of secondary beams = 0.21 kPa
• Long term live load = 0.4 x 3.5 = 1.4 kPa Tl = 905 – 690r f = 646oC
• Total load, w* = 4.57 kPa As Tl > 550oC, any of the passive fire
In the calculation of time equivalent, the thermal protection manufacturer’s published design
inertia is determined from Table 5.1 of [7] as data can be used directly for determining the
b = 1700 J/m2Cs0.5.
product thickness required, as these will ∗
M ss = 0.1283 WL + wc1 L2/8 = 42 kNm
have been derived for Tl ≥ 550oC.
W = 27 x 4.45/2 = 56.6 kN
(4) Selection of passive fire protection product
(2) Determination of rf (section A6.2, step 2 (2))
Either a spray or board system should be
used. Given that beams forming part of a
M∗ss 42
perimeter type seismic-resisting system are =
unlikely to need passive protection in this φfire Mpos + φfire Mneg 1.0 x 620 + 1.0 x 620
building (this is confirmed for the MRF = 0.034
beams in section 9.4.2), the number of 558
beams on each floor requiring passive Mneg = Msx (rigid connections) =
0.9
protection is small. Therefore a board
= 620 kNm
system will be selected in this instance.
Mpos (conservatively take as non-composite)
Gib® Fireboard [35] is chosen in this
= Msx = 620 kNm
instance. It is one of a range of board
systems available; see details of this range (3) Determination of Tl (section A6.2, step
in HERA Report R4-89 [13]. 2 (3))
(5) Determination of thickness, number of layers Tl = 905 – 690 rf = 882oC
required.
As the limiting temperature is very high, use
Hp/A for 530UB82, top flange shielded, box step 3 option 3.2 to perform an elevated
protection = 15.3 x 7.85 = 120m-1 temperature moment and shear capacity
(This is obtained from eg. [20]) check on the beam.
From Gib® Fireboard catalogue [35]; (4) Determine the design elevated temperature
1 layer 20mm OK for 60 mins up to Hp/A of the beam and connection components
= 260m-1 (section A6.2, step 3.2.2).
1 layer 20mm OK for 90 mins up to Hp/A
= 112m-1 These are:
FRR = 1.0teq = 68 mins (see section 8.2.2) • For beam bottom flange and web
850 – 50 = 800oC
Limiting Hp/A for 68 mins • For beam top flange, 750 – 50 = 700oC
 90 − 68  • Connection components are not critical in
=   (260 − 112) + 112 = 221m
-1
 90 − 60  this instance, as the bolts and endplate

are within the protected region of the
Hp/Aactual = 120 < 221 √ OK column
Use 1 layer 20mm Gib® Fireboard on this (5) Determine the design elevated temperature
beam. moment capacity of the beam (section A6.2,
step 3.2.3)
9.4.2 Design of secondary edge beam A4-A5
fyθ/fy20, for 800oC = 0.110
This is part of the moment-resisting frame seismic- (see Tables 71.3 and 71.4)
resisting system along gridline A. See Fig. 71.23.
The member is a 530UB82 Grade 300, spanning Mneg, θ = Mpos, θ = Ms x 0.110 = 68.2 kNm
4.45m, with MEP Category 3 connections to [6] at (base on bottom flange temperature)
each end. (The size is that used in the original
design, however the grade, category and (5) Determine moment capacity through a
connection type have been changed to what would plastic collapse mechanism check (section
be more typically used under current design A6.2, step 3.2.4)
practice).
(φfire Mposθ + (φfireMneg, θ)
= 68.2 + 68.2
(1) Fire emergency design load, simply = 136.4 kNm
supported moment. M ∗ss = 42 kNm < 136.4 kN, √ OK
As seen in Fig. 71.23, the load from the slab Beam has adequate moment capacity
panel is triangular, varying from zero at end
A5 to a maximum value of L1 w* = 5.9 x 4.57 (7) Check the elevated temperature shear
= 27 kN at end A4. L1 comes from Fig. capacity (section A6.2, step 3.2.5).
71.25 and is 5.9 m. There is also a line load Beams have rigid end connections; OK
of 3 kN/m from the cladding.
Conclusion: 10. Guidance on Cost-Effective Application
Beam A4-A5 does not require passive fire of the Slab Panel Method
protection; it fulfills its slab panel support function
unprotected, by virtue of its high reserve of Design the floor and structural system for the
strength. gravity and lateral loading conditions. This
determines beam size, spacing, slab depth,
9.5 Design of columns for the fire emergency concrete strength, etc.
condition
Then commence the slab panel design for fire.
Minimum column size is W14 x 176
Step 1: Select the size of slab panel in
All columns satisfy NZS 3404 Table 12.5 Category accordance with section A2.2 on page
3 section geometry limit, therefore: 37. It is advantageous to keep Ly/Lx as
close to 1 as practicable.
Tl = 550oC (see section 4.3 herein)
FRR = 1.0 teq = 68 mins Step 2: Determine which of sides 1 and 3 can
W14 x 176 dimensions are (all in mm or mm2) carry negative moment.
d = 368 ; b = 372; tf = 23.8 ; tw = 14.4 ; A = 22,600
Step 3: Start with the following reinforcement
2b + 2d contents:
Hp/A, for four sided box protection, =
A
(1) Mesh : 665, comprising 5.3 mm
= 65m-1
diameter bars at 150 mm centres,
From [35], for FRR = 68 mins, 1 layer 20mm Gib cold-formed mesh to grade 500L,
Fireboard is satisfactory for all columns. fyr20 = 500 MPa
The columns must be protected full height. (2) Interior support bars : DH10 at 250
mm centres, hot-rolled bars, grade
9.6 Overall outcome 500E, fyr20 = 500 MPa
For the floor system shown in Fig. 71.23, the (3) No deck trough bars
requirements of this slab panel method for fire
emergency conditions are; Step 4: Input all other variables and do the first
check on the load-carrying capacity of
(1) For slab reinforcement the slab panel. If this is satisfied, check
shear capacity. If this is also satisfied,
• Mesh : 665 Large; 5.3 mm diameter
the design is complete.
bars at 150 centres each way
• Interior support bars : DH12 at 500 If the design load-carrying capacity is not
centres satisfied, then:
• Deck trough bars : 1 DH16/trough
• Edge and trimmer bars: as shown in (1) Add deck trough bars, until either
Fig. 71.12. All bars DH10; spacing of my = mx or the load-carrying capacity
edge bars is 250 mm centres is adequate. If it needs to be further
increased, then;
(2) Floor system beams, etc
(2) Increase the mesh area as required
• Sizes and layouts as shown in until the load-carrying capacity is
Fig. 71.23 and as determined for adequate.
ambient temperature design
• All beams are either composite or with If the load-carrying capacity is still not adequate
shear studs at not more than 480 mm and Ly/Lx ≥ 1.25, then designate one of the
centres(4to) unprotected secondary beams as a protected
support beam, in accordance with section A2.2,
(3) Extent of passive fire protection and repeat the above calculations.
• All columns If the load-carrying capacity is still not adequate

• Primary interior beams A3-B3, B3-C3, and Ly/Lx < 1.25, protect the secondary beams in
C3-D3 accordance with the C/AS1 [5] requirements.
• Primary edge beams A5-B5, C5-D5,
A1-B1 (in practice, beam C1−D1 is in Remember that the detailing requirements given in,
the stairwell region, with negligible fire or referenced from, section 5 must be applied.
load and part of a separate firecell) See Fig. 71.12 and the accompanying notes for
the detailing requirements to the slab panel itself.
11. Acknowledgments (3) Linus Lim, under the supervision of
Professor Andy Buchanan and Dr. Peter
The HERA Structural Engineer, principal developer Moss, University of Canterbury, for the Slab
of the SPM design procedure, would like to Panel fire tests and analyses contained in
acknowledge the contribution of all [3, 36].
persons/organisations involved in the development
of this procedure, with special mention of: (4) Professor Colin Bailey Professor of
Structural Engineering, UMIST, UK and Jef
(1) Robert Schmid and Christopher Beck, the Robinson, Honorary Professor of
two undergraduate students from Germany Construction Marketing at the University of
who have undertaken much of the analysis Sheffield, UK.
work and development of the SPM
programs. (5) The Foundation for Research, Science and
Technology, for providing past and on-going
(2) The UK BRE and Corus, for supplying the funding of HERA’s fire research programme,
fire test and slab panel load test data which has led to the development of the first
contained in [9, 17]. and second editions of the SPM design
procedure.
Fig. 71. 1 (from [21])

Reflected Floor Plan for Application of Slab Panel Fire Engineering Design Procedure to a
Concrete Slab on Profiled Steel Deck Supported on Primary and Secondary Beams
Notes to Fig. 71.1

• The beam positions shown are the centrelines.
• The exterior of the building shown is the edge of the concrete slab
• A two slab panel floor system is shown; the concept is applicable to larger floor plan areas.
• Lateral load-resisting systems are not explicitly shown, but their position is not restricted by the method
• The secondary interior beams are unprotected. The columns will have passive fire protection. The primary interior beams
and the edge beams may be unprotected if they have a suitably high reserve of strength; for example through being part of a
seismic resisting system.
Fig 71.2
Slab Panel Ambient Temperature Test; General Specimen Set-up (from [9])
Fig 71.3
Slab Panel Ambient Temperature Test; Position of Applied Loads and Pattern of Cracking From Yieldline
Development and From Tensile Membrane Fracture (from [9])
Fig 71.4
Slab Panel Fire Tests; Section Across the Short Span of the Furnace (from [3])
Fig 71.5
Slab Panel Fire Tests; Position of Applied Loads (from [3])
Fig 71.6
Slab Panel Fire Tests; Slab in Position for Test
Fig 71.7
Top Surface Crack Pattern of the D147 Flat Slab (from [36])
Fig 71.8
Bottom Surface Crack Pattern of the D147 Flat Slab (from [36])
Fig 71.9
Finite Element Discretization of a Quarter of the Slab Panel (from [36])
Fig 71.10
Deflected Shape of the D147 Slab Panel at 3 Hours (Magnified 1.5 times) (from [36])
Fig 71.11
Unprotected Secondary Beam to Protected Primary Beam Connection, Showing Extent of Passive Protection
Required over the Connection Region.
Fig 71.12
Floor Plan Showing Additional Reinforcement Required in the Slab Panels.
Notes to Fig. 71.12
1. Edge and trimmer bar reinforcement is to be deformed grade 500E or 500N to AS/NZS 4671 [24]. Interior support
bar reinforcement is to be grade 500E. Mesh reinforcement is to be either deformed or plain grade 500L (or grade
500N or 500E can be used).
2. The edge bars, trimmer bars and interior support bars are required in all instances. They are placed on top of the
slab mesh.
3. The area of the edge bars/m width in each direction (x or y) is to be not less than Amesh required in that direction.
4. The area of the interior support bars, which are in the x direction, is to be not less than Axmesh .
5. Anchorage of edge bars is to be by standard hook, to NZS 3101 Clause 7.3.14, around the trimmer bar. See Figs.
71.14 and 71.15.
6. The length of the edge bars into the slab panel, measured from the end of the hook, is to be 750 mm
7. Edge bars spacing to be at 250mm centres maximum and typical; less if required to satisfy the minimum area
requirement from note 3 for the bar diameter chosen
8. Interior support bars to extend 0.15Lx plus the bar development length past the centreline of the supporting beam
into each slab panel; spacing at 250mm centres maximum and typical. Size is typically 10 mm or 12 mm as
required.
9. The deck trough bars are optional and are used if necessary to increase the load-carrying capacity of the slab panel.
They are placed in the troughs as shown in Figs. 71.13 and 71.14. Size is 10mm to 16mm as required.
10. The centreline position of the primary interior beams is shown in this view, because the placing of the interior
support bars is based around this position. The rest of the floor support beams are not shown herein.
11. The trimmer bars are placed outside the centre-line of the shear studs relative to the slab panel.
Fig 71.13
Section A – A Through Slab Panels (Incorporating Steel Decking) at the Primary Interior Beam
Note: See Fig. 71.17 for location of this section in plan
Fig 71.14
Section B – B Through Slab Panel 1 (Incorporating Steel Decking) at the Primary Edge Beam
Fig 71.15
Section C – C Through Slab Panel 1 (Incorporating Steel Decking) at the Secondary Edge Beam
Fig 71.16
Section D – D Through Slab Panels (Incorporating Speedfloor Joists) at the Primary Interior Beam
Fig 71.17
Reflected Floor Plan for Application of Slab Panel Fire Engineering Design Procedure to a Concrete Slab on
Profiled Steel Deck Supported on Primary and Secondary Beams
Notes to Fig. 71.17

1. The beam positions shown are the centrelines.
4. Lateral load-resisting systems are not explicitly shown, but their position is not restricted by the method.
5. The secondary interior beams are unprotected. The columns will have passive fire protection. The primary interior beams and the
edge beams may be unprotected if they have a suitably high reserve of strength; see details in section A6.2 step 3 option 3.2
Fig 71.18
Reflected Floor Plan for Application of Slab Panel Fire Engineering Design Procedures to a Concrete Slab
Supported on Speedfloor Joists and Primary Beams
Notes to Fig. 71.18

1. The beam and joist positions shown are the centrelines.
4. Lateral load-resisting systems are not explicitly shown, but their position is not restricted by this method.
5. The Speedfloor Joists are unprotected. The columns will have passive fire protection. The primary interior beams will typically have
passive fire protection. The edge beam protection may be through radiation barriers where the beam design limiting temperature is
not exceeded. Alternatively, the primary interior beams and the edge beams may be unprotected if they have suitably high reserve
of strength; see details in section A6.2 step 3 option 3.2
Protection to
beam (spray
or board)
Normal
deflection
head
Compartment
wall
Fig 71.19
Fire Separating Walls Below Slab Panel Edge Support Beams (detail from [37])
Deformable blanket
Compartment wall
Fig 71.20
Fire Separating Walls Within Slab Panel Region (detail from [37])
Fig 71.21
Input Screen for the SPM0103 Program for the Speedfloor Fire Test Slab Panel
Fig 71.22
Calculation Screen for the SPM0103 Program for the Speedfloor Fire Test Slab Panel
Fig 71.23
Reflected Floor Plan of Telecom Towers Building, Showing the Slab Panel Used in the
Design Example of Section 9.
Note: The position of gridlines B and C are not drawn to scale in the horizontal dimension; the actual dimensions are as stated.
Fig 71.24
Input Screen for the SPM0103 Program for the Design Example in Section 9.
Fig 71.25
Calculation Screen for the SPM0103 Program for the Design Example in Section 9.
Fig 71.26
Reflected Floor Plan Showing Dimensions for Slab Panel Yield Line Pattern and Developed Moments
Notes to Fig. 71.26

1. The y-direction is parallel to the span of the decking; the x-direction is parallel to the span of the secondary beams.
2. Dependable negative moment resistance is able to be developed only over the primary interior beams and only through the use of
additional reinforcing (interior support) bars. For slab panel 1 shown above, the resistance is available only from side 3.
c ymesh
c xmesh
Mesh in y-direction
Mesh in x-direction
u1 u2 d mesh
Concrete
u3 t0
25 25
h rc
Fig 71.27
Position of Mesh and Heat Flow Paths for Mesh Temperature Determination
Note: For flat slabs, the dimensions u1, u 2 and u3 are measured from the soffit of the slab.
c1 c2
c4 c3 c5
Fig 71.28
Cross – Section Through Dimond Hi-bond Slab Showing Position of Deck Trough Bar and Heat Flow Paths
to this Bar (Dimensions in mm).
Note: The dovetail return in the base of the Hi-bond rib is not shown herein, but its effect is incorporated into the temperature
determination. The cover c 3 is measured to the bottom of the rib, not the top of the dovetail return.
θ θ
Fire exposed face
Fig 71.29
Resultant Compression Force in the Concrete Compression Zone Under Negative Moment Action.
Fig 71.30
Section E – E Through Region of Floor Slab Incorporating Steel Decking, Showing Development of Positive
Moment Capacity Using the Mesh Reinforcement and Secondary Beams
Notes to Fig. 71.30

1. See Fig. 71.26 for location of this section, which is taken across the x-direction looking along the y-direction.
2. The optional deck trough bars are not shown in this section.
Fig 71.31
Uniformly Loaded Rectangular Slab With All Edges Supported (from [19])
Notes to Fig. 71.31

_______ = slab positive yieldline moment
- - - - - - = slab negative yieldline moment in the x-direction (where applicable)
my = positive moment in the y-direction per unit width along the x axis
mx´ = negative moment in the x-direction per unit width along the y axis
Side 1 = length AD, etc.
F = fixed edge supported (side 1 or 3, where applicable)
S = pinned edge support (sides 2 and 4, always)
Fig 71.32
Location of Critical Cross – Section for Shear Capacity Determination, Slab Panel Supported on Unprotected
Secondary Beams.
Fig 71.33
Application of Design Procedure to Concrete Slabs Supported on Speedfloor Joists and Primary Beams
Notes to Fig. 71.33

1. This figure incorporates the information presented in Fig. 71.18 with dimensions and moments required for application of the slab
panel fire engineering design procedure.
Bottom of slab
Fig. 71.34
Fig. 71.34
Cross – Section Through the Speedfloor Joist for Determining Joist Contribution to Slab Panel Yieldline
Capacity
Fig 71.35
Speedfloor Slab Panel Following Furnace Test Showing Buckled State of the Joists
(Especially the Central Joist).
Fig. 71.36
Plan View of Cardington Demonstration Furniture Test Fire Showing Gas Temperature Contours at Time of
Peak Temperatures
Note: The dotted lines are the floor support beams; horizontal are secondary beams, vertical primary beams
Appendix A to DCB No. 71
Design Procedure for the Slab Panel Method, Second Edition
A1 Introduction and Scope
This appendix presents the second edition of the Slab Panel Method (SPM) design procedure and
detailing requirements in step by step format. The layout used is as close as practicable to that used
for the first edition, presented in DCB No. 60 in 2001.
It commences, in section A2, with the definitions of critical components, variables and notation,
including defining the slab panel floor area to which the procedure is applied.
Section A3 covers the design loads and design structural fire severity required for implementation of
the procedure - i.e. the input design actions.
The procedure is presented in sections A4 and A5. Section A4 covers use of the procedure for a
concrete slab on profiled steel decking supported on a network of primary and secondary composite
steel beams. Section A5 covers use for a concrete slab on Speedfloor Joists, supported by primary
beams.
Section A6 covers design of the supporting beams for the edges of the slab panel. These beams may
require protection from direct fire exposure. Section A7 covers design of the supporting columns,
which will require protection from direct fire exposure. The figures used in this appendix are included
immediately prior to the appendix.
For each section, and where appropriate, a commentary to the design procedure provisions is given.
The commentary is presented following sections A1 - A7; not all sections have a commentary. The
appendix and commentary relate only to the detailed procedure itself; for a general introduction to the
procedure, overview of its development and related aspects, refer to the details proceeding this
appendix.
A2 Definitions of Critical Components, Variables and Notation
A2.1 Definition of slab panel

For ambient temperature design, the beams support the floor. Under severe fire conditions, the
unprotected beams lose their load-carrying capacity and the floor slab system ends up supporting the
beams. This support is provided by a region of floor slab acting in two way yieldline/tensile membrane
action, transferring the applied loads back to the supporting effectively rigid members.
The unit of floor slab system that develops this capacity to resist the fire emergency design loads is
termed the slab panel.
A slab panel is defined as the area of floor slab and unprotected beams or joists that spans, under
two-way action, between beams that remain effectively undistorted under severe fire conditions
relative to the peak downwards deflection expected within the slab panel region. The slab panel has
dimensions Lx and Ly - i.e. length in the x - direction and length in the y - direction, e.g. as shown in
Figs. 71.26 or 71.33.
Supports which remain largely undistorted under severe fire conditions are:
• Beams which are shielded from direct exposure to the fire in order to limit their temperature in
accordance with NZS 3404 [10] Clause 11.5. These include primary interior and edge beams,
secondary edge beams and any secondary interior beams which are protected to limit the
length of the slab panel (see section A2.2)
• Beams which form part of the lateral load-resisting system and which are required to be
protected or have a very high reserve of strength under fire emergency conditions (see e.g.
section A6.2 Step 3.2 herein)
• Supports formed by a separate firecell and hence which will remain relatively cold at the time
the slab panel region is over 600oC, such as those around a lift core or stair well, or an adjacent
apartment in a series of apartments on a floor in a building.
A2.2 Determining the size of the slab panel
These are the dimensions Lx and Ly (see Figs. 71.26 or 71.33).
The length Lx is the distance between adjacent primary beams.
The length Ly is the distance between adjacent points of effective slab panel edge support, such as the
edges of the building (see Figs. 71.26 or 71.33), or between a building edge and an internal core. Its
determination will be clear cut in most instances, but will be more a matter of designer judgement in
others. For example, in application to an apartment building floor containing multiple apartments, Ly
can be conservatively taken as the length of two adjacent apartments.
A lower limit on Ly is Ly = Lx (i.e. a square panel).

An upper limit of Ly = 30 m is recommended for an open plan firecell.
A further recommendation is that Ly/Lx ≤ 2.5, however this is a recommendation only.
One support for the slab panel, for determining Ly, will always be available - e.g. at the edge of the
building. If a second support is not obvious, due to the building layout, within a length of 2.5Lx, then
this support can be provided by choosing a suitably positioned secondary interior beam and designing
and protecting it accordingly.
This secondary interior support beam will then split the floor system into two adjacent slab panels and
it will support a triangular load from both slab panels under severe fire conditions. This loading could
be considerably more than the design load for ambient temperature conditions, requiring the beam
size to be increased for the fire emergency design case, in the manner as is documented in section
A6.2 step 1 for the secondary edge beams. Because of this, a secondary interior beam used as a
slab panel support, to reduce Ly, should always be a beam spanning directly onto columns at each
end, rather than onto primary beams at either or both ends.
The bars shown in Fig. 71.12 would also need to be provided over this secondary interior support
beam, but spanning only 750 mm into each slab panel. They would be placed into each slab panel, in
the same way as interior support bars, in this instance.
A2.3 Notation used

A2.3.1 Normal font notation
∆ = Deflection of slab
θ = gas temperature
φ = strength reduction factor
γ = Coefficient for heat transfer to the reinforcement
θf = bolt temperature
φfire = strength reduction factor for fire, from NZS 3404 Amendment No. 1 Clause 11.5
θs = steel temperature
A = area
a = depth of concrete compression stress block
Ar = area of reinforcement
Arx = area of reinforcement in x-direction
Ary = area of reinforcement in y-direction
Asb = area of secondary beam element (top flange, bottom flange or web)
Av = area of vertical openings (fixed plus variable) available to an enclosure
b = width of slab
bf = width of beam flange
Csθ = Coefficient used in the calculation of the reinforcement temperature
c = cover to reinforcement, from top or bottom of concrete as specified
d = depth of beam
d1 = clear depth of beam between flanges
dv = effective slab depth for shear capacity
E = modulus of elasticity
e = depth from centroid of tension force to top surface of concrete slab in compression
ec = depth from concrete surface under maximum compression to centroid of concrete in
compression
er = depth from centroid of bar to top of concrete
erx = depth from centroid of tension action to top of concrete, for positive moment in the x-direction
ery = depth from centroid of tension action to top of concrete, for positive moment in the y-direction
fc′ = nominal (specified) cylinder compression strength of concrete (typically 28 day) (MPa)
FHC = fire hazard category
FLED = fire load energy density (MJ/m² floor area)
FRR = fire resistance rating
fu = nominal tensile strength of steel, bolt, weld etc.
fy = nominal yield stress of steel
G = dead load
H = height of enclosure
hrc = rib hight for trapezoidal profile
i = storey i or side i, as appropriate
kb = thermal conductivity coefficient
L = dimension of slab panel
M = moment (kNm)
M∗ = design moment
mx
' = negative moment in the x-direction per unit length along the y axis
Mrc = Composite beam positive moment capacity
mx = positive moment in the x-direction per unit length along the y axis
my = positive moment in the y-direction per unit length along the x axis
nb = number of bolts in secondary beam to primary beam connections
Qu = reduced live load (for fire emergency conditions)
Rcc = internal compression force from concrete
rf = reduction factor
Rts = internal tension force from steel
Rtsb = internal tension force from steel secondary beam element
Ru = nominal capacity
S∗ = design action
Ssb = spacing of secondary beams
teq = Equivalent standard fire test time for a reinforced concrete or an insulated steel component
tf = thickness of beam flange
Tl = limiting temperature of structural component
to = total slab thickness
tw = thickness of beam web
u1,u2,u3 = distances from centroid of reinforcement to fire exposed faces of slab
v* = design shear load per metre width at edge of floor slab panel
V* = design shear load over a defined length of floor slab panel
vc = nominal shear stress available from concrete
vc = nominal shear stress in concrete
Vfn = nominal shear capacity of bolt, threads included in shear plane
vu = design shear capacity of floor slab per metre width
Vu,sb-pb = design shear capacity of secondary beam to primary beam connection at elevated
temperature
Vv = nominal shear capacity of steel beam
∗ = design load on floor slab panel under fire emergency conditions, including selfweight
w
wf = ventilation factor
wu = ultimate load - carrying capacity of floor slab panel
wylθ = yieldline load carrying capacity of floor slab panel at elevated temperature
A2.3.2 Subscripts
θ = value at elevated temperature

20 = value at ambient temperature (assumed to be 20°C)
A–E = section A – E of the Speedfloor joist
bf = bottom flange (of secondary beam)
bolt = bolt
deck = profiled composite steel decking
dtb = deck trough bar
f = fastener or floor
isb = interior support bar
max = maximum
mesh = mesh reinforcement in slab
min = minimum
pb = primary beam
r = reinforcement
s = steel
sb = secondary beam
sfj = Speedfloor joist
slab = Slab
ss = simply supported (slab panel - i.e. no negative moment capacity on any side)
tf = top flange (of secondary beam)
w = weld; or web (of secondary beam)
x = value in x axis direction
y = value in y axis direction
A3 Design Loads and Determination of Structural Fire Severity
A3.1 Design loads

These are the vertical loads given by NZS 4203 [15] Clause 2.4.3.4, Load Combination (7) for fire
emergency conditions. This combination is repeated herein as equation 71.A1:
w* = G + Qu (71.A1)
where:
G = gravity dead load on slab panel, including the self-weight of slab and unprotected
beams/joists
Qu = ΨuQ = long-term live load from [15].
A3.2 Design structural fire severity
This is the time equivalent, teq, or a lower value if allowed by [4] and specified by the user.
t eq = FLED ⋅ kb ⋅ w f (71.A2.1)
where:
FLED = design fire load energy density (e.g. from COMMENT 3 to Para.2.2 of C/AS1 [5])
kb = thermal inertia factor for the bounding elements (from Table 5.1 of the Fire
Engineering Design Guide [7])
wf = ventilation factor
 6   Av  
0. 3 4

=   0 .62 + 90 0.4 −  > 0.5 (71.A2.2)
 H    Af  

H = inside hight of firecell
Av = area of vertical openings
Av
= must be in the range of 0.025 to 0.25
Af
A4 Slab Panel Design; Floors Incorporating In-Situ Concrete Slabs on Profiled Steel Decking or
Flat Slabs Without Decking, Supported by Primary and Secondary Composite Steel Beams
A4.1.1.1 X-direction mesh bars

The approach used is modified from section 6.4.2 of [8], on the basis, firstly, of section 7.3 of DCB
Issue No. 59 and, secondly, section 4 of DCB No. 70. To elaborate:
FRR, mesh = 0.9 teq (71. A3)
Step 2: Determine the distances (u1, u2 and u3)xmesh from the mesh to the top of the ribs, for trapezoidal
decking, or to the soffit of the slab for a flat slab or for flat slab decking.
This is undertaken in accordance with Fig. 71.27.
u3,xmesh =t0 – hrc – cxmesh – dmesh/ 2 (71.A4.1.1)
where:
to = total depth of the slab (mm)
hrc = rib height for trapezoidal profile (mm)
= 0 for decking profile giving a solid slab, or for a solid slab (no decking)
cxmesh = top cover to mesh bars in the x-direction (mm)
dmesh = diameter of bar (mm)
Having calculated u3x,mesh;
u1,xmesh = u 2,xmesh = u 3,xmesh2 + 25 2 (71.A4.1.2)
This is given by equations 6.2 and 6.3 of [8]. Equation 6.2 is repeated below as equation 71.A5.1. The
calculation uses the value of u1,xmesh, u2,xmesh and u3,xmesh from step 2.
1 1 1 1
= + + (71.A5.1)
γ u1 u2 u3
The distances are expressed in mm.
Step 4: Determine the design temperature of the mesh bars.
For slabs without decking, use the equation 71.A6.1, otherwise use the equations 71.A6.2 or 71.A6.3.
θs = Cs,θ - 350γ (71.A6.1)

• 1019ºC for FRR = 34 mins
For the Traydec [25] flat slab: (71.A6.2)
ès = (774 .1 − 191.7ã ) ln(1.125t eq) +

11090.8 − 2508ã
+ (0.2667ã − 0 .539 )teq + (663 .1ã − 2759 .9 )
teq
For the Dimond Hi-bond [30] trapezoidal slab: (71.A6.3)
ès = (844.3 − 178.7ã ) ln(1.125t eq) +

712.6ã + 7379
+ (0.507ã − 1 .189 )teq + (514.1ã − 2873.4 )
teq
where:
γ = is determined from equation 71.A5.1
teq = time equivalent from equation 71.A2.1 or as specified by the user
Step 5: Determine the elevated temperature design yield stress in the mesh bars, fyrθ,xmesh.
This utilises the relationship given in EC 2 Part 1.2 [28]. The mesh can be made from either cold-
worked or hot-formed bar, with different expressions given for each. These relationships are changed
from those given in DCB No. 60, due to an error in the tables in EC2 [28] which assigns the wrong
reinforcement type to each set of design values.
The correct details are as follows:
For hot-formed mesh bars, the relationships between fyrθ and fyr20 are as follows;
fyrè
ès ≤ 400 o C, = 1.0 (71.A7.1)
fyr20
fyrè
ès = 500 o C, = 0.78 (71.A7.2)
fyr20
fyr è
ès = 600o C, = 0.47 (71.A7.3)
fyr20
fyr è
ès = 700 o C, = 0.23 (71.A7.4)
fyr20
fyrè
ès = 800 o C, = 0.11 (71.A7.5)
fyr20
Linear interpolation is used between these points.
These values are appropriate to mesh comprising grade E or grade N bars to AS/NZS 4671 [24].
Deformed bars, when used as mesh, interior support bars or deck trough bars, use the hot-formed
relationship.
For cold-worked welded mesh, i.e. mesh bars made to grade L of AS/NZS 4671 [24], the relationships
between fyrθ and fyr20 are as follows:
fyrè
ès ≤ 350 o C, = 1.0 (71.A7.6)
fyr20
fyrè  6650 - 9ès 
350o C < ès ≤ 700 o C, =  (71.A7.7)
fyr20  3500 
fyrè  1200 - ès 
700 o C < ès ≤ 1200 o C, =  (71.A7.8)
fyr20  5000 
At the end of step 5 for the x-direction, the elevated temperature design yield stress in the x-direction
mesh bars, fyrθ,xmesh, is known.
A4.1.1.2 Y-direction mesh bars
The same five step approach and requirements as for the mesh in x-direction are used, with
appropriate distances (u1, u2, and u3)ymesh . Details are as follows:
Step1: Determine the design FRR.
FRR, mesh = 0.9teq (71.A3)
This is the same equation as for the x-direction mesh bars.
Step 2: Determine the distances (u1, u2, and u3)ymesh from the mesh to the top of the ribs, for
trapezoidal decking, or to the soffit of the slab for flat slab decking, or for slabs without decking.
This is undertaken in accordance with Fig. 71.27.
u3,ymesh =t0 – hrc – cymesh – dmesh/ 2 (71.A4.2.1)
where:
to = total depth of the slab (mm)
hrc = rib height for trapezoidal slab (mm)
= 0 for decking profile giving a solid slab, or for a solid slab (no decking)
cymesh = top cover to mesh bars in the y-direction (mm)
dmesh = diameter of bar (mm)
Having calculated u3,ymesh;
u1,ymesh = u 2,ymesh = u3,ymesh2 + 25 2 (71.A4.2.2)
Steps 3-5: as for steps 3-5, section A4.1.1.1, using the value of FRR,mesh and (u1, u2 and u3)ymesh from
steps 1 and 2 above and equations 71.A7.1 to 71.A7.8 for fyrθ / fyr20.
At the end of step 5 for the y-direction, the elevated temperature design yield stress in the y-direction
mesh bars, fyrθ,ymesh, is known.
The same five step approach and requirements as for the mesh are used, with appropriate distances
u1, u2, u3 from the fire-exposed top of the rib. Details are as follows:
Step 1: Determine the design FRR.
FRR,isb = 0.9teq (71. A3)
This is the same equation as for the mesh in the x and y direction.
Step 2: Determine the distances u1, u2, u3 from the interior support bars down to the top of the ribs, for
trapezoidal decking, or down to the soffit of the slab for flat slab decking.
disb
u3,isb = t0 − hrc − cymesh + (71.A8.1)
2
where:
t0 = total depth of the slab (mm)
hrc = rib height for trapezoidal slab (mm)
cymesh = top cover to mesh bars in y-direction (mm)
disb/2 = diameter of the interior support bar (10mm to 16 mm diameter, as required)
u1,isb = u 2,isb = u3,isb2 + 25 2 (71.A8.2)
Steps 3-5: as for steps 3-5, section A4.1.1.1, using the value of FRR,isb and (u1, u2, u3)isb from steps 1
and 2 above and equations 71.A7.1 to 71.A7.5 for fyrθ / f yr20.
At the end of step 5 for the interior support bars, the elevated temperature design yield stress in these
bars, fyrθ,isb, is known.
A4.1.3 Deck trough bars
The deck trough bars (dtbs) comprise 1 bar per deck trough of a profiled steel deck, placed typically in
every trough, when used. They are optional to the design and are only used where necessary to
increase wu for the slab. They are placed most commonly at 40 mm cover off the deck trough, as
shown in Fig. 71.28. Their size will typically be 10 mm to 16 mm diameter.
FRR,dtb = 0.9teq (71. A3)
For deck trough bars in Dimond Hi-bond, steps 2 – 5 are as follows:
Step 2: Determine the distances (u1, u2, u4, u5)dtb.
• c3 = 40 mm, or as specified by the user (see Fig 71.28)

• u4 = u5 = (c3 + 0.5 ⋅ ddtb )2 + 25 2
• c 1 = c2 = 80 mm, provided that the bar is placed in the centre of the trough and c3 = 40mm.
If c3 ≠ 40mm, then c1 and c2 must also be specified by the user.
• u1 = c1 + 0.5 ddtb
• u2 = c2 + 0.5 ddtb
1 1 1 1 1
= + + +
ã u1 u2 u4 u5
Step 4,5: as for step 4,5, section A4.1.1.1, using the value of FRR,dtb from step 1 above, γ from step 2
above, θs from equation 71.A6.3 and equations 71.A7.1 to 71.A7.5 for fyrθ / fyr20.
At the end of step 5, the elevated temperature design yield stress in the deck trough bars in Dimond
Hi-bond, fyrθ,dtb, is known.
For deck trough bars in Traydec, steps 2 – 5 are as follows:
Step 2: Determine the distances (u1, u2 and u3)dtb
ddtb
u3,dtb = c3 +
2
u1,dtb = u2,dtb = u 3,dtb2 + 25 2
c3 = as specified by the user, being the cover from the bottom of the slab to the underside of the
bar
Steps 3 – 5: as for steps 3 – 5, section A.4.1.1.1, using the value of FRR,dtb and (u1, u2 and u3)dtb from
steps 1 and 2 above, θs from equation 71.A6.2 and equations 71.A7.1 to 71.A7.5 for fyrθ / f yr20.
At the end of step 5, the elevated temperature design yield stress in the deck trough bars in Traydec,
fyrθ,dtb, is known
A4.1.4 Concrete and decking
The maximum concrete & decking temperatures have been determined from the wide range of natural
fire SAPPHIRE/SAFIR analyses described in DCB Issue No. 59 and which are consistent with the
results from the slab panel experimental tests [3]. For normal weight concrete, trapezoidal decking;
• Temperature across top of ribs = 700ºC for FHC 1

= 750ºC for FHC 2
= 800ºC for FHC 3
(FHC 1 to FHC 3 are as defined in Comment to Para.2.2 of [5]).
• Average temperature over full deck width = 700ºC for FHC 1

= 750ºC for FHC 2
= 800ºC for FHC 3
For normal weight concrete, flat slab base;

• Temperature = 750ºC for FHC 1
The decking strength is taken as zero at these temperatures, in accordance with Table 4.1of [12]. The
concrete strength at elevated temperature is given by R4-82 [8] and NZS 3101 [11] as :
'
fcè
èc ≤ 350 o C, '
= 1.0 (71.A9.1)
fc20
'
fcè  910 - è c 
350 o C < èc ≤ 910 o C, '
=  (71.A9.2)
fc20  560 
'
fcè
910o C < èc , '
=0 (71.A9.3)
fc20
In practice, when the concrete reaches its peak temperature and hence minimum compression
strength at the exposed face, layers deeper into the slab are cooler and stronger. To account for this,
in negative moment and support shear calculations, requires analysis of successive layers of concrete
to find the extent of the compression zone. This concept is shown in Fig. 71.29. This is undertaken in
Fig. 10 and Table 6 of [8], with the results tabulated for ease of use. The results are presented for
times under the standard fire test in [8], thus requiring the equivalent standard fire test times (te) for the
slab temperatures given above to allow the data in [8] to be used. These times are:
FHC 1: te = 60 minutes
From these times, values of ecθ are determined; see the details following equation 71.A21.
A4.1.5 Unprotected secondary beam components
The unprotected secondary beams span the short dimension, Lx, as shown in Fig. 71.26.
Being unprotected, they are assumed to directly exposed to the fire and therefore reach very high
temperatures. It has been shown from the Cardington tests [12,17] that the bottom flange and web
reach 95% of the peak fire temperature and the top flange, with its greater shielding and proximity to
the heat sink of the concrete slab, remains 150oC below the peak fire temperature.
Table 71.3
Design Temperatures of Unprotected
Secondary Beam Elements

FHC 1, NWC 800 800 700
FHC 2, NWC 850 850 750
FHC 3, NWC 900 900 800
FHC 1, LWC 900 900 800
FHC 2, LWC 950 950 850
FHC 3, LWC 1000 1000 900
Notes to Table 71.3

o
1. All temperatures are C
2. NWC = normal weight concrete; density ≥ 2300 kg/m
3
LWC = light weight concrete; density ≤ 1900 kg/m

3
3. FHC = fire hazard category, as given by [5]
The peak fire temperatures have been obtained as described in the commentary section CA4.1.5.,
with the relationship described above then used to obtain the peak steel beam element temperatures.
These temperatures are a function of the Fire Hazard Category, type of concrete used in the floor
slabs and position of beam element. They are as given by Table 71.3.
The variation of yield stress with elevated temperature for the unprotected secondary beam elements
is taken from EC 3 Part 1.2 [29]. The values are given in Table 71.4 and are those for a strain > 2%,
this being appropriate for the magnitude of deformation developed by the slab panel and unprotected
secondary beam elements in severe fire conditions.
Table 71.4
Relationship Between fysbθ and fysb20 for
Unprotected Secondary Beam Elements
FHC 1, NWC 0.110 0.110 0.230
FHC 2, NWC 0.085 0.085 0.170
FHC 3, NWC 0.060 0.060 0.110
FHC 1, LWC 0.060 0.060 0.110
FHC 2, LWC 0.050 0.050 0.085
FHC 3, LWC 0.040 0.040 0.060

1. These values apply to the secondary beam elements away from the connections.
2. These values are input into equations 71.A11.2 to 71.A11.4 through the constant Csb,θ , which is used in equation 71.A15.
A4.1.6 Secondary beam to primary beam connections; bolts and secondary beam web
Based on analyses of the Cardington test temperatures, the maximum bolt temperature,θf ,is taken as
that for the unprotected secondary beam top flange, from Table 71.3. This is conservative.
The same temperature is used for the beam web at the connection.
Given the bolt design temperature, the variation of bolt tensile strength with temperature for high
strength structural bolts has been established by UK testing, as detailed in section 4.3.3 of [12]. This
variation is as follows, for bolts in the relevant temperature range:
fufè
= 0.170 - (θf - 680) 0.5312 x 10 -3 (71.A10)
fuf20
for 680oC < θf ≤ 1000oC
A4.2 Design adequacy of slab panel; concrete slabs on profiled steel decking
This is developed by the mesh reinforcement, in the x-direction, and by the secondary beam elements,
as shown in Fig. 71.30. Designer judgement is required on the secondary beam contribution when
there are only one or two secondary beams within the slab panel area. The determination of mx is
based on reinforced concrete bending theory, thus:
Rtsx,mesh = Arx,mesh fyrθ,xmesh (71.A11.1)

Rtsbx,tf = (tf bf ) fysbθ,tf / Ssb (71.A11.2)
Rtsbx,w = ((d - 2tf ) tw ) fysbθ,w / Ssb (71.A11.3)
Rtsbx,bf = (tf bf ) fysbθ,bf / Ssb (71.A11.4)
Rtsx,total = ΣRts from mesh, tf, w, bf (71.A11.5)
erx = [(cxmesh+dmesh/2) Rtsx,mesh + (to + 0.5tf ) Rtsbx,tf

+ (to + 0.5d) Rtsbx,w
+ (to + d - 0.5tf ) Rtsbx,bf ] / Rtsx,total (71.A12)
R tsx, total
ax = (71.A13)
0.85 fc',20 b
mx = φfire [Rtsx,mesh (cxmesh + dmesh/2 - 0.5ax)
+ Rtsbx,tf (to + 0.5tf - 0.5ax)
+ Rtsbx,w (to + 0.5d - 0.5ax)
+ Rtsbx,bf (to + d - 0.5tf - 0.5ax)] (71.A14)
where:
φfire = 1.0, for the reasons given in Clause 11.5 of [10] (introduced through Amendment No. 1)
≥ the area of mesh in the x-direction required for integrity; see section A4.3 for the
minimum mesh area requirements for integrity
fyrθ,xmesh = elevated temperature yield stress of mesh reinforcement, from section A4.1.1.1 (MPa)
tf , bf , d, tw = secondary beam element dimensions
fysbθ = Csb,θfysb20 (71.A15)

'
fc,20 = ambient temperature concrete 28 day specified compression stress (MPa)
b = 1000 mm
ax = depth of concrete compression stress block generated by Rtsx,total
Rts = elevated temperature tension capacity of the nominated steel element
cxmesh = cover from top of concrete to mesh bars in the x-direction, from section A4.1.1.1
erx = distance from top of concrete to centroid of tension force, for x moment
dsb = depth of secondary beam
All dimensions are in mm.
(2) Determination of my
This is developed by the mesh reinforcement in the y-direction, plus the contribution of the deck trough
bars, if installed. Details are as follows:
Rtsy,mesh = Ary,mesh fyrθ,ymesh (71.A16.1)

Rtsy,dtb = Ary,dtb fyrθ,dtb (71.A16.2)
Rtsy,total = Rtsy,mesh + Rtsy,dtb (71.A16.3)
 
R tsy,mesh cymesh + 2  + Rtsy, dtb (t0 − u 3,dtb )
 dmesh 
   
ery = (71.A17)
R tsy, total
R tsy, total
ay = '
(71.A18)
0.85fc,20b
  d ay   ay 
my = φfire R tsy, mesh c ymesh + mesh −  + Rtsy, dtb  t0 − u3,dtb −  (71.A19)
  2 2  2 
where:
≥ the area of mesh in the y-direction required for integrity; see section A4.3 for the minimum
mesh area requirements for integrity
Ary,dtb = area/m width (mm2/m) of deck trough bars
fyrθ,ymesh = elevated temperature yield stress of mesh reinforcement, from section A4.1.1.2
ay = depth of concrete compression stress block generated by Rtsy,total
to = full depth of slab
u3,dtb = distance from centroid of deck trough bar to base of decking
φfire = 1.0
b = 1000 mm
cymesh = cover from top of concrete to mesh bars in the y-direction, from section A4.1.1.2
(3) Determination of m 'x
This is the negative moment capacity in the x-direction, per unit length along the y-axis. It is only
applicable at an interior support over a primary beam into an adjacent slab panel, where it is
generated by the tension capacity of the interior support bars. Details of determining m 'x are as
follows:
Rtsx, isb = Arx,isb fyrθ,isb (71.A20)

 d 
m 'x = φfireR tx, isb t0 − hrc − cymesh + isb − ecè  (71.A21)
 2 
where:
= 17 mm for FHC 2
= 19 mm for FHC 3
Arx,isb = area of interior support bars, expressed as mm2/m length of interior support bars in the
x-direction
fyrθ,isb = elevated temperature yield stress of the interior support bars, from section A4.1.2
cymesh = top cover to mesh bars in y-direction, from section A4.1.1.2
disb = 10 mm to 16 mm, as required
This is the elevated temperature load-carrying capacity for the actual support conditions, wylθ (ie. sides
1 and / or 3 developing negative moment, where applicable). It is obtained from the yieldline equation
for a general rectangular slab with either pinned or fixed edge supports, as given by [19], and shown in
Fig. 71.31. The equation is;
6 mx ì s X 2
w yl è = 2
(71.A22.1)
2 
L    Y 2  Ly 
2
L2x  x      + 3 ì s    -
Y
 Ly 
    X   Lx   X
 
where:
w ylè = yieldline load carrying capacity at elevated temperature
µs = mx/my (71.A22.2)
my = positive moment in the y-direction per unit width along the x-axis
X = 1 + i1 + 1 + i3 ≥ 2 (71.A22.3)
Y =2 (71.A22.4)
i1 and i3 are defined in Fig. 71.31, i2 and i4 = 0

This is determined from equation 71.A22.1, by setting X = Y = 2 (i.e. ignoring negative moments along
sides 1 and/or 3). The result is w ylθ,ss .
The limiting deflection, ∆ max, is given by equation 71.A23.3 as the lesser of equations 71.A23.1 and
71.A23.2. It gives the maximum allowed vertical deflection of the slab panel along line CD (see Fig.
71.26) relative to the adjacent supports.
4.27 x 10- 4 Lx
2
 0.9 fyr20,mesh  3Ly2
∆1 = +   (71.A23.1)
h  E  8
t0 − rc  20,mesh 
2
2
4.27 x 10 -4 Lx L
∆2 = + x (71.A23.2)
hrc 25
t0 −
2
where:
all dimensions are in mm
fyr20, E20 are in MPa
∆max = min (∆1, ∆2) (71.A23.3)

This is undertaken through equations 71.A24 to 71.A42. The process is sequential and builds on the
values of variables already determined. The equations look daunting but are easy to apply
and readily programmable into a spreadsheet. (Alternatively and preferably, use the HERA -
developed software; see section 8).
 2 
L   L x m y  3m L m 
L = x    ≤ 0.5L
y y
+ - x (71.A24)
1 2   L m  m L m  y
  y x  x y x 
Ly
a= (71.A25)
Lx
L1
n= (71.A26)
Ly
 4n a2 (1- 2n) 
k=  +1 (71.A27)
 4n a + 1 
2 2
1  1   Lx  1  L  1  1   L 
2 2 2
A=   - - 1  (nLy )2 + x  -   (nLy )2 + x  (71.A28)
2  1 + k   8n  2n   4  3  1 + k   4 
 
1  k 2   nLy
2
 2 
k (nLy )2 + Lx 
B=    - (71.A29)
2  1 + k   2 3 (1 + k)  4 
  
2
Lx
C= (k - 1) (71.A30)
16 n
 Ly   Ly nLy 
D =  - nLy   -  (71.A31)
 2  4 2 
2
1.1Lx
b= (71.A32)
8 (A + B + C - D)
 2 ax   2 ay 
gox = 1 -  ; goy = 1 -  (71.A33.1) ; (71.A33.2)
 erx   ery 
 
2g ox 2g oy
áx = ; αy = (71.A34.1) ; (71.A34.2)
3 + g ox 3 + g oy
1 - g ox 1 - goy
βx = ; βy = (71.A35.1) ; (71.A35.2)
3 + gox 3 + g oy
4b  ∆max   n (3k + 2) nk 3 
e1mx =    (1- 2n ) + - (71.A36)
3 + gox  3 (1 + k )2 3 (1+ k )2 
 erx  
4b  ∆max   2 + 3k k3 
e 2my =   -  (71.A37)
3 + g oy  ery   6 (1+ k )2 6 (1 + k )2 
   
 α b β b2 2 
e1bx = 2n 1 + x (k − 1) − x
2 3
( ) ( (
k − k + 1  + (1 − 2 n ) 1 − α x b − β x b 2 )) (71.A38)
 
á yb â yb 2
e 2by = 1 + (k - 1) - (k 2 - k + 1) (71.A39)
2 3
e1 = e1mx + e1bx (71.A40)
e2 = e 2my + e 2by (71.A41)
( e1 - e 2 )
e = e1 - (71.A42)
(1 + 2a 2 )
wu = w ylθ - w ylθ,ss + w ylθ,ss e (71.A43)
In equations 71.A24 to 71.A43;

L1 = distance from sides 2 and 4 to the intersection of the centre and diagonal yield lines (see
Fig. 71.26)
e = enhancement in simply supported slab panel load-carrying capacity due to tensile membrane
action
wu = design load-carrying capacity of slab panel when at maximum deflection along yieldline CD (see
Fig. 71.26)
If wu (equation 71.A43) ≥ w* (equation 71.A1), then panel moment/tension membrane capacity is

adequate.
This is undertaken over the tributary area shown in Fig. 71.32. Shear capacity is developed through
load transfer from slab to supporting edge beams and also from load transfer from slab to secondary
beams and hence into the supporting primary beams. The shear capacity available from each mode
is given in (1) and (2) below.
(1) Shear capacity available through the slab
The critical location is at SS shown in Fig. 71.32.
vu,slab = φfire vcdv (kN/m width) (71.A44)

dv = t0 – hrc – cymesh + disb / 2 – 0.67ecθ (mm) (71.A45)
vc = 0.17 fc' (MPa) (71.A46)
φfire = 0.75/0.85 = 0.89 for shear
where:
vc = as given by NZS 3101 [11] Clause 9.3.2.2
cxmesh = top cover to mesh bars in x-direction, from section A4.1.1.1
cymesh = top cover to mesh bars in y-direction, from section A4.1.1.2
ecθ = as given by section A4.2.1 (3); immediately following equation 71.A21.
fc ’ = nominal concrete compression strength at, typically, 28 days (MPa)
(2) Shear capacity available through the secondary beam to primary beam connection
This is given by equation 71.A47.3, which is the lesser of equation 71.A47.1 and equation
71.A47.2.
Vu,sb-pb = φfire nb φ Vfn rf x 1.25 (71.A47.1)

Vu,vsb = φfire φ Vv Csb,θ,tf x 1.11 (71.A47.2)
Vu,sb = min (Vu,sb - pb ; Vu,vsb) (71.A47.3)
where:
φfire = 0.80/0.85 = 0.94 for equation 71.A47.1
φfire = (0.9/0.85 ≤ 1.0) = 1.0 for equation 71.A47.2
nb = no. of bolts in the connection between secondary beam and primary beam
φVfn = design ambient temperature bolt shear capacity, threads included, from eg. [20]
φVv = design shear capacity for secondary beam, from eg. [20]
fufè
rf = f uf20
, as given by equation 71.A10 for the temperature given in Table 71.3 for the
top flange element
Csb,θ,tf = as given by Table 71.4 for the top flange element
1.25 = 1/0.8; converting φVfn to Vfn
1.11 = 1/0.9; converting φVv to Vv
A4.2.7 Determine design shear per metre width at the supports

Lx
v* = w ∗ (kN/m width) (71.A48)
2
where:
A4.2.8 Check on shear adequacy
Vu,sb
If v∗ ≤ vu,slab + , then the slab shear adequacy is ok.
S sb
If this check is not satisfied, consider either (1), or one or more of (2) and (3), to gain compliance:
(1) Design and detail the secondary beams so that their bottom flanges sit inside and above the
bottom flange of the supporting primary beam, eg. as shown in Fig. 71.11; or
(2) Increase the concrete strength, f c' , to increase the slab shear resistance, vu,slab; and/or
(3) Increase the number and or diameter of bolts in the secondary beam to primary beam
connection to increase Vu, sb-pb, if this is the limiting factor in equation 71.A47.3.
A4.3 Mesh area required for the preservation of integrity
Integrity is the ability of the floor slab to resist the passage of flame or hot gases [5]. For the floor
specified structural fire severity period (teq).
With a concrete slab cast onto steel deck, integrity is retained even when a full depth crack greater
than around 1mm in width develops in the slab, because the decking will seal the base of the crack
against the passage of flame or hot gasses.
With a concrete slab not cast onto steel deck, the preservation of integrity has to be through limiting
the maximum width of any full depth crack to 1mm.
One of the principal purposes behind the slab panel fire tests [3] was to determine the slab mesh
reinforcement requirements for integrity directly from experiment, in lieu of the provisions of SPM 1,
stipulated in section CA5 of DCB No. 60, which were based on the strong crack control requirements
of AS 3600 [27] and expected to be conservative.
As described in section 4.5, pp.15–16 of DCB No. 70, those provisions are shown to be very
conservative and have been able to be significantly relaxed to the following:
For slabs not cast onto steel decking:
Arx, mesh; Ary, mesh ≥ 200 ⋅ A1(xory) ⋅ A2 (mm² / m width) (71.A49.1)
For slabs cast onto steel decking:
Arx, mesh; Ary,mesh ≥ 147 ⋅ A1(xory) ⋅ A2 (mm² / m width) (71.A49.2)
smesh(xory)
A1(xory) = ≥1 (71.A49.3)
150
t0 − hrc 2
A2 = ≥1 (71.A49.4)
110
150 mm ≤ smesh(xory) ≤ 250 mm (71.A49.5)

where:
A1 = factor relating to mesh bar spacing (no units)
A2 = factor relating to slab effective depth (no units)
smesh = mesh bar spacing (mm)
A5 Slab Panel Design; Floors Incorporating In-Situ Concrete Slabs on Speedfloor Joists
Supported on Primary Beams
Section A5 follows the same format and approach as section A4. Where details are identical, the
relevant provisions of section A4 are referenced, rather than the provisions being repeated.
As shown in Fig. 71.16, the mesh sits on top of the upstand of the Speedfloor truss, which is
embedded in the concrete slab. This upstand height from the base of the slab is 38 mm [14] for both
joist sizes made.
FRR, mesh = 0.9 teq (71.A3)
Step 2: Determine the distances u1, u2 and u3 from the mesh to the slab soffit
For mesh placed over Speedfloor joists, the y-direction mesh bars run over the top of the joists and
the x-direction bars are taken in this procedure as being on the underside of the y-direction bars.
Step 2.1: x - direction mesh bars
d mesh
u3,xmesh = 38mm − (71.A50.1)
2
u1,xmesh = u2,xmesh = u3,xmesh2 + 252 (71.A50.2)
Step 2.1: y - direction mesh bars
dmesh
u3,ymesh = 38mm + (71.A50.3)
2
u1,ymesh = u2,ymesh = u3,ymesh2 + 25 2 (71.A50.4)
This uses equation 71.A5.1 from section A4.1.1.1, with the values of u1, u2 and u3 for each direction as
given above.
Step 4: Determine the design temperature of the mesh bars
This uses equation 71.A6.1 from section A4.1.1.1, FRR,mesh from step 1 above and γ from step 3
above:
θs = Cs,θ - 350 γ (71.A6.1)
where:
γ = as determined from step 3 above

Step 5: Determine the elevated temperature design yield stress in the mesh bars, fyrθ,mesh.
This uses equations 71.A7.1 to 71.A7.5 if the mesh is grade E or N (hot-formed) to AS/NZS 4671 [24]
or equations 71.A7.6 to 71.A7.8 if the mesh is grade L (cold-formed) to [24]; see details in step 5,
section A4.1.1.1 and A4.1.1.2.
As shown in Fig. 71.16, these sit on top of the mesh reinforcement.
FRR,isb = 0.9 teq (71.A3)
Step 2: Determine the distances u1, u2 and u3 from the interior support bars to the base of the slab.
The interior support bars sit over the top of the mesh y-direction bars at a specified top cover of 25mm.
u3,isb = to – cisb – disb / 2 (71.A51.1)

u1,isb = u2,isb = u3,isb2 + 25 2 (71.A51.2)
Steps 3 – 5: as for steps 3 – 5, section A5.1.1, using the value of FRR,isb and (u1, u2, u3)isb from steps 1
and 2 above and equations 71.A7.1 to 71.A7.5 for fyrθ / f yr20
known.
A5.1.3 Speedfloor Joists
As described in the commentary to this section, the proportion of the Speedfloor Joist that is
embedded within the concrete slab contributes a small but significant component to the slab panel
capacity, through acting as additional reinforcement in the x-direction. This contribution has been
determined by dividing the lengths of joist embedded within the concrete into 5 individual sections,
then determining the tensile contribution of each section in the x-direction and hence its contribution to
the development of positive moment in the x-direction per unit length along the y-axis. The dimensions
of each length and its distance from the base of the concrete are set by the shape of joist [14] and the
temperature variation with time has been determined from the experimental tests. See Fig 71.34. The
details are as follows:
(
Section A: R tsx, A = 42mm 2 ⋅ fyrèrA Ssfj )
fyrèrA = 416MPa ⋅ (Cs,è − 700º C)
Section B: ( )
R tsx, B = 64.8mm 2 ⋅ fyrèrB Ssfj
fyrèrB = 416MPa ⋅ (Cs,è − 600º C)
Section C: ( )
R tsx, C = 62mm 2 ⋅ fyrèrC Ssfj
fyrèrC = 416MPa ⋅ (Cs,è − 500º C)
(
Section D: R tsx, D = 64.8mm 2 ⋅ fyrèrD Ssfj )
fyrèrD = 416MPa ⋅ (Cs,è − 430º C)
Section E: ( )
R tsx, E = 81mm 2 ⋅ fyrèrE Ssfj
fyrèrE = 416MPa ⋅ (Cs,è − 380º C)
E
Rtsx, sfj = ∑ Rtsx,n (71.A52)
n= A
where:
Cs,θ = from section A5.1.1 step 4
Ssfj = spacing between Speedfloor joists
Rtsx,sfj = elevated temperature tension capacity of the Speedfloor Joist
A5.1.4 Concrete
The floor slab has a flat concrete base.
For normal weight concrete;

Following the same approach as described in section A4.1.4, these temperatures are converted into
standard fire test times, being te = 60 mins for FHC 1, te = 75 mins for FHC 2 and te = 90 mins for
FHC 3.
A5.1.5 Speedfloor Joists to primary beam connections
The Speedfloor Joist to primary beam connection is considered to have zero elevated temperature
shear or axial capacity.
A5.2 Design adequacy of slab panel; concrete slabs on Speedfloor Joists
This is developed by the mesh reinforcement and embedded portion of the Speedfloor joists in the
x-direction (see Figs. 71.33 and 71.34), thus:
Rtsx,mesh = Arx,mesh fyrθ,xmesh (71.A53)
Rtsx,total = Rtsx,mesh + Rtsx,sfj (71.A54)
R tsx, total
ax = '
(71.A55)
0 .85 fc20 b
  d mesh  
R tsx,mesh cxmesh + 2  + Rtsx,A (t0 − u A ) + R tsx,B (t0 − u B )
   
+ R tsx,C (t0 − u C ) + R tsx,D (t0 − uD ) + Rtsx,E (t0 − uE ) 
erx = (71.A56)
R tsx,total
  d mesh  ax   a   a 
R tsx,mesh  cxmesh +  −  + R tsx, A t0 − u A − x  + R tsx,B  t0 − uB − x 
mx = φ fire   2  2  2  2 
(71.A57)
 
+ R tsx, C t0 − uC − ax  + R tsx, D t0 − uD − ax  + Rtsx.E t0 − uE − ax  
  2  2  2 
where:
≥ the area of mesh in the x-direction required for integrity; see section A5.3 for the
minimum mesh area requirements for integrity
Rtsx,sfj = elevated temperature tension capacity of the Speedfloor joist from section A5.1.3
fyrθ,mesh = elevated temperature yield stress of mesh reinforcement from section
A5.1.1 (MPa)
φfire = 1.0 (see NZS 3404 Amendment No. 1 Clause 11.5)
'
fc20 = ambient temperature concrete 28 day specified compressive stress (MPa)
b = 1000 (mm)
ax = depth of concrete compression stress block generated by Rtsx,mesh (mm)
uA-E = bottom cover to centroid from section A5.1.3, Fig. 71.34
cxmesh = t0 – 38mm (the embedded height of the Speedfloor joist is 38 mm)
(2) Determination of my
This is developed by the mesh reinforcement in the y-direction (see Fig. 71.33), thus:
Rtsy,mesh = Ary,mesh fyrθ,ymesh (71.A58)
Rtsy,mesh
ay = '
(71.A59)
0.85 fc20b
my = φfire Rtsy,mesh (t0 – 38 – 0.5dmesh – 0.5ay) (71.A60)
where:
≥ the area of mesh in the y-direction required for integrity; see section A5.3 for the minimum
mesh area requirements for integrity
fyrθ,mesh = elevated temperature yield stress of mesh reinforcement from section A5.1.1(MPa)
φfire = 1.0 (see NZS 3404 Amendment No. 1 Clause 11.5)
b = 1000 (mm)
ay = depth of concrete compression stress block generated by Rtsy,mesh (mm)
(3) Determination of m 'x
This is the negative moment capacity in the x-direction per unit length along the y-axis (see
Fig. 71.33). It is only applicable at an interior support over a primary interior beam into an adjacent
slab panel, where it is generated by the tension capacity of the interior support bars.
It is determined as follows:
Rtsx,isb = Arx,isb fyrθ,isb (71.A61)
m 'x = φfire Rtsx,isb (to – er,isb – ecθ) (71.A62)

where:
= 17 mm for FHC 2
= 19 mm for FHC 3
Arx,isb = area of interior support bars, expressed as mm2/m length of these bars along the y-axis in
the x-direction
fyrθ,isb = elevated temperature yield stress of the isbs from section A5.1.2
= cisb + disb/2
This uses equations 71.A22, with mx, my and m 'x from sections (1), (2) and (3) above.
This is determined from equation 71.A22.1 by setting X = Y = 2 (ie. ignoring negative moments along
sides 1 and 3). The result is wylθ,ss.
As determined from section A4.2.3, but setting hrc = 0 in equations 71.A23.1 and 71.A23.2.
As determined from section A4.2.4, equations 71.A24 to 71.A43, using the relevant values calculated
above for the floor system on Speedfloor joists, as shown in Fig. 71.33.
The end result is wu, from equation 71.A43, which in this instance is the design load-carrying capacity
of the slab panel when at maximum deflection along gridline CD (see Fig. 71.33).
If wu (equation 71.A43 but applied to the Speedfloor system) ≥ w* (equation 71.A1), then slab panel
moment/tension membrane capacity is adequate.
This is undertaken over the tributary areas shown in Fig. 71.33. Shear capacity is developed through
load transfer from the slab to the supporting edge beams. Any shear capacity in the Speedfloor joist
to beam connections under fire conditions is ignored.
The slab is a solid slab, so the critical location is at the edge of the primary beam flange.
vu,slab = φfire vc dv (kN/m width) (71.A63)
dv = to – er,isb – 0.67ecθ (mm) (71.A64)
vc = 0.17 fc' (MPa)
φfire = 0.75/0.85 = 0.89 for shear
where:
vc = as given by NZS 3101 [11] Clause 9.3.2.2
ecθ = as given by section A5.2.1 (3); immediately following equation 71.A62
= cisb + disb/2
A5.2.7 Determine the design shear per metre width on the tributary area at the supports
Lx
v* = w* (kN/m width) (71.A65)
2
where:
A5.2.8 Check on shear adequacy of the slab panel
If v* ≤ vu,slab, then the slab shear adequacy is ok.
If this check is not satisfied, then consider one or both of the following:
(1) Increase the concrete strength, fc' , to increase vc; and/or

(2) Increase the reinforcement at the edges (ie the edge bars and the interior support bars) until vc
is increased through the additional reinforcement in accordance with NZS 3101 [11]
Equation 9-3.
A5.3 Mesh area required for the preservation of integrity
Integrity is the ability of the floor slab to resist the passage of flame or hot gases [5]. For the floor
specified structural fire severity period (teq).
With a concrete slab cast onto steel deck, integrity is retained even when a full depth crack greater
than around 1mm in width develops in the slab, because the decking will seal the base of the crack
against the passage of flame or hot gasses.
With a concrete slab not cast onto steel deck, the preservation of integrity has to be through limiting
the maximum width of any full depth crack to 1mm.
One of the principal purposes behind the slab panel fire tests [3] was to determine the slab mesh
reinforcement requirements for integrity directly from experiment, in lieu of the provisions of SPM 1,
stipulated in section CA5 of DCB No. 60, which were based on the strong crack control requirements
of AS 3600 [27] and expected to be conservative.
As described in section 4.5, pp.15–16 of DCB No. 70, those provisions are shown to be very
conservative and have been able to be significantly relaxed to the following:
For Speedfloor slabs (which are not cast onto steel decking):
Arx, mesh; Ary,mesh ≥ 200 ⋅ A1(xory) ⋅ A2 (mm² / m width) (71.A49.1)
smesh(xory)
A1(xory) = ≥1 (71.A49.3)
150
t 0 − hrc 2
A2 = ≥1 (71.A49.4)
110
150 mm ≤ smesh(xory) ≤ 250 mm (71.A49.5)

where:
A1 = factor relating to mesh bar spacing (no units)
A2 = factor relating to slab effective depth (no units)
smesh = mesh bar spacing (mm)
A6 Design of Supporting Beams
A6.1 Scope
The supporting beams are those around the slab panel edges that will remain effectively undistorted in
fully developed fire conditions.
For example, in the slab panels shown in Figs. 71.17 and 71.18, they comprise the primary beams
(interior and edge) and the secondary edge beams.
To ensure that they remain effectively undistorted unless they are very greatly overdesigned for fire
emergency conditions, they must be shielded from direct exposure to fire by either:
• passive fire protection; or

• radiation barriers that operate for a suitably long period of time, as detailed in section 7.3 herein.
A6.2 Application
The design of these beams for the fire emergency condition is as follows:
Step 1: Determine the applied fire emergency design load

This is the load w* from equation 71.A1 applied over the tributary area given by the slab panel design,
plus the beam self-weight and any applied dead load directly on the beams.
The primary interior beams are loaded by the area BCDF from slab panel 1 (see Figs. 71.26 or 71.33),
plus the corresponding area from slab panel 2, plus the beam’s selfweight. It is either accurate or
conservative to design these beams for a line load given by;
wu,pib = 0.5 w* (Lx1 + Lx2) + wselfweight (71.A66)
The primary edge beams are loaded by the area ACDE from slab panel 1 (see Figs. 71.26 or 71.33)
plus the beam selfweight and the weight of any cladding supported by the beam.
The secondary edge beams are loaded by the tributary area ACB or EDF from slab panel 1, plus the
beam selfweight and the weight of any cladding supported by the beam. The slab panel loading is
triangular, varying from zero at the ends to L1 w* at midspan. L1 is as given by equation 71.A24. Note
that this loading pattern is considerably different to and may be more severe than that for ambient
temperature design. Where the secondary edge beams are gravity carrying only, this slab panel fire
emergency condition may determine the beam size, because of the increased area of tributary
loading.
Step 2: Determine the limiting temperature on each supporting beam

This is undertaken in accordance with NZS 3404 Clause 11.5 and normal plastic design philosophy. It
involves calculating the factor rf, which is undertaken as follows:
(1) For beams with simple end connections
∗
Mss
rf = (71.A67)
φfire Mpos
where:
∗
M ss = simply supported design bending moment from the step 1 loads
Mpos = Mrc = midspan nominal bending moment capacity of the composite beam
φfire = 1.0, as introduced via NZS 3404 Amendment No. 1
(2) For beams with rigid or semi-rigid end connections
 Mss∗ 
rf =   (71.A68)
 φfire Ì 
pos + φfire Mneg 

where:
Mpos = Mrc
Mneg = for rigid connections, the support nominal negative moment capacity of the
beam, typically Ms
= for semi-rigid connections, the negative moment capacity of the connection
(e.g. see DCB No. 58 for the semi-rigid Flange Bolted Joint and DCB No. 68 for the
semi-rigid Sliding Hinge Joint).
φfire = 1.0
(3) Determine Tl from NZS 3404 [10] Clause 11.5
(4) For the secondary edge beams, if necessary increase the beam moment capacity so
that Tl ≥ 5500C
Step 3: Determine the extent of protection required to the beam. There are two options
available here.
Option 3.1: Using passive fire protection
(1) Determine the FRR required, in accordance with section A3.2 of this appendix and section 4.2
herein.
(2) Select an appropriate material and thickness of insulation required, eg. by using HERA Report
R4-89 [13] and the appropriate product supplier’s design charts. The most cost-effective
material and system should always be used. For beams in interior environments and hidden
from view, use a sprayed cementations coating, or use a board system where the number of
beams requiring protection is small. Relative costings are given in HERA Report R4-96 [23].
Option 3.2: Perform an elevated temperature moment and shear capacity check
This option is particularly suited to the beams of seismic-resisting systems, which are sized for
earthquake and often have a high reserve of strength in fire. It should also be considered for any
beam for which the limiting temperature from step 2 (3) above exceeds 750oC. These members may
not need passive fire protection, however the provisions of NZS 3404 Clauses 11.5 and 11.6 are very
conservative in such instances. A more accurate approach is to calculate the elevated temperature
moment and shear resistance of the beam, as an unprotected member, and to check if this is
adequate, as follows:
Step 3.2.1: Determine the design actions
These are M ∗ss and V*, determined using the loads from step 1 of this section.
Step 3.2.2: Determine the design elevated temperature of the beam and connection
components
For interior beams, use the design temperatures given in Table 71.3 for the unprotected secondary
beam elements.
For edge beams, use 50oC less than the design temperatures for the unprotected secondary beam
elements given in Table 71.3. This applies to all edge beams, whether adjacent to external openings
or not.
The same temperatures are used for the connection components to those interior or edge beams, as
appropriate.
Step 3.2.3: Determine the design elevated temperature moment capacity of the beam
This involves first determining the reduction in yield stress, due to the elevated temperature from step
3.2.2, using Table 71.4 or using Table 3.1 of EC3 Part 1.2 [29] if the appropriate value is not given in
Table 71.4.
The ambient temperature moment capacities, Mpos and Mneg (see step 2 above) are then multiplied by
the reduction factor for the bottom flange to give the elevated temperature moment capacities, Mpos,θ
and Mneg, θ.
Step 3.2.4: Determine moment adequacy through a plastic collapse mechanism check
For a beam with rigid or semi-rigid connections at both ends, this involves satisfying equation 71.A69
∗
(φfire Mpos,θ + φfire Mneg, θ ) ≥ M ss (71.A69)
where:
φfire = 1.0
Step 3.2.5: Check the elevated temperature shear capacity
For beams with rigid end connections, this can be taken as satisfactory.
For beams with semi-rigid or simple connections, check the elevated temperature shear capacity of
the connection, applying the principles given in section A4.2.6(2) with the connection component
temperatures given in step 3.2.2 above. The capacity must equal or exceed V* from step 3.2.1 of this
section.
Step 3.2.6: Conclusion
If steps 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 are satisfied, the supporting beam may be left unprotected.
A7 Design of Supporting Columns
A7.1 Scope
The supporting columns are required to be protected in order that they remain effectively undistorted
in fully developed fire conditions. This will be through the use of passive fire protection.
A7.2 Application
The design of the columns for the fire engineering condition is as follows:
Step 1: Determine the design structural fire severity (FRR) to use on the columns
This is given by sections 7.5 or 7.6 of DCB Issue No. 59 and repeated in section 4.3 herein.
Step 2: Select an appropriate material and thickness of insulation required
Use published guidance, such as HERA Report R4-89 [13] and the appropriate product supplier’s
design charts.
The most cost-effective material and system should always be used. Where the column is hidden
from view, a sprayed cementations coating is preferred. Where the column is exposed, consider a
boarded system. Boarded systems come in a variation of products and prices, with the price being
strongly influenced by the fixing system. This should be as rapid to assemble as possible.
Commentary to Appendix A
CA1 Commentary on Introduction and Scope
The design procedure is written for application to two general types of systems:
(1) In-situ concrete flat slabs and in-situ concrete slabs on profiled steel deck, with the slab
supported on secondary and primary beams. For the slabs on steel deck, there are several
decking profiles available; two of them (Hi-bond [30] and Tray-dec [25]) were included in the
slab panel fire test series [3] undertaken at BRANZ during mid – 2002. Where aspects of the
design procedure are specific to one deck profile, this is stated herein.
(2) Concrete slabs on Speedfloor joists. These are closely spaced, cold-formed joists and are
proprietary product, details of which are given in [14]. They are the only system of their type
currently available in New Zealand and the procedure is specifically written around the
characteristics of that product, such as height of beam ribs. They were also part of the slab
panel fire test program [3].
CA2.1 Commentary on definition of slab panel
For application of this procedure, in a severe fire the supports of the slab panel must remain
effectively undistorted, relative to the peak deformations developed within the slab panel region.
The limiting temperature concept given in NZS 3404 [10] is based on the maximum temperature
reached by an individual (beam) member when at the point of failure under standard fire test
conditions. These test conditions involve unrestrained supports and a load level such that a failure
deflection of around beam span/25 (Lb/25) is reached at a limiting temperature of 5500C [13].
When the same beam is placed into a building, with simple supports (such as WP or FE
connections from [6]) and is heated in a natural fire to 5500C, the actual deflection that will be
reached is very much lower, even for a beam carrying the maximum ratio of (design fire emergency
load) to (design load-carrying capacity at room temperature). The range of deflections reached in
this situation have been determined from realistic fire tests, eg. as summarised in [16] – see
especially Tables 5.1 and 5.2 therein, or given by test 1 from [17]. They are no more than Lb/100,
with an expected maximum of Lb/75. These deflections will typically be reached in the interior
beams, edge beam deflections will be lower. Over half of this deflection is due to thermal effects
and is recovered on cooling.
The maximum expected deformation within the slab panel will occur along the yielding length CD,
in Fig. 71.26. This could be as high as Lx/12.5 (comprising Lx/25 of mechanical effects and Lx/25 of
thermal-induced rotation). An example is shown in Fig. 71.10.
Thus the peak deflections of the slab panel supporting members will be no greater than 1/6th of the
peak slab panel deflections, which meets the “effectively undistorted” criterion.
CA2.2 Commentary on determining the size of the slab panel
No commentary explanation is needed with respect to Lx.
The lower limit on Ly = Lx is applied principally for ease of application of the design procedure, and
also because it represents a realistic lower limit in most instances. In the rare instance where
Ly < Lx, then the procedure can be applied with the orientation of the dimensions Ly and Lx reversed
from that shown in Figs. 71.26 or 71.33. Alternatively a conservative answer may be obtained by
setting Ly = Lx.
The upper limit on Ly = 30m is used because of the migrating fire behaviour that will occur in large
firecells of multi-storey buildings. This means that only part of a large open slab panel will be
subjected to fully developed fire conditions at any one time, thus a limit on slab panel long
dimension (Ly) is reasonable to apply. The same issue was faced in developing the separation
distance criteria of C/AS1 [5]. The BIA Working Group 20 (of which the HERA Structural Engineer
was a member) considered that using a 30 m maximum emitter width for determining separation
criteria was an appropriate allowance for the migrating fire effect and the same concept and figure
is used here. This maximum length, for Ly, is applicable to slab panels that are open in terms of fire
spread (e.g. an open plan office). For buildings containing full height walls and especially fire
and/or sound rated walls, fire spread will be much reduced. For an apartment building, a
conservative slab panel width would be the width of two adjacent apartments.
In practice, Lx = 12 m would be a typical upper limit on the shorter panel dimension, thus Ly = 30
denotes a panel with Ly/Lx ≥ 2.5. The calculation of wu (see section A4.2.5) is not very sensitive to
Ly/Lx, once Ly/Lx ≥ 2.5, which means any unconservatism inherent in limiting Ly to 30 m is negligible
and in practice will be more than compensated for by ignoring the benefits of non-uniform fire
conditions and heating of floor components within the slab panel region.
The slab panel load-carrying capacity is developed by two-way action, however, and as Ly/Lx
increases, the advantages of two-way action diminish. At Ly/Lx = 2.5, the yield-line capacity for a
slab panel with mx = my is 1.58 times that for one-way action along Lx alone, while at Ly/Lx = 5 it is
only 1.26 times the one-way capacity. It is therefore recommended that Ly/Lx ≤ 2.5 is used, in
practice. This can be achieved by designing selected secondary interior beams as slab panel
edges, where required. See details in section A2.2. This decision has load-carrying capacity
implications for those beams, which may need to have their strength under fire emergency
conditions increased accordingly.
CA3.2 Commentary on design structural fire severity
Note that, in a sprinklered building, a sprinkler reduction factor is not used in calculating teq for this
procedure. This is because the design procedure is based on design for the event of sprinkler
failure and subsequent full fire development.
This procedure is intended for application to multi-storey office buildings and other applications with
Fire Hazard Category (FHC) of 1 – 3 (see C/AS1 [5] Table 2.1). When these buildings are
sprinklered, the probability of a fire reaching full development in any one building is assessed at 1.2
x 10-5 or less [18]. This is an extremely small probability; some 150 times less than the probability
of a building being subjected to any other ultimate limit state event [18]. Even the probability of fully
developed fire following severe earthquake in a sprinklered building is an order of magnitude less
than the probability of occurrence of the earthquake itself [18].
CA4 Commentary on Slab Panel Design Method; Floors Incorporating In-Situ Concrete Slabs
on Profiled Steel Sheeting, Supported by Primary and Secondary Composite Beams
CA4.1 Temperatures of slab panel components and associated mechanical properties
In reporting [9] on the ambient temperature tensile membrane test undertaken to verify this design
methodology, Bailey advises that for structural fire severities (ie. time equivalent periods)
exceeding around 30 mins, the elevated temperatures of the mesh reinforcement and the
appropriate reduction in ambient temperature mechanical properties need to be taken into account.
This New Zealand application of this tensile membrane procedure [2] is developed principally for
use in office buildings with normal weight concrete floors, where the structural fire severity will
typically be not less than 50 mins and could be higher than 180 mins. In such instances, it is
important that as realistic assessment of the elevated temperatures of the structural components
as possible is made and that appropriate elevated temperature mechanical properties are used.
As part of the research undertaken in developing the first edition of the SPM procedure, HERA
undertook a broad range of advanced heat transfer analyses in order to determine the
temperatures of the concrete, decking and reinforcement for a typical slab an profiled steel decking
subjected to a wide range of natural fire conditions. Summary details were presented in DCB No.
59 and the results were used in the SPM first edition. The slab panel fire tests [3] have provided a
comprehensive set of experimental data with which to compare all the analytical results and make
adjustments where appropriate. This has been done; the differences between the predicted
temperatures from this second edition and those of the first edition are presented in DCB No. 70.
This has further enhanced the accuracy of the temperature prediction provisions for the critical slab
panel components, which are:
• reinforcing mesh within the slab (section A4.1.1)

• additional bar reinforcement (sections A4.1.2, A4.1.3)
• concrete and decking on the fire exposed underside of the slab (section A4.1.4)
A background to the elevated temperature mechanical properties used for these components is
given in CA4.1.1 - CA4.1.3.
As can be seen from Figs. 71.17, 71.18, 71.12, there are more components involved in a slab
panel than the four mentioned above. Background to the temperature/mechanical property
requirements for the rest of those components is now given:
• The trimmer bars and edge bars (see Fig. 71.12) are present to ensure there is continuity of
tension force transfer from the mesh reinforcement across the top of the slab panel supporting
beams and into these beams through the shear studs. They also assist in shear resistance.
However, an explicit calculation of tensile force from these bars is not required, so their
temperature and mechanical properties do not require determination.
• The shear studs on the supporting beams are important to the overall system performance
when the supporting beams are composite, however their elevated temperature capacity is not
required to be determined. Observations from the Cardington fire tests [17] show that they
maintain full shear connection between the concrete slab and supporting steel beams under
severe fire conditions.
• The unprotected secondary beams (Fig. 71.17) reach very high temperatures, however they still
make the dominant contribution to the slab panel positive moment in the x-direction per unit
length along the y-axis, compared to the reinforcement within the slab. Derivation of the design
temperatures and elevated temperature mechanical properties used for these secondary beam
components is given in CA4.1.5. The slab panel fire tests [3] did not include a slab panel with
unprotected supporting secondary beams, however the Speedfloor test slab panel included
three unprotected Speedfloor joists, as shown in Fig. 71.35. The central joist, in particular, made
a significant contribution to the stiffness of the slab panel, increasing the rate and magnitude of
deflection in the initial 30 mins and then decreasing the rate of deflection with time from 90
minutes onward. This can be seen from comparing the deflection curves for the 661 flat slab
and the Speedfloor slab in Fig. 70.4, DCB No. 70. This contribution was made despite the
significant buckling experienced by the joists, especially the central joist, as shown in Fig. 71.35.
Unprotected secondary beam I–sections undergo only minor local buckling away from the
supports in severe fire conditions, as shown for example in Fig. 59.2 in DCB No. 59 and
throughout the Cardington fire tests [17]. Their contribution to slab panel strength and stiffness
will be significantly greater, can be dependably calculated and is incorporated into the design
procedure as described in section A4.1.5 and Figure 71.30.
• The Speedfloor joists (Fig. 71.18, 71.16) make an appreciable contribution to slab panel positive
moment in the x-direction, however significant local buckling of the joist elements beneath the
concrete (see Fig. 71.35) makes the contribution from these elements impossible to quantify for
design. However, the contribution from the elements embedded in the floor slab can be
dependably quantified, as detailed in section A5.1.3.
• Derivation of the temperatures in the bolts of the secondary beam to primary beam connections
and in the web of the secondary beam at the connection to the primary beam is covered in
CA4.1.6.
CA4.1.1 Mesh within the concrete slab; elevated temperature mechanical properties
The provisions for determining component temperature given in the first edition have been modified
for greater accuracy on the basis of the experimental testing. These modifications are fine-tuning
and involve:
• Changes to the design heat paths used to calculate component temperatures

• Changes to the coefficient Cs,θ, which was previously obtained from [8]
• These modified provisions from [8] apply to flat slabs without decking. Their accuracy,
compared with the experimental results, is shown as the SPM 2 values in DCB No. 70 Figs.
70.8, 70.9 and 70.12 – 70.15 inclusive. Also shown is the corresponding results from the first
edition provisions, termed the SPM 1 values.
• For a flat slab on steel deck, the deck provides significant insulation at lower time equivalent
values, with this influence diminishing as the time equivalent (structural fire severity) increases.
A specific equation has been developed for this, based on the Traydec test results. This is
equation 71.A6.2; its accuracy is shown in Figs. 70.12 to 70.15, DCB No. 70.
• For the trapezoidal (Hi-bond) profile, another specific relationship between θs, teq and the
position of reinforcement has been developed. This is equation 71.A6.3; its accuracy is shown
in Figs. 70.12 to 70.15.
Having obtained the mesh temperature, the variation of mechanical properties with temperature
needs to be determined. This can be obtained from a number of sources, such as NZS 3101 [11],
however the values given in EC2 Part 1.2 [28] are more appropriate to use, for the following
reasons:
• They differentiate between cold-worked and hot-formed reinforcement, which is desirable, given
that the properties are different and the mesh could be of either sort. However, the table
headings given for each form of mesh in [28] are the wrong way around. The correct
assignment of properties is made herein.
• Values are given for strains ≥ 2%, which is appropriate to the magnitude of deformation
developed by the slab panel in severe fire conditions at the ultimate limit state
The relationships for cold-worked bars are given in Table A.3 of [28], while those for hot-formed
bars are given in Table A.4 of [28].
In applying them to this procedure, the hot-formed bar relationship is presented as a set of data
points, with linear interpolation between each point. These are equations 71.A7.1 to 71.A7.5. The
cold-worked relationships of Table A.3 of [28] can be expressed in linear equation form, without
loss of accuracy, and this approach is used herein.
The cold-worked provisions cover grade L mesh to AS/NZS 4671 [24], while the hot-formed
provisions cover grade E or N mesh or bars to [24].
CA4.1.2 Interior support bars; elevated temperature mechanical properties
These bars are hot-formed grade E (typically) to [24], hence the variation of mechanical properties
with temperature are taken from Table A.4 of [28].
CA4.1.3 Deck trough bars; elevated temperate mechanical properties
Determination of temperature of these bars depends on the decking profile and uses the profile –
specific equations developed from [3].
These bars are hot-formed grade E (typically) to [24], hence the variation of mechanical properties
with temperature are taken from Table A.4 of [28].
CA4.1.4 Concrete; elevated temperature mechanical properties
These are taken from NZS 3101 [11], rather than EC2, for three reasons:
• The values in [11] have been developed for concretes incorporating New Zealand aggregates,
while the values in [28] are for concretes with European aggregates
• The values in [11] have been used to develop the table in HERA Report R4-82 [8] from which
ecθ is obtained
• Any inherent conservatism in the value of fcè

'
has minimal influence on the design capacity
CA4.1.5 Unprotected secondary beam components; temperatures reached and elevated temperature
mechanical properties
The unprotected secondary beam components are exposed to the fully developed fire and reach
correspondingly high temperatures. It is important, in developing this design procedure, to make a
suitable determination of the design temperatures for these elements. The process that has been
gone through to derive the design temperatures given in Table 71.3 is as follows:
Step 1: Determine the maximum average fire temperatures reached, at any time, from
experimental real fire testing, around the secondary beams over an area affecting more than one
beam.
The test used for this determination has been the Cardington Demonstration Furniture test, which
generated the highest temperatures of all such tests reported in the literature. This real fire test
involved a 135m2 enclosure, fire load of 46kg/m2 floor area (920MJ/m2), including 20% plastic, and
the position, extent of ventilation arranged so as to generate the maximum structural fire security
[17]. The fire generated peak gas temperatures of over 1100oC, with a heat release rate of 40MW.
For a period of around 10-15 minutes, gas temperatures reached a maximum average of around
1000oC over an area of the enclosure encompassing two supporting secondary beams. Average
temperatures over the enclosure as a whole remained below 1000oC at all times, while spot
temperatures reached just over 1100oC. See details in Fig. 71.36. The minimum area to which
this slab panel procedure would be realistically applied is to a square of length and width equal to
the secondary beam span, which is 60% of the Demonstration Test enclosure area. Therefore an
appropriate upper bound gas temperature to take, as being applied uniformly over the slab panel
area, for this fire, is 1000oC. This is used as the peak temperature for FHC 2 and light-weight
concrete (LWC). (The test fire load, at 920 MJ/m2 floor area (80% cellulose, 20% plastic),
corresponds to FHC 2 (800 MJ/m2 floor area) and the concrete used in the floor slabs was LWC,
density = 1900 kg/m3).
Step 2: Extend the result to normal weight concrete (NWC) and to FHC 1 and 3 fuel loads.
This was undertaken by running the fire model described in DCB No. 59 (see section 3, pages 8-11
therein) for enclosures with appropriate differences in thermal inertia and fire load. The different
values of enclosure thermal inertia used were b = 1200 J/m2s0.5C for the Cardington test which is
appropriate for the concrete density (1900 kg/m3) used, compared with b = 1700 J/m2s0.5C for NWC
construction. The different fire loads were 400MJ /m2 floor area for FHC1, 800 MJ/m2 floor area for
FHC2 and 1200 MJ/m2 floor area for FHC3.
These results showed the following:
• ∆θg = + 100ºC in going from NWC → LWC

• ∆θg = + 70ºC in going from FHC2 → FHC3
• ∆θg = - 50ºC in going from FHC2 → FHC1
These values were used to adjust θg = 1000oC for (FHC2, LWC) to the five other cases.
Step 3: Obtain the beam element temperatures from the gas temperatures.
The relationships used are taken from analysis of the Cardington test data and are as detailed in
HERA Report R4-90-DD-Rev 2 [12]. They are:
• beam bottom flange and web; θs = 0.95 x θg

• beam top flange; θs = θg – 150oC
The values so obtained were rounded to the nearest 50o C, to give the steel beam element
temperatures presented in Table 71.3.
These temperatures apply to the secondary beams away from their ends. At the beam ends
adjacent to the primary beams, even when the primary beams are unprotected, the temperatures
are consistently lower, with the beam web and bolt temperatures being slightly less than the top
flange temperatures given in Table 71.3.
Having obtained the design temperatures for the secondary beam elements, the next step is to
obtain elevated temperature mechanical properties. Given the high temperatures and strain levels
involved, it is important to use published values that are the most appropriate to this application.
The most accurate set of data is that from Poh [31], which covers stress/strain/time characteristics
for grade 250/300 steel beams, for temperatures up to 1200oC. However, given the development
of this procedure for design rather than as a research tool, it was considered desirable to use data
from an established standard. In this case, EC3 Part 1.2 [29] Table 3.1 was used to give
(fysbθ/fysb20) for each beam element. The results are given in Table 71.4.
CA4.1.6 Secondary beam to primary beam connections; bolts and secondary beam web
Even when the primary and secondary beams are both unprotected, the connection region is
cooler than the regions away from the connections [17]. This is allowed for in the procedure by
applying the beam top flange temperature given in Table 71.3 to the beam web and bolts at the
connection region.
Where the primary beam is protected, which will typically be the case, considerably lower
connection component and connector temperatures will occur, eg. as given in HERA Report R4-
DD-Rev 2 [12] Section 4.5.3.2. This will be ensured by the requirement, from section 4.5 and Fig.
71.11, to extend the protection through the connection region and slightly into the secondary beam.
The elevated temperature relationship for bolt tensile strength presented in equation 71.A10 is
based on UK test data, as described in section 4.3.3 of [12]. The data has been derived from tests
on UK high strength structural bolts (equivalent to our property class 8.8 bolts).
CA4.2 Design adequacy of slab panel; concrete slabs on profiled steel decking
CA4.2.1 Yieldline load-carrying capacity of slab panel
The minimum area of mesh required for integrity has been determined from the experimental
testing [3] and is given in section A4.3.
Determination of all yieldline moment capacities follows standard reinforced concrete theory [19].
For the positive moment capacities (mx and my), the concrete compression block (see Fig. 71.30) is
at the top of the slab and so is taken at ambient temperature concrete strength. The tension force
developed by all components is reduced by elevated temperature as previously described.
The unprotected secondary beam contribution within the slab panel to mx is treated as a line load,
by dividing the contribution from each beam by the beam spacing. This is sufficiently accurate
where there are at least three such beams within the panel length, Ly. (Fig. 71.26 shows five
beams, for example). Where there are only 1 or 2 beams, then this approach may overestimate
the secondary beam contribution and designer judgement will be required to determine if the
contribution needs modifying from that used herein.
While the tension/compression force distribution shown in Fig. 71.30 provides a realistic basis for
determining mx moment for yieldline capacity determination, the strain state leading to these
stresses under severe fire conditions is very different to that which would develop under ambient
temperature conditions. This is because of the complex effects of fire-induced heating on the slab-
secondary beam system. In practice, the unprotected secondary beams will be subject to rapid
heating, leading to compression pre-straining into the inelastic range due to restraint of thermal
expansion of the beam by the slab. This differential heating also causes the slab panel to deform
towards the fire, as shown in Fig. 70.4, DCB No. 70.
With increasing heating and weakening of the system, the buildup of compression strain in the
beam elements slows and then reverses, due to the influence of the applied loading moment-
induced tension on the beam elements. This generates tensile stress in the beam elements
associated with inelastic tensile straining. This condition occurs as the slab panel deformation is
increasing towards its maximum value and is the condition represented by the stress state
in Fig. 71.30. This is seen from the Speedfloor slab panel test reported in [3].
Thus the strain history of the secondary beam connected to the slab via shear studs and subject to
severe fire is complex, with a regime of inelastic compression strain development, followed by
inelastic tension strain development in the midspan region, where the loading-induced positive
moment effect is greatest.
With the slab itself, the initial period of rapid vertical deflection due to thermal effects causes the
slab reinforcement to go into tension. After around 20-30 minutes of standard fire exposure, the
tensile strains peak and reduce, then becoming compressive. This is despite the vertical
downwards deflection continuing to increase. See details in [3].
The unprotected secondary beam contribution included herein also assumes the following:
(i) The secondary beams are of uniform cross section. If beams of varying cross section along
their length are used, the secondary beam contribution must be amended (or, conservatively,
ignored). For tapered beams of triangular cross section (minimum at ends, maximum at centre),
use the dimensions at the third point along the beam span.
(ii) There are no openings in the webs of these beams.
If there are web openings and they are reinforced, then the web contribution can be determined
as given by equation 71.A11.3.
If there are web openings and they are unreinforced, then either the web contribution can
conservatively be ignored or a reduced web area used. This will only be required where the
openings are within the middle two quarters of the secondary beams (which is their typical
location).
Where more than one source of tension force development exists within the cross section, the
centroid of that force from the top of concrete must be determined. This is erx or ery, given by
equations 71.A12 and 71.A17, respectively. This value is used in determining the tensile
membrane enhancement arising from displacement of the centre of the slab panel relative to the
supports, in equations 71.A36 and 71.A37.
( )
For the negative moment capacity m 'x , the concrete compression block is on the fire-exposed
side and is therefore affected by elevated temperature. The loss of concrete strength due to
elevated temperature is accounted for, through the values of ecθ given in section A4.2.1 (3). The
concept is shown in Fig. 71.29 and the values given have been derived as follows:
(1) The maximum temperatures developed in the fire exposed concrete from all the natural fire
test cases given in DCB Issue No. 59 Table 59.1 have been determined. These
temperatures are listed in section A4.1.4 herein.
(2) The times taken to reach the same temperatures under standard ISO fire curve heating have
been determined; these times are also listed in section A4.1.4.
(3) The results from (1) and (2) have been checked for consistency with the experimental test
results.
(4) The tension force that can be developed by the maximum area of interior support bar
reinforcement has been determined, by taking this reinforcement at full yield stress.
(5) The depth of concrete in compression requied to balance this tension force, for the
appropriate standard fire test time, has been determined from HERA Report R4-82 [8]
Table 6. See Fig. 71.29 for this concept.
(6) The resulting value of eccentricity from that table is the value of ecθ used in the calculations
for m 'x . That value accounts directly for loss of concrete strength due to elevated
temperatures.
The diameter of mesh bar used for cold-drawn mesh to AS/NZS 4671 [24], ie. dmesh, ranges
from 5.3 mm to 11.2 mm.
Mesh cover is 30mm for slabs on profiled steel deck, as specified by NZS 3404 Commentary
Clause C13.2.2(a).
The additional bar reinforcement shown in Fig. 71.12 sits on top of the mesh reinforcement for
slabs on profiled steel deck.
The equation for yield-line load carrying capacity of a rectangular slab panel, equation 71.A22.1, is
from [19].
CA4.2.2 Yieldline capacity of simply-supported slab panel
The BRE method [2] has been developed for a simply supported slab panel, as it is assumed
(correctly) that cold-worked mesh reinforcement across any interior supports will fracture under the
negative curvatures developed. Hence the interior support bars are grade 500E deformed bars to
[24] rather than grade L mesh. The tensile membrane enhancement, given by equation 71.A42,
has been normalised with respect to the simply-supported load-carrying capacity [2] and it is
therefore applied only to that capacity, in equation 71.A43. Thus the simply supported load-
carrying capacity and the higher load-carrying capacity developed by including the interior support
bar contribution must both be determined.
CA4.2.3 Limiting deflection of slab panel
The limiting deflection equations are in the form of those proposed by Bailey [2], but modified as a
result of the analytical (DCB No. 59) and experimental fire testing [3] work undertaken. The first
term is the deflection due to thermal effects; the second term the deflection under applied loading.
The thermal effects are determined from the peak temperature difference between the top and
bottom of the slab. Bailey used 770oC, based on standard fire tests; we have used 770oC based
on the thermal analyses under natural fire conditions reported in DCB Issue No. 59. This value is
also consistent with the experimental test results [3].
Bailey comments [2] that, comparing the results of the method with the Cardington tests, there is a
“factor of safety” of around 2.4 in these equations, in terms of the limiting deflection allowed
compared with the deflection necessary to generate the full width crack at mid-span that is taken
[2] as the failure point for slab panel tensile membrane action. The slab panel experimental tests of
June / July 2002 [3] provided the opportunity to test a range of slab panels to the same failure point
as reached in the UK ambient temperature slab panel test reported in [9]. The key points that we
wanted to determine from these experimental tests were:
• Were the deflection limits given in DCB No. 60 appropriate?

• Were limits on slab panel behaviour set by the ambient temperature ductility capability of the
mesh required under severe fire conditions?
• What level of reinforcement is required for integrity?
• What is the behaviour over time and the final mode(s) of failure under severe fire conditions
compared with those determined for ambient temperature loading?
• At what time and at what deflection does the second edition of the SPM procedure predict
failure in relation to the experimental results?
All these questions were able to be answered from the experimental tests and the results of those
tests [3] have been used to modify the slab panel deflection limits as appropriate. To elaborate:
(i) The deflection term due to thermal gradient effects was consistent with the test results [3], so
that term (the first term in each equation) is unchanged from that in DCB No. 60, except for
replacing he with (t0 – 0.5hrc).
(ii) The second term in equation 71.A23.1 was originally based on developing a limiting strain of
0.5åy,20 in the longitudinal (y) direction [9]. This was a mesh ductility limit and was raised to
0.7åy,20 in DCB No. 60, based on a conservative assessment of the additional ductility
available from grade L mesh at temperatures of 300ºC to 700ºC. The slab panel tests [3]
confirmed this temperature range as realistic but showed the 0.7åy,20 limit to be still very
conservative. It has been raised to 0.9åy,20 which is still well within the capability of the grade
L mesh to develop in severe fire conditions.
(iii) The second term in equation 71.A23.2 was originally Lx/30, as recommended by Bailey [2].
This was also justified by the low ambient temperature ductility capability of the cold-drawn
wire mesh, as described in CA4.2.3 of DCB No. 60. However, the slab panel fire tests [3]
have shown the mesh to have considerably greater ductility in fire conditions, thus allowing
the Lx/30 limit to be raised to Lx/25.
(iv) The approach taken in determining refinements to these deflection limits has been as
follows:
• Determine what limits on deflection and load carrying capacity for the D147 flat slab,
which developed the full tensile membrane failure mechanism, put the full tensile
membrane failure point within the region of stable behaviour and before any observed full
depth cracks developed.
• Propose modifications to the deflection limits
• Determine the predicted failure point and compare with the experimental behaviour for
the 5 other test slab panels.
• Propose final changes once these steps are successfully completed
This process is described in section 4.4, p. 15 of DCB No. 70, and the results are shown in
Figs. 70.16 and 70.17 therein
When calculating ∆ max from equations 71.A23, it is found that the thermal and mechanical
contributions to deflection are generally similar. This means that the maximum vertical deflection of
the slab panel at CD relative to the primary interior beams could be Lx/13. The realistic worst case
in terms of negative rotation of the slab over the primary interior beams involves one slab panel at
full (thermal plus mechanical) deflection and the adjacent slab panel at full mechanical deflection
(having been subjected to fully developed fire and in the cool-down stage). Applying the same
approach for bar extension as that used above for the mesh shows that Grade 500E reinforcement
to AS/NZS 4671 [24], which has a minimum specified ambient temperature elongation of 10%, will
be able to accommodate this rotation without fracture, however grade 500L mesh bars will be
expected to fracture over the interior supports, as assumed in [2] and seen in [17].
CA4.2.4 Determination of tensile membrane enhancement
Equation 71.A24 is from [19] and is required to calculate dimension L1. For slab panels with
slightly flexible supports, as is the case in this instance, it is important to determine L1 based on the
critical variables mx, my, Lx, Ly, rather than assume a yieldline angle of intersection with the corners
of 45o [19].
The derivation of equations 71.A25 to 71.A42 is given in [2], except for notation changes to suit
New Zealand practice and the generalising of the terms to allow for multiple sources of tension
capacity in developing mx and my. An error from [2] in equation 71.A38 for e1bx , which is described
in DCB No. 66, p. 12, has been corrected.
Users should note that there will be instances where equation 71.A37 gives a negative value for
e2my . This is not an error; it simply shows that the enhancement due to displacement of the slab
panel centre relative to the supports has been overestimated for element 1 and this needs to be
compensated for.
The limits on tensile membrane enhancement proposed in DCB No. 66, pp. 10–11, have been
shown [3] not to be necessary and are removed in this second edition of the SPM procedure.
CA4.2.5 Check on moment/tension membrane adequacy
If the slab panel moment/tension membrane capacity is not adequate, options for increasing this
capacity include:
(1) Place deck trough bars to increase my.

(2) Increase the mesh reinforcement, noting the restriction on mesh pitch and grade in the
accompanying article.
(3) Increase the size of the supporting unprotected secondary beams
(4) Increase the concrete thickness and mesh cover to increase mx, my (however this also
increases w*).
See section 10 on page 14 herein for further guidance on obtaining a cost-effective solution.
CA4.2.6 Determining the shear capacity of the slab panel
(1) Shear capacity through the slab.
There are five points here to note in the commentary;
(i) As shown in Fig. 71.32, the slab shear check is undertaken along the primary support
beams rather than the secondary support (edge) beams. There are two reasons for
this. First is that the depth of concrete resisting shear is greater onto the secondary
beams (the average depth, he, rather than cover slab depth, to – hrc). Secondly, the
decking itself contributes to the shear resistance onto the secondary edge beams, as
the webs of the deck can develop some shear resistance, even at elevated
temperature, in that direction.
(ii) The loading on the secondary edge beams is triangular rather than uniform, making
the primary support beams more uniformly loaded and more critical for shear.
(iii) The depth of concrete, dv, used to resist shear is measured from the effective extreme
compression fibre of concrete to the centroid of longitudinal tension reinforcement
[11]. Over the supports, the centroid of the longitudinal tension reinforcement can be
taken as the centroid of the interior support bars, or edge bars, as appropriate. These
sit on top of the mesh and so increase dv. However, the extreme compression fibre is
not at the fire exposed concrete face, because of strength loss due to heating. For the
concrete temperatures involved, the effective extreme compression fibre can be taken
as 0.67ecθ from the heated face of the concrete. This is derived from [8] and the
determination of ecθ.
(iv) For slabs, the minimum concrete contribution is set by NZS 3101 Clause 9.3.2.2 as
0.17 fc' . For a flat slab or a slab on profiled steel deck, this minimum value will
apply for any practiable level of tension reinforcement, so the concrete slab shear
contibution is independent of the actual level of slab bar reinforcement supplied at the
supports.
(v) The strength reduction factor for concrete shear in fire, φfire = 0.75/0.85 = 0.89. This
comes from applying φfire = (φ/0.85) ≤ 1.0, in conjunction with φc = 0.75 for shear in
concrete, from NZS 3101 [11].
(2) Shear capacity available through the secondary beam to primary beam connection.
The slab and secondary beam are an integral unit, so for the slab to suffer a shear failure at
the primary beams, the secondary to primary beam connection will also have to undergo a
shear failure.
The minimum elevated temperature shear capacity at peak heating can be realistically
assessed as the minimum elevated temperature capaicty of either the bolt group in single
shear or the beam web in shear. Both modes are checked and the minimum capacity
selected; see equations 71.A47.1 to 71.A47.3; see equations 71.A47.1 to 71.A47.3. Where
the supporting primary beam is protected, the bolts connecting the secondary beam to
primary beam will also be protected, as described in section 4.5 and Fig. 71.11. However,
the reduced capacity of the unprotected beam web, given by equation 71.A47.2, will still
apply.
(3) Shear resistance during cool-down.
During the cool-down period, the sides of the slab panel, including the secondary beam to
primary beam connections, are subjected to increasing tension force. However, the
mechancial capacity of these components is also increasing as their temperature decreases.
The shear resistance and integrity will be maintained during this period provided that:
(i) The connections can accommodate the tension force without fracture of the bolts or
connection components, and
(ii) The ability to transfer longitudinal tension force through the slab panel edges into their
supports is not lost.
Connections designed and detailed to HERA Report R4-100 [6] are specifically configured to
avoid fracture under either inelastic rotation or fire-induced tension under cool-down; thus
suppressing failure from (i). One of the important functions of the edge and the interior
support bars is to suppress failure from (ii).
CA4.2.8 Check on shear adequacy
Obviously, option (1) is not possible in such instances as where the secondary beams are deeper
than the primary beams, unless the top of steel of each beam is at suitably different levels.
CA4.3 Mesh area required for the preservation of integrity
See DCB No. 70, section 4.5, pp. 15–16, for the background to these requirements.
CA5 Commentary on Slab Panel Design Method; Floors Incorporating In-Situ Concrete Slabs
on Speedfloor Joists Supported on Primary Beams
Application of the slab panel method to concrete slabs on Speedfloor joists supported on primary
beams follows much the same procedure as for concrete slabs on steel deck supported on
secondary and primary beams. The floor system layout is as shown in Fig. 71.33; the additional
reinforcement shown in Fig. 71.12 also applies.
Minor differences in terms of the position of mesh within the slab and position of additional bar
reinforcement are due to physical differences in the systems, in particular the protrusion of the top
of the Speedfloor joists into the slab and the manner in which the slab is cast. For those unfamiliar
with the Speedfloor system, refer to these details in [14].
There are three differences between the Speedfloor system and a composite floor system including
a concrete slab cast onto steel decking. These are now addressed insofar as they effect the design
procedure:
1. Preservation of integrity.
The lack of a steel deck to seal any through-depth cracking has an influence and the minimum
mesh area required to preserve integrity. This is covered in section A5.3, with the commentary
given in DCB No. 70, section 4.5, pp. 15–16.
2. Contribution of Speedfloor joists to moment capacity in the x-direction
In the first edition of the SPM design procedure, the contribution of the Speedfloor joists to the
development of mx was not included, however an indication of how this might be changed in a
failure revision was given in the commentary.
The experimental tests [3] showed that the Speedfloor joists do make a significant contribution to
the slab panel strength and stiffness, as described in section CA4.1 and Fig. 71.34. They also
provided sufficient data to allow the contribution from some of each joist, namely the elements
embedded in the concrete slab, to be included in the determination of mx. This has been done, in
section A5.1.3. A description of the process used is given in that section.
3. Resistance of shear at primary beams
The Speedfloor joists are not assumed capable of developing any shear resistance under severe
fire conditions and thus assisting in developing shear capacity at the slab panel to primary beam
supports. This is different to a conventional secondary beam and would be a worthwhile topic for
further research. The slab panel tests [3] did not provide any new data to enable changes to be
made in this regard.
CA5.3 Mesh area required for the preservation of integrity
See DCB No. 70, section 4.5, pp. 15–16, for the background to these requirements.
CA6 Design of Supporting Beams
CA6.2 Application
Note that the positive moment capacity of the supporting beams is the composite moment capacity,
Mrc.
When determining the adequacy of the supporting beams, two options are given. These are to suit
the beam conditions that will be encounted in practice.
The first option (option 3.1) involves applying passive fire protection in accordance with traditional
practice. This will be required for support beams, which are simply supported and designed to
carry gravity loading only.
The second option (option 3.2) is intended for lightly loaded beams, especially those that are part
of seismic-resisting systems and which therefore have a high reserve of strength in fire. It takes
into account the cooling effect which occurs at the edge of an enclosure, irrespective of whether
that edge is adjacent to openings or not. This effect is seen in all the Cardington enclosure tests
[17] and is quantified for design purposes, conservatively, in [37]. That recommendation is used in
step 3.2.2 herein.
The determination of moment adequacy through a plastic collapse mechanism check, in step 3.2.4,
follows established theory. Further guidance on applying this to different beam support conditions
can be found in section 6.1 of HERA Report R4-82 [8].
For beams with rigid connections, elevated temperature shear capacity is satisfied without the need
for an explicit check. With semi-rigid connections, this will also typically be the case; with simple
connections a check from first principles will be needed, using the minimum of the bolt group
elevated temperature shear capacity and the beam web elevated temperature shear capacity.
References (13) Barber, DJ; HERA Fire Protection Manuals
Protection of Steel; HERA, Manukau City,
(1) AS/NZS 2312:2002, Guide to the Protection
1996, HERA Report, R4-89.
of Structural Steel Against Atmospheric
Corrosion by the Use of Protective Coatings;
(14) Speedfloor Design Manual; Speedfloor
Holdings Ltd, Auckland, 2001.
(2) Bailey, CG; Design of Steel Structures With
Composite Slabs at the Fire Limit State; UK (15) NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
Building Research Establishment, Watford, and Design Loadings for Buildings;
England, 2000, Report No. 81415. Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New
Zealand.
(3) Lim, L and Wade, C; Experimental Fire
Tests of Two-Way Concrete Slabs; (16) Clifton, GC and Forrest, E; Notes Prepared
University of Canterbury School of for a Seminar on Design of Steel Buildings
Engineering, Christchurch, 2002, Fire for Fire Emergency Conditions; HERA,
Engineering Research Report 02/12. Manukau City, 1996, HERA Report R4-91.
(4) NZBC:1992, New Zealand Building Code; (17) Kirby, BR; The Behaviour of a Multi-Storey
Building Industry Authority, Wellington. Steel Framed Building Subject to Fire Attack
- Experimental Data; British Steel Swinden
(5) C/AS1: 2001, Acceptable Solution for Fire Technology Centre, United Kingdom, 1998.
Safety; Building Industry Authority, Also data from BRE, Cardington, on the
Wellington, New Zealand. Corner Fire Test and Large Compartment
Fire Test, 1996.
(6) Hyland C; Structural Steelwork Connections
Guide Incorporating Amendment No. 1; (18) Feeney, MJ and Buchanan, AH; Accounting
HERA, Manukau City, New Zealand, for Sprinkler Effectiveness in Performance
1999/2001, HERA Report R4-100. Based Design of Steel Buildings; University
of Canterbury, Christchurch, 2000, Report
(7) Buchanan, AH (Editor); Fire Engineering No. 2000/15.
Design Guide, Second Edition; Centre for
Advanced Engineering, University of (19) Park, R; Ultimate Strength Design of
Canterbury, Christchurch, 2001. Reinforced Concrete Slabs, Volume 2;
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, 1970
(8) Barber, DJ; Calculation of the Fire (approx).
With Profiled Steel Sheet Under Fire (20) Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel,
Emergency Conditions; HERA, Manukau Third Edition, Volume 1: Open Sections;
City, 1994, HERA Report R4-82. Australian Institute of Steel Construction,
(9) Bailey, CG; The Tensile Membrane Action of
Unrestrained Composite Slabs Simulated (21) Clifton, GC and Feeney, MJ; Fire
Under Fire Conditions; UK Building Engineering Application to Multi-Storey Steel
Research Establishment, Watford, England, Structures; The Inaugural New Zealand
2000, paper accepted for publication in Metals Industry Conference, Rotorua, 2002,
Engineering Structures. Paper No. 14; HERA, Manukau City, 2002.
(10) NZS 3404: 1997, plus Amendment No. 1: (22) Clifton, GC et.al.; Design of Multi-Storey
2001, Steel Structures Standard; Standards Steel Framed Buildings With Unprotected
New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. Secondary Beams or Joists for Dependable
Inelastic Response in Severe Fires;
(11) NZS 3101:1995 (Including Amendment Nos. Proceedings of the Second International
1 and 2, 1997), Concrete Structures Workshop on Structures in Fire, 2002;
Standard; Standards New Zealand, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
Wellington. 2002, pp. 151 – 174.
(12) Clifton, GC et. al.; Draft for Development: (23) Hyland, C; Structural Steelwork Estimating
Revision 2: Design Procedure for the Guide; HERA, Manukau City, 1998, HERA
Inelastic Floor System/Frame Response of Report R4-96.
Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings in Fully
Developed Natural Fires; HERA, Manukau
City, 2000, HERA Report R4-90-DD-Rev 2.
(24) AS/NZS 4671: 2001, Steel Reinforcing (37) Newman, GM et.al; Fire Safe Design – A
Materials; Standards New Zealand, New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed
Wellington. Buildings, The Steel Construction Institute,
Ascot, England, 2000, SCI Publication
(25) Traydec 300 Specification; Forgan Jones P 288.
Structural Ltd, Silverdale, 1996.
(26) EC1-1-2/59:2001 (Third Draft) : Eurocode 1

– Actions on Structures Part 1-2: General
Actions – Actions on Structures Exposed to
Fire; CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
(27) AS 3600, 2001, Concrete Structures;

Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia.
(28) DD ENV 1992-2 : 1996, Eurocode 2: Design

of Concrete Structures, Part 1.2 General
Rules – Structural Fire Design (together with
United Kingdom National Application
Document); BSI Standards, London,
England.
(29) DD ENV 1992-2 : 1996, Eurocode 3: Design

of Steel Structures, Part 1.2 General Rules –
Structural Fire Design (together with United
Kingdom National Application Document);
BSI Standards, London, England.
(30) Hi-bond Design Manual; Dimond Structural,

Auckland, 1999, Manual No. 7.
(31) Poh, KW; Modelling Elevated Temperature

Properties of Structural Steel; BHP
Research, Melbourne, Australia, 1996,
Report BHPR/SM/R-055.
(32) Clifton, GC and Robinson, J; Notes

Prepared for a Seminar on The Behaviour
Buildings for Severe Fires, Revised June
Report R4-105.
(33) Thomas, IR et. al.; Fire Tests of the 140

William Street Office Building; BHP Co Ltd,
Melbourne, Australia, 1993.
(34) Beck, C and Clifton, GC; SPM0103 Design

Program, HERA, Manukau City, 2003.
(35) Gib® Fireboard Structural Steel Fire

Protection; Winstone Wallboards Ltd,
Auckland, 1995.
(36) Lim, L et.al.; Experimental Testing and

Numerical Modelling of Two-Way Concrete
Slabs Under Fire Conditions; Journal of the
Structural Engineering Society, Vol. 15, No.
2, 2002, pp. 12-26.
P O Box 76-134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
Website: www.hera.org.nz
No. 72 February/March 2003

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the The material herein has been the subject of review by a
Introduction A very brief, one paragraph note is given in the

previous issue on how to access the on-line DCBs.
For anyone wanting more details, these are
Following the “blockbuster” size of the previous two
available in a short and easy to read .pdf file format
issues, this issue is smaller and covers a range of
which can be obtained by emailing Paul Tuckley at:
topics.
marketing@hera.org.nz
It was intended not to include any fire engineering
matters in this issue, however a burning issue has
arisen which it is timely to cover now. It deals with
the performance in fire of the large-scale concrete
building tested at the Cardington Large Building
Test facility in the UK. This coverage is more
general and less technical than that relating to the
SPM from the previous two issues.
As promised in the introduction to the previous

issue, details on the scope and advances offered
by the new steelwork corrosion protection
standard, AS/NZS 2312:2002 [1] are presented
herein.
Also covered is a cost comparison of two options

for column sizes in a multi-storey building - keeping
the same size over all levels with a splice direct
from R4-100 [2], or stepping down a column
designation, with the more complex and costly
splice required for this.
Finally, reviews are given of three useful In This Issue Page

publications recently received by HERA. These Cardington Concrete Fire Test: 2
are followed by the references. Overview and Implications for New
Zealand
Before commencing with the Cardington concrete
building test article, two short items: AS/NZS 2312:2002 – Scope and 10
Benefits of This New Standard
Instructions for Accessing the On-Line DCB Column Splice Cost Comparison 15
As advised in the previous issue, and by mail to all Three Useful Publications Available 16
current subscribers, the on-line DCB is now from HERA
available. On-line coverage is for all DCBs from
Nos. 40-71, including No. 38. References 17
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 72, February/March 2003
Bisalloy Design Examples
Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd have produced a very

useful booklet [3] of design examples using the
Bisplate 80 quenched and tempered steel.
These examples cover a heavily loaded column,

heavily loaded I-section beam, heavily loaded box
section beam and a heavily loaded truss. The final
design is for the lower strakes of a large water
storage tank.
The examples are written for application using the

American specification, which, as noted in
Commentary Clause C1.1 of NZS 3404 [4], is
appropriate for use with this grade of steel.
The booklet [3] is well presented and comes with
pictures showing the use of each type of member Fig. 72.1
being designed in a structure. View Through Base of Concrete Framed Test
Building Towards the Steel Framed Test Building,
They make reference to, and comparisons with, Cardington Large Building Test Facility, UK.
design to the Australian Steel Structures Standard
AS 4100:1990 [5]. The corresponding provisions There were four large-scale natural fire tests and a
of NZS 3404 to those from [5] are identified from number of individual member and frame fire tests
NZS 3404 Appendix Q. undertaken on the steel framed building during
1995 and 1996 [13]. These have been extensively
Readers interested in obtaining a copy of the reported internationally and nationally; for
Bisalloy booklet [3] should also read the HERA example, in earlier issues of the DCB (such as
seminar notes on this topic; these are in HERA issue No. 54) and in various seminars and
Report R8-07, High Strength Steel: Design and conferences. These tests [13] have led onto the
Fabrication. development of design models, further research
and design procedure developments. The latest
The Cardington Concrete steel building design procedure development is the
second edition of the Slab Panel Method,
Building Fire Test: presented in DCB No. 71, while DCB No. 70
Overview and Implications for provides details of recent New Zealand research
New Zealand into two-way concrete and composite floor system
performance in fire.
This paper has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer. In the case of the concrete building, there was only
one large-scale natural fire test undertaken. The
1. Introduction and Background test was conducted on 26 September 2001 and
took place on the ground level of the building,
During the 1990’s, three full-size buildings were midway along the side shown in Fig. 72.1.
constructed at the Cardington Large Building Test
Facility (LBTF) in the UK. These comprised an A comprehensive paper [6] on the test has been
eight storey steel framed building, a seven storey published, entitled Holistic Behaviour of Concrete
concrete framed building and a six storey timber Buildings in Fire. The author is Colin Bailey, who
framed building. at the time of the test was with the UK Building
Research Establishment, the operators of the
All buildings were constructed to be representative Cardington LBTF. A shorter and less detailed
of typical United Kingdom modern methods of paper [7] has also been published by the British
construction. All were subjected to a range of Cement Association.
serviceability and ultimate limit state loads,
including one or more large-scale natural fire tests. This overview draws on material from both papers,
but principally from the BRE paper [6].
Fig. 72.1 shows the view through the base of the
concrete framed building, looking towards the steel Prior to commencing with the description of the
framed building. test, an answer to a question that by now will be on
some readers’ minds; why present details of the
concrete fire test in a HERA publication?
There are two reasons; the first is because we A B C D
7500 7500 7500
have been asked to, by the Cement and Concrete
Association of New Zealand, for reasons briefly
outlined below. The second is because it is 1
interesting to see the significant differences in the External column 2 No. openings
3.2m by 4.25m
400x250mm
whole building behaviour under severe fire attack
7500
(Total area =
2
27.2m )
between the concrete and the steel test buildings. Internal Vertical steel
column cross bracing
These differences are described in section 4.3. 2 400mm
2
Implications for New Zealand are then briefly Fire compartment area
covered in section 5. V4 V6
7500
V5
The request from C & CA for us to publish details
3750
of the concrete test arises from comments made 3
V8 V9
by a United Kingdom speaker at the
3750
October/November 2002 Metals Industry V11 V12 V13
7500
Conference, on the relatively poor performance of
140 thk
the concrete test building. Subsequent to these blockwork
comments, the C & CA received a copy of the BCA 4 wall with one
skin of
paper [7] on the concrete building test, which they plasterboard 3750 3750
contend showed the building performed well. They Denotes location
7500
Vertical steel of vertical
invited us to publish details of the test, which is cross bracing displacement
being done herein. They have also put the BCA measurement
5
paper onto their website under the heading
Cardington Fire Tests - Concrete Excels.
Fig 72.2
Certainly, the concrete frame supported the Plan of Building Showing Location of the Fire
imposed loads throughout the fire without collapse Enclosure (from [6])
or loss of integrity of the floor system. However, as
becomes apparent from reading the BRE paper [6],
the overall building behaviour showed some
5 4 3 2 1
unexpected and undesirable characteristics, 7th
compared with the behaviour of an isolated
3750
element in a Standard Fire Test or the behaviour
6th
assumed in simplistic fire engineering design to [8,
9, 10] of concrete structures. This led the author of
3750
[6] to comment that “designers will need to 5th
understand the behaviour of entire structures in
3750
fire, to ensure that premature collapse does not 4th
occur.” It is also in contrast to the behaviour of the
steel framed building with protected columns but
3750
unprotected floor support beams, which performed 3rd
better than would have been expected, based on
the behaviour of the isolated floor beam and slab 3750
2nd
elements in a Standard Fire Test. This difference 250
3750
in performance between the whole building and its Fire compartment

elements on their own was behind the comments 1st
of the UK speaker in 2002.
3750
750
Section 2 herein provides a brief description of the

concrete building; section 3 a brief description of
the fire. Section 4 presents the principal test Fig 72.3
results and observations, covering the response of Cross Section Through Building Showing Location
the building during the fire, the state of the building of Fire Test (from [6]).
following the fire and a comparison of the
behaviour mechanisms shown by the concrete and
2. Description of the Concrete Test
steel test buildings.
Building
Section 5 looks at the implications of the test
The full-scale, seven storey, insitu concrete
results for New Zealand buildings.
building was designed to Eurocode 2 [8] and BS
This is followed by a brief summary, in section 6. 8110 [9] and represented a nearby commercial
office building. The test building was constructed
The details presented in sections 2, 3 and 4 are in the first half of 1998.
taken from [6, 7].
The completed building comprised 3 bays by 4 10.8 kN applied over the whole first floor. In
bays, each 7.5 m span, with two core areas addition, imposed loads on higher floors around
incorporating flat steel bracing to resist lateral column C3 were applied to give the expected fire
loads. The floor plan is shown in Fig 72.2, emergency design vertical load (G + Qu) on that
including the location in plan of the fire enclosure. column.
Fig. 72.3 shows the front elevation.
The enclosure walls were constructed of
Each floor slab was nominally 250 mm thick, blockwork, lined with plaster board on timber
designed as a flat slab. The reinforcement in the framing on the inside. These walls, shown in plan
roof of the fire enclosure (the first floor slab) in Fig. 72.2, extended to within 325 mm of the
comprised 12 mm and 16 mm diameter deformed underside of the level 1 slab. This gap was closed
bars at various centres. Reinforcement to prevent with a ceramic fibre blanket, fixed at the top to the
punching shear failure, designed to [8, 9], was underside of the slab and at the bottom to the
placed around the columns. Details are in [6]. The batterns supporting the plasterboard. This
floor was constructed from normal weight concrete, construction was intended to dependably enclose
with a tested cube strength at 28 days of 61 MPa the fire, while allowing the floor slab to deflect
(≡ cylinder strength of 49 MPa). The average vertically downwards without contacting the
cement content was 407 kg/m3 and the average enclosure walls and gaining unintended support
moisture content, measured the day before the from them. Further details are given in [6, 7].
test, was 3.8% by weight. The aggregate was
predominantly flint (chert), which produces a More details of the physical construction of the
concrete with known susceptibility to aggregate building and test enclosure are given in [6].
spalling [6].
3. Description of the Fire
An assessment of severe spalling potential for the
floor slab was made to the provisions of the most The design of the fire was based on the parametric
recent draft EN version [10] of the Eurocode. The fire curve, from Annex A, Eurocode 1 Part 1.2 [11].
floor slab met all criteria relating to member size The intention was to simulate a realistic office fire,
and reinforcement cover that allow spalling to be however there was debate over the most severe
ignored in accordance with [10]. type of fire to generate; longer duration with lower
temperatures versus shorter duration with higher
Moisture content below 3% is also considered by temperatures. The final outcome comprised timber
[10] to be too low to have a detrimental influence cribs creating a fire load of 40 kg/m2 floor area
on spalling; the average tested value of 3.8% in (720 MJ/m2 floor area) in an enclosure with two full
the slab was only slightly above that limit. Thus, height openings of the dimensions shown in
severe spalling of the floor slab was assessed [6] Fig. 72.2, intended to generate a reasonably
as unlikely to have a detrimental effect on the severe office fire.
performance of the floor system in accordance with
the criteria of the relevant standards [8-10]. The ratio of Av/Af was 27.2/225 = 0.12; opening
factor, OF At1 = 0.08; average value of thermal
As seen from Fig. 72.2, one column (column C3) inertia of bounding elements, b = 1104 J/m2so.5C.
was fully exposed to fire and 8 columns were The intended structural fire severity, calculated
partially exposed. All were filled with Grade C85 using equation 5.9 of the Fire Engineering
(characteristic cube strength 85 MPa) high- Design Guide [12], was teq = 72 mins.
strength concrete, containing limestone aggregate
and micro silica. Because such concrete is known Fig. 72.4 shows a view of the test enclosure prior
to be susceptible to spalling, 2.7 kg/m3 of to ignition. Fig. 72.5 shows the intended design
polypropylene fibres were added to the concrete fire curve and the Standard Fire curve.
mix. The 28 day average cube strength was 103
MPa. The moisture content, measured 7 days However, the fire did not develop and burn as
prior to the test, was 4.2% by weight. planned. The reason for this was severe explosive
spalling that commenced 6 minutes after ignition.
The design Fire Resistance Rating (FRR) was This collapsed the ceramic fibre blanket over most
60 minutes. The floor slab thickness, column of the enclosure along gridlines 2, B and 4
external dimensions and all reinforcement covers (Fig. 72.2), generating a significant new opening
exceeded the minimum tabulated requirements and partially smothering the burning cribs. This
from BS 8110 Part 1 [9] for a 60 minute FRR. effect is seen in the recorded atmospheric
temperatures of Fig. 72.7. The temperatures did
The first floor (ie. the enclosure roof) was loaded increase again, but not back to the design level.
with an imposed load of 3.25 kPa, representing the Unfortunately, the collapse of the ceramic fibre
fire emergency live load and dead loads from blanket allowed flames to travel away from the
raised floor, ceiling and services and partitions. enclosure in an unexpected direction and to burn
This was applied via sandbags each weighing through the cables from recording instruments to
1200
Standard Fire Curve

1000
800
Temperature (°C)
Design Fire curve
(O=0.08; b=1104)
600
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time(mins)
Fig. 72.4 Fig. 72.5

View of Fire Enclosure Prior The Design Fire and Standard Fire Curves (from [6])
to Ignition (from [6])
1200
Maximum atmosphere temperature

Design Fire curve
1000
Atmosphere temperature (°C)
800
Standard fire curve
600
Average atmosphere temperature
Ignition
400 Malfunction of instuments
200 Start of spalling of concrete from soffit of slab
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (mins)
Fig. 72.6 Fig. 72.7

View of Enclosure after the Test (from [6]) Recorded Atmospheric Temperatures
300 mm below Slab Soffit (from [6])
data logger, causing a complete loss of data Figs. 72.6 and 72.9). This spalling commenced 6
18 minutes after ignition. The maximum and minutes after ignition, generated [6] by high in-
average enclosure time-temperature conditions plane compression stresses in the slab (caused by
generated in the first 18 minutes are shown in the restraint to thermal expansion of the
Fig. 72.7. Fig. 72.6 shows the extent of spalling at surrounding cold slab) and by high pore water
the end of the test, looking towards the back of the pressures. Although the bottom reinforcing bars
enclosure. were totally exposed to the fire, greatly reducing
the flexural capacity of the slab, it remained stable.
4. Principal Test Results and Observations
As previously stated, only the first 18 minutes
4.1 Response of building during the fire of data during the fire were recorded. Over
that time, the vertical displacements of points
The structure showed no sign of collapse during or V5, V4, V8, V11 and V12 (See Fig. 72.2) went
after the fire. from 0 to ≈ – 20 mm (downwards) during the first
5 minutes, then remained near constant. The
The most significant feature of the behaviour vertical displacements of V6, V13 and V9 went
during the fire was the explosive spalling of most of from 0 to ≈ -60 mm at a constant rate until the
the slab, exposing the reinforcing bars over most recording failed.
of the enclosure and dropping some of the positive
moment reinforcement onto the fire (as shown in
4.2 State of the building following the fire The key feature of these residual displacements
were the major horizontal displacement outwards
Following the fire, the displacement transducers from the centre of the test enclosure in all
were rewired and the residual displacements directions.
recorded. These are shown in Fig. 72.8.
A B C D
25mm 26mm 20mm
1
Bracing 27mm
buckled
21mm 15mm 27mm

2
48mm
26mm 78mm 59mm 74mm 36mm

26mm
3
54mm 67mm 67mm
23mm 56mm 56mm 72mm 32mm
25mm
12mm 42mm
4
45mm
Bracing
buckled
27mm
5
23mm 25mm 25mm 25mm
Denotes vertical displacement

Denotes horizontal displacement
Fig. 72.8
Post-Fire Residual Horizontal and Vertical Displacements (from [6])
Fig 72.9 Fig 72.10
Effect of Spalling Longitudinal Cracks in Column C3 (from [6])
(looking towards column B2) (from [6])
Fig 72.11
Suppression of Spalling in Region of Low Compression Around One of the Service Holes (from [6])
Fig 72.12
Idealised Compression Membrane Action (from [7])
This resulted in cracking of the concrete near to spalling, in the high-strength columns. The
columns and some column cracking, both within addition of the polypropylene fibres is credited
and away from the enclosure, due to compatibility [6, 7] for this.
of deformation effects. The columns on gridline D
showed a noticeable leaning out at level 1. The 4.4 Comparison of the concrete whole
lateral displacement buckled the flat steel bracing building behaviour mechanisms with
where shown in Fig. 72.8. those shown by the steel framed building
The spalling did not propagate to free edges, such As previously stated, the concrete building
as around the service holes in the slab (Fig. 72.11) survived the fire without collapse, loss of load-
or along gridline D (Fig. 72.8). The extent of carrying capacity and integrity of the floor. In that
spalling is plotted in [6]. regard, the behaviour was the same as for the
steel frame test building, which had protected
The visible effects of the vertical downward columns and unprotected floor supporting beams,
displacement were not noticeable over the spalling with very high temperatures generated in the floor
damage, which is shown most clearly in Fig. 72.9. beams.
The columns showed minor longitudinal cracking However, the behaviour mechanisms developed
(see Fig. 72.10 for that in the centre column) and within the two floor systems under severe fire
minor corner spalling. This was not serious and attack were very different. In the steel building
did not endanger column stability. There was no floor systems, comprising relatively thin slabs with
sign of surface spalling on these columns. or without supporting steel beams (Cardington
slabs with steel beams [13]; University of
4.3 Observations from the concrete building Canterbury slab panel tests [14] both with and
test without), the heated regions underwent significant
vertical downwards displacement, but only minor
The principal observations were the major outward lateral displacement. The largest lateral
horizontal deformations of the floor system and the displacement from [13] was some 25 mm during
severe spalling of the slab. According to [6], the the fire, most of which was recovered on cooling
high compressive forces induced in the slab over down. An example of this is shown in Fig. 72.13.
the heated region were the principal cause of the Probably in large part because of this, no spalling
spalling, other factors being aggregate type and has been noted in any of the Cardington fire tests
slightly higher than average moisture content. The [13] or in the University of Canterbury slab panel
peak residual horizontal deformations were of the tests [14]. This also has the great benefit, in terms
same order of magnitude as the peak residual of post-fire repair, of limiting the region of post-fire
vertical deformations. structural element replacement or restoration
required to that affected directly by the severe fire
The extent of spalling would have been sufficient attack. Note, in the steel building case, that the
[6, 7] to reduce the flexural load carrying capacity columns are protected to achieve this and that, as
of the slab below that of the applied load, requiring shown in Fig. 72.13, they show no visible
an alternative load carrying mechanism to explain distortion, thus the columns don’t require
the slab and building’s resistance to collapse. The restoration or replacement following the fire. The
mechanism being proposed is compression concrete frame columns, at least within the fire
membrane action. This concept is discussed in enclosure, would have required significant
[6, 7] and shown in Fig. 72.12. For compression restoration or replacement, given their post-fire
membrane action to be effective, the vertical state (see eg. Fig. 72.10).
deflection must be no more than around 0.5 times
the slab depth and there must be edge restraint In both the concrete and steel framed buildings,
against the thrust forces developed. These the ambient temperature load carrying
conditions were all met in this test. This action mechanisms were not adequate to maintain the
would have taken over once the flexural capacity structural adequacy of the floor system in fire,
was reduced and been retained on cooling down, requiring alternative load-carrying mechanisms to
due to the irrecoverable thermal expansion be identified and quantified. In the steel framed
introduced in the concrete slab on heating [6]. case, an alternative method of flexural / tensile
membrane behaviour was developed [15], has
As shown in Fig. 72.8, the outwards lateral been extensively experimentally tested [13, 14, 15]
movement affected all parts of the first floor slab, and refined into a design and detailing procedure.
generating minor cracking around the slab to Details are in DCB No. 70, 71 relating to the New
column junctions and some column cracking at all Zealand application.
locations.
In the concrete framed case, compression
A second observation was the successful membrane action has been proposed [6, 7].
suppression of spalling, other than minor corner However, much more work is required to establish
a dependable model for this, to quantify the key defined in NZS 3101 [16]) used in New
boundary conditions that must be present for the Zealand. The thickness of the Cardington
mechanism to be dependably developed and to slab probably played a significant role in
produce the necessary design procedure and causing the fire-induced lateral deformations
detailing requirements. to be as great as the vertical. These lateral
deformations in turn generated very high
This investigation needs to include the effects of compression stresses, leading to the
the concrete mix properties on cool-down; if the explosive spalling observed [6].
concrete contracts too much at that time,
compression membrane behaviour may be lost. In a typical New Zealand hollowcore floor,
subjected to a similar severity of fire attack
on the underside of the hollowcore units, the
restraint against thermal expansion is
expected to generate considerable
compression strains in the base of these
units and a severe differential strain profile
through their depth.
In recent earthquake testing of hollowcore

floor systems [17], the reinforced webs of
the units have been shown to be incapable
of resisting differential imposed strains
through the units, leading to horizontal
delamination and floor failure; see, for
example, Figs. 12(b) and 14(a) of [17].
Fig 72.13
Cardington Steel Frame Test Building; The internal deformations of the Cardington
Demonstration Furniture Test; Looking from Inside concrete floor in fire, given in Fig. 72.8, are
the Enclosure to the Unheated Regions Beyond considerably greater than those generated in
the earthquake testing of [17] at failure of the
5. Implications for New Zealand Concrete floor, raising the question as to how likely
Floor System Performance in Severe hollowcore delamination will be under
Fires severe fire attack. The spalling of the
Cardington floor occurred 6 minutes after
The HERA Structural Engineer began his ignition, in a fire designed to generate 60
engineering career as the site engineer on a high- minutes of temperatures above 600oC. If
rise concrete building development in 1979. That hollowcore unit delamination to the extent
building incorporated areas of insitu floor slab of reported in [17] occurred in a hollowcore
similar thickness and span/depth ratio to the floor at such an early stage in severe fire
Cardington concrete framed building. However, conditions, it is not easy to envisage how
even then, significant regions of the floor were compression membrane action would be
changed to pre-cast construction, using hollowcore able to develop as required to prevent
units plus topping, to reduce on-site resources and collapse of the damaged floor.
to speed up the rate of construction. Nowadays,
almost no suspended floor systems built in New (3) Less insights can be made into the
Zealand use insitu solid concrete slabs. performance of other precast concrete floor
systems, such as those formed from double
This raises the question as to whether any insights tee units plus topping. These floor systems
into the holistic performance of New Zealand are likely to be more resistant to
concrete buildings in fire can be gained from the delamination and collapse than hollowcore
Cardington test [6]. unit plus topping floor systems.
Some comments on this are as follows: (4) With regard to the demands on the overall
building from lateral expansion of the floor,
(1) With regard to spalling, New Zealand the interstorey drifts are well within those
concretes are not typically susceptible to required for earthquake design, so any well
aggregate spalling, as is detailed in section designed and built New Zealand concrete
4.7, pp. 16, 17 of DCB No. 70. frame system will be able to accommodate
these, provided that the floor system does
(2) The span to depth ratio of the Cardington not disintegrate and cause loss of support to
floor system was 7500/250 = 30, which is the frame, as happened in [17].
similar to the span/depth ratios of hollowcore
units plus topping (ie. solid one way slabs as
6. Summary and Conclusions AS/NZS 2312:2002 – Scope and
This paper has presented a brief overview of the Benefits of the New Corrosion
2001 Cardington concrete building fire test, a Protection Standard
discussion of the overall building behaviour
mechanisms shown by the Cardington concrete This paper has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
and the Cardington steel framed test buildings in Structural Engineer and reviewed by Willie Mandeno, Opus
fire and some implications for New Zealand. International Consultants Ltd.
The concrete building maintained load carrying Introduction

capacity and integrity for the duration of the test,
albeit that the actual structural fire severity was AS/NZS 2312:2002 [1], Guide to the Protection of
lower than intended. Structural Steel Against Atmospheric Corrosion by
the Use of Protective Coatings, represents a very
However, the holistic building behaviour has raised significant advance in the specification of cost-
a number of concerns that require further effective corrosion protection solutions that will
consideration, namely: meet the durability requirements of the NZBC [18]
and the client.
• Significant amounts of explosive spalling
occurred, contrary to the expectation given The principal reason for the increased cost-
from the appropriate standards. This meant effectiveness lies in the greatly increased scope of
that much of the slab positive reinforcement corrosion protection systems included in the
was directly exposed to the fire. standard and the updated assessment of each
• Significant permanent deformations, laterally system’s performance in the different atmospheric
and vertically, and with the former extending corrosivity categories.
well beyond the fire exposed area, show that
post-fire repair costs could be significant. The sacrificial systems (metallic coatings, single
• The differential strains within the floor coat inorganic zinc silicate paints, galvanizing) are
system and the high compression stresses the principal beneficiaries of this revision. The
developed raise questions over the ability of number of systems covered and the rated
a typical hollowcore floor and topping performance of each system have been
system, as used commonly in New Zealand, significantly improved, leading to greatly enhanced
to withstand severe fire attack. scope for the use of these systems over that
• The floor system maintained load carrying offered by the 1994 version of this Standard.
capacity through other than conventional
flexural mechanisms. It is necessary that a This paper provides a brief look at the scope and
fuller understanding of the postulated benefits of the new Standard [1]. It starts by giving
mechanism (compression membrane action) an overview of its scope, followed by general
be obtained so that the results can be guidance on how to use the standard in
dependably applied to other concrete floor accordance with established guidance on the
systems. determination of the site-specific corrosivity.
The whole building response of both the concrete Minor errors and omissions are present in the new
and the steel framed buildings to severe fire attack Standard and are currently being rectified; details
has been shown [6, 13] to be significantly different of some of these are then given.
to that of an individual element in a Standard Fire
Test. In the steel framed building case, with This is followed by details on how to treat inorganic
protected columns and unprotected floor support zinc silicate paint systems under the new standard.
beams, the differences are beneficial and have led
to the development of new design and detailing The paper concludes with an example of
procedures [15, DCB No. 71] that take partial application of the provisions to hypothetical new
advantage of this. In the concrete framed building externally exposed steelwork located at HERA
case, the differences are both beneficial and House, Manukau City.
detrimental. They point to new mechanisms for
structural fire engineering design; however such Scope of Standard
mechanisms will need to be verified by
experimental testing and advanced analysis before A useful paper [19] on the new standard was
they can be dependably used in design. presented at the 2002 Metals Industry Conference.
Written by W Mandeno of Opus International
Consultants Ltd, it presents a more detailed
introduction to the 2002 standard than is presented
herein.
The contents of the Standard [1] are as follows: • Section 8 gives general guidance on the
factors involved in painting and selecting the
• Section 1 describes the scope of the method of paint application.
Standard and the situations where it is
applicable. It includes mention of situations • Section 9 gives brief, general guidance on
where protection against structurally the use of powder coatings and wrapping
damaging corrosion may not be required tapes for the protection of structural
and referenced documents. It also covers steelwork.
general considerations for durability.
• Section 10 describes assessment methods,
• Section 2 defines the atmospheric surface preparation and repainting methods
classifications for corrosivity in Australia and and procedures for the maintenance of
New Zealand and makes mention of micro- protective coatings. Note the important
climate effects. The atmospheric corrosivity linkage between Clause 10.2 and Tables
categories are given in Clause 2.2; however 5.1, 6.3 of [1]. The tables give durability of
the very important link between each systems in terms of years to first
category and the first year corrosion rate for maintenance. Clause 10.2 gives the criteria
(mild and medium tensile, carbon- for assessing when to paint or repair and, by
manganese) structural steel is given in implication, the expected degree of coating
Table B1 of Appendix B. breakdown when first maintenance time is
reached. Fig. 10.1 of [1] is particularly
• Section 3 gives guidance on the minimising useful in making this assessment.
of corrosion potential through good planning
and design. Figure 3.1 of [1] contains an • Section 11 sets out procedures for the
excellent set of details showing typical inspection and testing of protective coatings.
design problems and solutions in this Note that a listing of inspectors holding
regard. Table 3.2 of [1] contains the typical current Certified Coatings Inspector (CCI)
properties of common joint sealants. qualification is available through the CBIP.
Contact Peter Hayward, CBIP Technical
• Section 4 describes the important methods Manager, at HERA (phone 09 262 4847).
of surface preparation, namely:
• Section 12 gives recommendations for
• Abrasive blast cleaning preparing a coating specification. Note that
• Power tool and hand tool cleaning the section references to the previous
• Water jet cleaning edition of AS/NZS 2312 that are given in the
HERA specification, HERA Report R4-99
The paper Surface Preparation Standards [21], are still relevant to this new edition.
[20], written for an ACA seminar in February
2003, provides an expanded commentary to • Section 13 describes some of the health
this section and also shows the relationship hazards associated with protective coatings
between the standards for surface and appropriate safety procedures.
preparation, as referenced from [1], and the
corresponding USA and ISO classifications • Appendix A gives guidance on the use of the
that are commonly used worldwide. standard. The checklist for the coating of
new structures (Clause A2) and the checklist
• Section 5 provides guidance on the use of for the maintenance painting of existing
different types of metallic coating systems structures (Clause A3) are particularly
for corrosion protection. Metal spray useful.
coatings, hot-dipped and continuous
galvanized coatings are covered. This • Appendix B gives general advice on
includes use of the metallic coating alone or atmospheric corrosion rates of structural
metallic coating plus sealer or paint top-coat, steel in Australasian climates. However, this
where applicable. It gives recommended advice is too general for use in design.
systems for different categories of Instead, designers should use the
environmental aggressiveness and desired recommendations on pages 14-16 of DCB
life to first maintenance. No. 62, in conjunction with reference [22], to
determine the site-specific corrosivity. This
• Section 6 gives this same guidance for is used in design as briefly described in the
various organic and inorganic paint systems. last section of this paper. Fig. B1 of [1]
illustrates the rapid fall-off in corrosion rate
• Section 7 describes the various factors that away from the seacoast.
influence coating selection.
• Appendix C describes non-atmospheric and (iv) Selection of an appropriate coatings system
hot environments and gives some can then be made; see Appendix A and
recommended coating systems. However, section 7 of [1]. The coatings systems
specific design guidance for long term covered by the new standard are as follows:
corrosion rates for steel piles in a range
of environments is given in DCB No. 46, • Section 5- metal spray coatings and
pp. 2-6. galvanized coatings
(including painted
• Appendix D gives a general description of galvanized systems)
the generic paint types covered in Section 6.
• Section 6- paint coating systems
(including single coat
• Appendix E addresses factors influencing
inorganic zinc coatings).
the costs of coating systems. Clause E3
gives a method for economic evaluation of The process of selecting an appropriate coatings
protective treatments. system is always site specific, and will be surface
specific where microclimate effects are important
General Guidance on How to Use The New and different surfaces have different exposures.
Standard
As an indication of some of the systems available
The procedure for use of the standard for from the new standard, and speaking in general
protected structural (carbon-manganese) steelwork terms only;
is as for the 1994 edition, namely:
• For a design atmospheric corrosivity
(1) Determine the design life category on the border of B/C, which is
common or slightly conservative in many
(2) Determine the site-specific corrosivity built-up parts of New Zealand further than
category, which is derived from the first year around 5 km from the seacoast;
corrosive rate for the steel material. This
rate is determined from the: • System IZS 2 (75 microns inorganic zinc
• macroclimate, plus any silicate, water-borne) is rated to give 40
• microclimatic effects (25+) years to first maintenance
• System TSZ 100 (100 microns sprayed zinc)

(3) Determine the time to first maintenance
carries the same 25+ year rating
required for the protection system
• System HDG 600 (hot dipped galvanizing to
(4) Select an appropriate corrosion protection a nominal coating thickness of 85 microns)
system to meet the environmental carries the same 25+ year rating.
requirements of 2 and 3, based on cost,
performance and any client-specified factors The second to last point to make in this section on
such as colour and appearance. general guidance relates to the use of the
durability classification 25+ in sections 5 and 6.
The design life is readily determined from the The durability ratings should have been expressed
NZBC [18], being typically 50 years. It may be a in terms of the ISO agreed classifications given in
longer period as directed by the client, or a shorter Clause 1.6, with the highest rating being extra long
period as agreed between the client and the term; 25+ years. This rating is also expressed as
Territorial Authority. 25 - 40 years and the determination of the
durability ratings given in Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 6.3
The determination of the site-specific atmospheric has been made [23] on this basis.
corrosivity category and appropriate coatings
systems involves the following: Therefore, when reading these tables, 25+ means
25 - 40 years. However, the reason for the cut-off
(i) Determine the design first year corrosion rating 25+ reflects two important factors;
rate, for macroclimate plus microclimate
effects, from DCB No. 62 and [22]. (i) From a client’s viewpoint, it is economically
and technically unwise to try and require
(ii) Determine the corrosivity category and more than 25 years time to first maintenance
where, within that category, the site lies, by for a design, unless there are exceptional
using Table B1 of [1] and the result from (i). circumstances (eg. no possibility of access
for maintenance)
(iii) Determine the time to first maintenance, in
consultation with the client and using the (ii) There are so many factors that influence the
checklist from Appendix A, Clause A2. performance of a coatings system, therefore
making a dependable prediction beyond 25 A more detailed description of this very efficient
years is difficult. and cost-effective form of protection is given in
DCB No. 41, pp 1-5. At that time, the use of
Notwithstanding this, there are some examples in single-coat IZS systems were not recognised by
the initially published tables of [1] where 25 - 40 the then current 1994 edition of AS/NZS 2312.
has been used and others where the same Their inclusion in the 2002 edition is of major
performance is expected, but is expressed as 25+ benefit to the steel industry.
years. This inconsistency is to be rectified in an
amended table. However, where equal thicknesses of each are
listed, water borne systems are not given equal
The final point to make is that the durability ratings performance ratings in the standard. This can be
in sections 5 and 6 logically flow into each other seen from Table 6.3, where IZS 1 (solvent borne,
across adjacent corrosivity categories. This is a 75µm thick DFT) carries an appreciably lower
major advance on much of the same guidance durability rating for atmospheric corrosivity
given in the 1994 edition and is a great advantage categories B, C, D, E – M and F than does IZS 2
in making a rational design selection of a coating (water borne, 75µm thick DFT).
system. The derivation of these ratings is given in
[23]. Physically, the only differences in the cured paint
properties are that:
Minor Errors to be Addressed
• The SB-IZS does not reach full hardness as
The first of these has been touched on, being the quickly as the WB-IZS, which makes it
use of the durability rating 25 - 40 in Table 6.3 slightly more sensitive to damage if
instead of 25+. This is not a technical error, incorrectly handled shortly after spraying.
however, in that the advice given is still correct. However, both systems are more damage-
resistant than most other paint types,
A significant omission from Table 6.3 is the 125µm especially once hardened.
water-borne IZS 3 system. This should come in
under IZS 2, with the following durability ratings: • There is a slightly lower amount of metallic
zinc in the SB-IZS than in the WB-IZS.
Table 72.1 However, due to the slow-release action of
Durability Ratings for IZS 3 the paint in service, any difference in
performance of the two will be minimal and
Atmospheric Durability Rating is not expected to become evident until near
Corrosivity (years TFM) the end of the time to first maintenance
Category period. The advice from Alex Szokolik of
A 25+ (40+) Australia, who is the acknowledged expert
B 25+ (40+) there on IZS paints, is that if a WB-IZS
C 25+ (40+) would have an effective life expectancy
D 25+ (25 – 40) (TFM) of 25 years, then the SB-IZS would
E–I 5 – 10 have a TFM of 20-25 years.
E–M 15 – 25
F 25+ (40+) Given this, why the difference in ratings between
the IZS 1 and IZS 2 systems in [1]? The answer to
It is expected to have an amendment to Table 6.3 this lies in the established performance history of
published in April. the two systems in Australia. The WB-IZS systems
have been around for a longer time (over 50 yeas)
There are also errors/omissions in Table D1. and they are more suited to application in dry
warm conditions (see Table 41.1 of DCB No. 41).
Making Effective Use of Single-Coat, Solvent This has given them a longer and better track
Borne, Inorganic Zinc Silicate Paint in record of performance in Australia than for the SB-
Accordance with the New Standard IZS systems.
Inorganic zinc silicate (IZS) paint consists of finely However, in the more humid and cooler New
divided metallic zinc particles dispersed in a self- Zealand environment, the SB-IZS systems are
curing inorganic silicate medium. There are two generally more easily and correctly applied. Also,
forms, solvent borne (SB) and water borne (WB). new advances in paint development mean that
When used as a single coat system (IZS 1 to IZS 3 125µm DFT SB IZS coatings are available, which
as given in [1]), the paint functions as a sacrificial is an option not considered in the new Standard.
layer, with the zinc being slowly lost from the
silicate matrix. Therefore, how can specifiers make the most
efficient use of single-coat SB-IZS systems within
the context of the new standard?
The answer to this is not to use the too Determination of unwashed multiplier, Cuw
conservative IZS 1 ratings given in Table 6.3, but
to adopt the advice of Alex Szokolik given above in This uses page 15 of DCB No. 62. The relevant
a slightly conservative manner, by setting the category of (1) – (4) is (2), given that the seacoast
durability ratings for the SB-IZS systems at 75% of is the semi-protected Manukau Harbour.
those for the WB-IZS systems.
Cuw = 1.0, as site = 5 km from the seacoast.
This means that the design times to first
maintenance for the 75µm and 125µm SB-IZS Calculation of first year macroclimate plus
systems are as follows: microclimate corrosion rate
(1) For IZS 1, use 0.75 times the AS/NZS R = YCuw = 27 x 1.0 = 27µm/a
2312:2002 [1] ratings given for IZS 2
Using Table B1 of AS/NZS 2312:2002 [1], this
(2) For the 125µm SB-IZS, use 0.75 times the makes the site-specific corrosivity category at the
ratings from [1] that will be given for the bottom end of C.
WB-IZS 3, when the latter are included in
the amended Table 6.3. These IZS 3 ratings Step 3 Determine the time to first maintenance
are given on page 12 herein. required
Example of application This is the client-specified 20 years.
Steel I-sections supporting a (hypothetical) roof Step 4 Select suitable coatings systems
canopy is to be built at HERA House in Gladding
Place, Manukau City. This steelwork is sheltered For the site-specific corrosivity category of lower C
from rain but open to the wind. A 20 year time to (at 27µm/year this is just into the lower end of C,
first maintenance is desired. Colour is not which is from 25 – 50 µm/year), the following
important, nor is the surface texture. The most options are available:
economical coating system to meet these
parameters, in terms of initial application cost, is (1) TSZ 100 - Table 5.1 - gives 25+ (38) years
sought. (2) HDG 600 - Table 5.2 - gives 25+ (38
years)
Step 1 Determine the design life (3) IZS 2 - Table 6.3 - gives 38 years
(4) IZS 1 - as 75% IZS 2 (see above) – gives 28
This is the nominal 50 years to the NZBC [18]. years
(5) EHB 2 - Table 6.3 – gives 24 years
Step 2 Determine the site-specific corrosivity
category The unbracketed value for TFM is that obtained
from the Table 6.3 as published in the initial
This uses the provisions of DCB No. 62, pp. 15, 16 release of the Standard [1]. The bracketed value
and reference [22]. is that obtained by considering the 25+ years
as 25 – 40 years.
From the climatic data given in [22] and the use of
a map to locate the distance from the seacoast: Of these, either IZS 1 or IZS 2 (75µm IZS) is the
cheapest installed cost option on typical I-section
Ra = annual rainfall = 1200 mm.a-1 steelwork, using the HERA Steelwork Estimating
Ta = average annual daily temp = 15.7oC Guide, R4-96 [24]. For example, on a 530UB82,
W 9am = 9am time of wetness = 0.8 the costs / lineal metre of (1), (2) and (3) are $51.7,
$75.4 and $27.6, respectively. These costs are a
Closest distance from sea = 5km, to the south- bit out-dated, with that of metal spray having come
west down closer to that of inorganic zinc silicate,
however it is still cheaper than options (1) or (2).
Calculation of first-year macroclimate
corrosion rate: When considering which of SB or WB IZS systems
to specify, in this instance either can be given, with
This uses section 6 of [22] the choice of which to apply left to the contractor.
Y5km (for W 9am = 0.8) = 27 µm/a Typically, in the Auckland climate, WB is best
suited to summer and early autumn, while
Y5km (for W 9am = 1.0) = 26 µm/a conditions at other times of the year suit the SB
application.
Take worst case, Y5km = 27 µm/a
The extra high build single coat epoxy, EHB2, will
be more expensive than the inorganic zinc, but
less expensive than either option (1) or (2). It Structurally, the design of this splice is as
offers a hard, smooth, high gloss finish and, if described in section 8.2 if the splice is in a gravity
resistance to staining / dirt buildup / graffiti were (associated structural system) column, or in
required, would provide the best overall outcome. section 8.3, if the splice is in a seismic-resisting
system column.
Typically, with paints, a single coat system will
provide the cheapest applied solution, provided From the costing point of view, using the
that it achieves the required time to first designations and data from the Steelwork
maintenance and can be readily maintained for the Estimating Guide [24], the compound splice is
specified design life. made up of the following items:
Column Splice Cost Comparison • A BTS 50/30/15 for the 310UC97, plus
• A 250UC73 BPP50, plus
This article has been written by Charles Clifton, HERA • Two 310UC97 stiffeners
Structural Engineer and Raed Zaki, Assistant Structural
Engineer, based on costing information supplied by Clark The first item covers the bolted plates to flanges
Hyland, Manager of the Steel Structures Analysis Service.
and web. The second covers the bearing plate
between the two columns. The third covers the
In the design of a column for a multi-storey
two packer plates and the welding between the
building, the reduction in axial loads towards the
bearing plate and the 310UC97 column
top of the building means that typically the
underneath and between the bearing plate and the
designer has the option to reduce the column
web plate on top.
designation. In the particular example given
below, a 310UC designation has been used for the
The storey height is 3 metres.
bottom 8 storeys, reducing to the lightest member
available within that designation by 4 storeys from
The cost comparison between the two options,
the top. This is a 310UC97. For the top 4 storeys,
using data from [24], is as follows:
the designer has the choice to reduce the column
size further to a 250UC73, or to maintain the
310UC 97 for the top 4 storeys. Alternative 1: 250UC73 + Transfer
Splice Detail
The splice that is made immediately above the Steel Supply:12m @ $1.00/kg x 73 kg/m = $876
310UC97 BTS Splice = 600
floor at the 4th storey from the top is a BTS
250UC73 BPP50 Splice = 285
50/30/15, from R4-100 [2], if the 310UC97 is to be
continued to the top of the building. 310UC97 Welded Packer Plates = 210
If the change in designation is to be used, then a Total $1971

transfer splice with filler plates is required, as
described in sections 8.2 or 8.3, pages 19, 20 of Alternative 2: 310UC97 + Standard
DCB No. 50 and shown in Fig. 72.14. Detail
Steel Supply:12m @$1.0/kg x 97 = $1164
310UC97 BTS = 600
Total $1764
Conclusion:
Carrying the 310UC 97 column full height is the

more economical option. It also maintains the
310UC designation dimensions for the full height of
the building, which may have advantages for
consistency of detailing the finishes and
architectural components around the column.
Fig. 72.14
Transfer Splice Between Columns of Different
Designations
Three Useful Publications
Available From HERA
The following brief review of three recently received
publications available from HERA has been written by Charles
Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer.
Design Wind Speeds for the Asia-Pacific

Region
The publication of AS/NZS 1170.2 Structural
Design Actions – Wind Actions [25] in 2002
provides the joint wind loading provisions for New
Zealand and Australia that will replace, in due
course, the provisions of NZS 4203:1992 [26].
This new wind actions Standard [25] can be used
in New Zealand designs already and the
information presented therein on, for example, Fig. 72.15
wind speed as a function of return period, is critical Regions Covered by Handbook HB 212-2002 [27]
to recently developed design provisions such as
that for the design of multi-storey buildings for The effect of drifting and accumulation is
satisfactory in-service response to wind induced covered in AS/NZS 1170.3 to a similar extent as in
vibrations that is published in DCB No. 66. NZS 4203.
For designers wishing to apply the new
wind design provisions outside of Australasia, Corrigenda to AISC Design of Structural
HB 212-2002, Design Wind Speeds for the Asia- Connections – 4 th Edition
Pacific Region [27] will be of interest. It covers the
region shown in Fig. 72.15, presenting information The 4th Edition [29] was published in 1994. It
on the extreme wind classification, controlling comprises comprehensive design models, many of
weather patterns and types of wind regime which were used in the development of the
experienced. Structural Steelwork Connections Guide, HERA
Report R4-100 [2].
It also contains expressions for design wind speed
as a function of return period for each extreme Since then, a number of developments have take
wind region. place which have had an impact on the 4th Edition
[29].
An appendix lists the wind loading codes and
standards that apply in each country. These are, briefly:
AS/NZS 1170.3:2003 Structural Design • The transition to Grade 300 for the hot rolled
Actions Part 3: Snow and Ice Actions sections. The current AISC book treats only
Grade 250 sections.
This publication [28] is Part 3 of the new joint
Australia / New Zealand Loadings Standard.
• There was the introduction of the welded
It sets out the procedures and loading details for beam and column sections in Grades 350
determining snow actions on roofs and ice actions and 400. This current AISC book does not
on structures to be used in structural design. treat these sections.
It is written for application with the AS/NZS 1170 • A number of hot rolled sections had small
series and is to be read in conjunction with Part 0. variations in geometry made to them. The
root radius was increased but this has an
The meteorological data used for determining the impact on several of the variables used in
characteristic snow load on the ground has been the design models. The figures used in
revised slightly from that used in Part 6 of NZS some of the worked examples in the book
4203 [26] but the New Zealand snow zone may not reflect these changes.
boundaries are the same. The detail presented for
snow loading as a function of return period is much • More recent research and extensive testing
more comprehensive than that in [26] and the has been carried out on Web Side Plate
characteristic loads are presented in equation connections and an alternative design model
form, rather than having to be read off a chart. has recently been published by Onesteel
(along with software). This alternate WSP
model may lead to smaller weld sizes and 11. prEN 1992-1-2 Eurocode 1: Part 1.2, Final
thinner web side plates. Draft (Stage 49), 2001. Action on
Structures: General Actions – Actions on
• Appendix H describes the version 1 of Structures Exposed to Fire; European
LIMCON; version 2 is now available. Committee for Standardisation, Brussels,
Belgium.
All these changes are incorporated into a
corrigenda to the 4th edition. This corrigenda, 12. Buchanan, AH (Editor); Fire Engineering
comprising 7 pages, is available free from the Design Guide, Second Edition; Centre for
Australia Steel Industry website: www.steel.org.au Advanced Engineering, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, 2001.
References 13. Kirby, BR; The Behaviour of a Multi-Storey
Steel Framed Building Subject to Fire Attack
1. AS/NZS 2312:2002, Guide to the Protection
- Experimental Data; British Steel Swinden
Corner Fire Test and Large Compartment
Fire Test, 1996.
14. Lim, L and Wade, C; Experimental Fire
Tests of Two-Way Concrete Slabs;
1999/2001, HERA Report R4-100.
University of Canterbury School of
Engineering, Christchurch, 2002, Fire
3. Design Examples (using Bisalloy Steel);
Engineering Research Report 02/12.
Bisalloy Steels Pty Ltd., Unanderra,
Australia, 1998, BISP80.AUS 2/98.
15. Bailey, CG; Design of Steel Structures With
Composite Slabs at the Fire Limit State; UK
Building Research Establishment, Watford,
16. NZS 3101:1995 (Including Amendment No.
5. AS 4100:1990, Steel Structures Standard;
1, 1999), Concrete Structures Standard;
6. Bailey, C; Holistic Behaviour of Concrete
17. Mathews, J et.al., Preliminary Results from
Buildings in Fire; Structures in Buildings,
the Testing of a Precast hollowcore Floor
Vol. 152, Issue 3, 2002, pp. 199-212.
Slab Building; New Zealand Concrete
Society Conference 2002 Technical Papers
7. Chana, P and Price, W; The Cardington Fire
TR 27, 2002.
Test; Concrete, January 2003, pp. 28-33.
18. NZBC:1992, New Zealand Building Code;
8. DD ENV 1992-1-2 : 1996, Eurocode 2:
Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1.2
General Rules – Structural Fire Design
19. Mandeno, WL; New Standards for Protective
(together with United Kingdom National
Coatings for Steel; Proceedings of the New
Application Document); BSI Standards,
Zealand Metals Conference, 2002; HERA,
London, England.
Manukau City, Paper No. 83.
9. BS8100: Part 1, 1989 and Part 2, 1985
20. Mandeno, WL; Surface Preparation
Structural Use of Concrete Part 1: Code of
Standards; Paper for presentation at ACA
Practice for Design and Construction and
Seminar on New Standards for Protective
Part 2: Code of Practice for Special
Coatings, Melbourne, Australia, 2003.
Circumstances, BSI Standards, London, UK.
10. prEN 1992-1-2 (2nd Draft) Eurocode 2: Part
Fabrication Erection and Surface Treatment
1.2, 2001, Design of Concrete Structures:
General Rules – Structural Fire Design;
European Committee for Standardisation,
Brussels, Belgium.
22. Hyland , CWK and Enzensberger, M
Prediction of Site-Specific Steel Corrosion
Rates in New Zealand to Assist Coatings
Selection; ASEC98, Auckland, 1998, Vol. 2,
pp. 835-842, SESOC, Auckland, 1998.
23. Francis, RA; Standardising The Durability

Figures of Metallic and Paint Coatings;
Corrosion and Prevention, 2001, Paper No.
70.

Report R4-96.

Actions Part 2; Wind Actions; Standards

Zealand.
27. HB212 - 2002, Design Wind Speeds for the

Asia Pacific Region; Standard Australia,
Sydney, Australia.

Actions Part 3: Snow and Ice Actions;
29. Hogan TJ et.al.; Design of Structural

Connections, Fourth Edition; Australian
Institute of Steel Construction, Sydney,
Australia, 1994.
P O Box 76-134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 73 April/May 2003

The author(s) of each item in this publication are noted at the The material herein has been the subject of review by a
Introduction
maintaining the larger column size over the top 4
The introduction to this issue covers a number of storeys.
followup matters relating to articles and papers in
The result showed that carrying the larger column
previous issues. Readers' input and suggestions
size over the full height was the more economical
for research topics for the HERA Structural
outcome.
Division is also sought.
However, a fabricator reader makes the following
Following this is a design example, on the design
comments, which are very relevant and may
of a telescopic boom. Such booms are commonly
change the overall outcome in specific
used in portable lifting platforms such as "cherry
circumstances:
pickers". Their simple appearance and ease of
operation belie the complexities involved in their (1) The larger section size has an increased
design, which invokes most of the general bare surface area / metre length of around 20%.
steel design provisions of NZS 3404, as well as the If a required surface coating to the column
delights of combined biaxial bending plus torsion surface for either corrosion protection or fire
plus axial compression! This makes such a design protection is sufficiently expensive, the extra
example perfect for the DCB ! 20% surface area may alter the economics
of the outcome. Given that most multi-
This is followed by three short papers or articles
storey columns will carry some form of
relating to topics of current interest.
coating for fire protection or corrosion
The issue, as usual, concludes with the protection purposes, this should have been
references. included.
Progress on Errata to AS/NZS 2312:2002 In This Issue Page

As advised in the paper on the new corrosion Design Example 73.1: Design of a 3
protection Standard [1] presented on pages 10-15 Telescopic Lifting Boom
of DCB No. 72, there are a number of minor errors
and omissions in this new Standard. These are Restraint issues Relating to Portal 12
currently being rectified by the committee. It is Frame Spine Beams
intended that the changes be published by July Floor Vibration Program NZFl_Vib 1: 22
2003. What the Slab Output Represents
Column Splice Cost Comparison Revisited Design of Multi-Storey Steel 23

Buildings for Satisfactory In-Service
Page 15 of DCB No. 72 presented a short article
Wind Induced Vibration Response:
on a column splice cost comparison between two
Update on DCB No. 66
column options for the top 4 storeys of a multi-
storey building. The choices were between
SPM 0103: Potential Problem and 24
introducing a non-standard splice to step the
Solution
column size down from a 310UC97 to a 250UC73,
or using a standard bolted splice from
References 25
HERA Report R4-100 [2] for the 310UC97 and
Charles Clifton's note: This was certainly an Would all DCB readers please make this
omission and should have been included in change in their copy of DCB No. 65.
any comparison made. For spray applied
fire protection or for single coat paint Congratulations to Linus Lim on Achieving his
2
systems, which have an applied cost/m of PhD.
2
under $50/m , [3], the difference would be
unlikely to change the conclusion that Linus Lim, the University of Canterbury fire
maintaining the heavier column section size engineering student whose floor slab panel
over the top 4 levels is the more cost- research has been fundamental to the
effective outcome. However, for solid board development of the second edition of the Slab
or intumescent paint fire protection systems, Panel Method (SPM) fire engineering design
2
which have applied costs/m ranging from procedure, has successfully completed his PhD
2 2
$50/m to over $200/m , the cost saving in degree.
coating on the smaller column might well
change the outcome. His work on membrane action in fire exposed
concrete floor systems has been excellent and
(2) The extra weight and size of the larger Charles Clifton congratulates him, personally and
column may slightly increase transport on behalf of HERA, on an excellent project well
costs, by decreasing the number of lengths completed.
of column that can be put on a truck. Thus
for every three full loads of columns another Linus now joins the Sydney office of a respected
trip will be needed to transport the extra fire engineering consultant, where his talents and
weight. This isn't taken account of in the expertise will be well put to use.
comparison. This would slightly reduce the
margin in favour of maintaining the heavier Research Topics Sought
column size given in the DCB No. 72
comparison. Over the last five years, HERA has received
funding from the Foundation for Research, Science
This reader's key point was that the most cost- and Technology (FRST) for our research
effective option from that comparison is dependent programme into enhanced steel building
on the input assumptions. While that outcome performance in high risk events.
would be typical, it will not always apply and
engineers should not consider that as the definitive This funding has enabled the development of
answer for all future considerations of this type. major new design developments, such as:
Sound advice… • The flange bolted joint (DCB Nos. 58 and

62), for which standard connection details
Corrigenda to the Design of Circular Bolted are currently being developed by Raed Zaki,
Flange Annulus Connection HERA Assistant Structural Engineer
DCB No. 65 contains a design procedure for the • The sliding hinge joint (DCB No. 68) for
design of Circular Bolted Flange Annulus which standard connection details are also
connections. These are bolted connections currently being developed
between lengths of circular columns, where the
two lengths have an annulus plate welded to their • The slab panel method (SPM) of floor
ends, with adjacent plates being bolted via a ring system design for dependable inelastic
of high strength structural bolts. response in severe fires.
A user of the procedure has raised two issues Their current funding is for a programme of
regarding the procedure. These are as follows: research work through to mid-2004. Despite
submitting what the HERA Structural Engineer
Q1: The dimension m2 is defined in equation considers to be our best ever bid to FRST for the
65.4.2 but not shown in that equation. Is the next six years built environment funding round, this
equation correct? bid has been declined. This means that all current
A1: Yes it is. The dimension m2 is used in the government funding of HERA research ceases as
determination of α, from Fig. 65.16. That of mid-2004. As a result, funding for the HERA
variable is then used in equation 65.4.2. Structural Division will decrease by over 50% at
the end of the 2003/2004 financial year. This will
Q2: In section 3.5.2, the equation reference for require a complete re-evaluation of HERA's
*
calculating Ntw is wrong. structural steel activities. We need to undertake
* the following actions:
A2: That is correct; Ntw is calculated from
equation 65.3, not equation 65.13 as stated.
• Determine which of the current range and
scope of activities undertaken by the HERA
Structural Division the industry would like to
see maintained; then
• Develop funding streams to support these
activities
This includes putting up a research programme for

the next few years of topics that are a high priority
to the industry. We will be seeking input from DCB
readers on all this in the forthcoming year,
however for now we are asking readers to come
back with any research topics that they would like
to see HERA undertake. Please send a brief
description (not more than 100 words suggested)
to Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer:
Design Example 73.1: Design of

a Telescopic Lifting Beam
This design example has been prepared by Murray Landon,
Consulting Engineer from Tauranga. It is based on an actual
job, but some details have been changed for confidentiality
reasons and ease of presentation. Some editorial notes have
been added by G Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer.

Fig. 73.1
General details Typical Example of a Telescopic Lifting Boom at
o
Maximum Extension and Raised to 45 from
Fig. 73.1 shows a typical example of a Vertical
telescopic lifting boom. Despite their simplicity
of appearance and operation, they are
not the most straight forward item to design. The design does not cover:
The boom comprises a telescopic beam nested
• Design for other positions: the critical other
into a main beam. RHS members are used for
position to check would be the fully
both the main beam and the telescopic beam.
extended boom raised just off the ground,
The sizes of these two members must be such as giving maximum bending moment but no
to allow nesting to occur, clearances for the plastic axial compression
guides, hydraulic ram to extend and retract the • Design for concentrated load transfer at the
telescopic beam etc. Selection of suitable pairs of supports and other points.
RHS sizes for this can be made using the Design
Capacity Tables for Hollow Sections [4], which
Design Method
covers sizing of nested sections.
Design is to NZS 3404 [5] using the Alternative
Scope of design example Design Method (Working Load Design) of
Appendix P.
This design example covers:
The working load design method is used because
• Design of the boom for the design actions the design loads have been evaluated using the
shown in Fig. 73.2 (but ignoring the self- working load provisions of AS 1418.1 [6].
o
weight), when raised to an angle of 45 and
o
sitting on ground with a slope of 10 to the Use is also made of Formulas for Stress and Strain
horizontal [7] by Roark. Item references are given to the fifth
• The boom is in the fully extended position and sixth editions, which covers the two editions
• The design actions include a primary torque most commonly used by designers.
at the end of the boom of 2.25 kNm.
BOOM LAYOUT
∗
F = 7.50 KN
(Inc dynamic factor)
∗
M z = 2.25KNm
(Inc dynamic factor) F
∗ ∗
F z F y
3.30 m
Telescopic Beam
E
1.70 m
4.20 m
Main Beam
Axes
Y Z
B
1.20 m Hydraulic Ram
A
Angle = 45o
X
Fig. 73.2
o
Layout of Telescopic Boom, When Extended and Raised 45 , Along with
Design Actions and Positions for Design Checks
Boom Layout for Design Example

Section Properties for the Two RHS Members
This is shown in Fig. 73.2.
The members chosen are a 200 x 100 x 5 RHS for
The telescopic beam slides inside the main beam the telescopic beam and a 250 x 150 x 6 RHS for
on plastic guides. These are provided on all four the main beam. Both are Grade C350 to AS1163
sides, to provide the necessary twist restraint. [8].
The ram for the telescopic beam is joined midway Their section properties and nominal capacities
between points D and E. It is assumed that the that are relevant to this design example are given
friction of the slides transfers the compressive in Table 73.1.
force from the telescopic beam to the main beam
at point C; this is also shown in Figure 73.2.
Table 73.1
Section Properties and Nominal Capacities ∗ o
F y = F x sin 45 (Approx since on 10 slope)
Telescopic Beam - = 5.30 KN
200 x 100 x 5
-6 4 -6 4
Ix = 14.4 x 10 m Iy = 4.92 x 10 m ∗ o
F z = F x cos 45 (Approx since on 10 slope)
rx = 71.5 mm ry = 41.8 mm = 5.30 KN
-6 4
J = 12.1 x 10 m ∗
F x = F x sin 10 (Ground slopes downwards
kf = 0.925
in positive x direction)
= 1.30 KN
Ns = 911 kN
Mz = 36.0 kNm
Msx = 62.8 kNm Msy = 31.6 kNm R *y ,E = 15.6 KN (Find by taking moments
Vv x = 380 kN Vvy = 189 kN about point D)
Main Beam- 250 x 150 x 6 R *z, E = 5.30 KN

-6 4 -6 4
Ix = 38.4 x 10 m Iy = 17.5 x 10 m
rx = 92.0 mm ry = 62.2 mm
R *y ,D = -10.3 KN (F*
y - R *y ,E )
-6 4
J = 39.0 x 10 m
∗
kf = 0.907 M*x,E = F y x 3.30
= 17.5 KNm
Ns = 1433 kN
Mz = 83.0 kNm ∗
M*y ,E = F x x 3.30
Msx = 131 kNm Msy = 72.9 kNm
Vv x = 577 kN Vvy = 348 kN = 4.30 KNm
M*z,E = 2.25 KNm (design torsion; this is

Notes: applied at the end of the
1. The above are obtained from [4], except that the
nominal capacities for compression, moment and shear boom, in conjunction with
∗
are given in this table, rather than the design capacities. the applied load F which
This is because the alternative design method is being
used. That requires determination of nominal capacity,
is acting through the shear
to which a factor of safety, Ω, is then applied. Table centre of the beam)
P3.3 of [5] gives the required values of Ω, which are
repeated in Table 73.2. Vy* ,E = 5.30 KN
2. The nominal capacity equals the design capacity, as
given by [4], multiplied by (1/φ) or (1/0.9). Vx,* E = 1.30 KN
Table 73.2
Determination of Second-Order Effects
Alternative Design Method Factors of Safety (Ω)
Permissible Strength Factor Of Safety (Ω Ω)
In an elastic analysis to NZS 3404 Clause 4.4, the
For
first requirement is to determine the influence of
Bending 0.60
second-order effects. For the telescopic beam,
Shear 0.62
which is a sway member, this requires the
Axial Forces 0.60 calculation of the elastic buckling load, Noms.
Combined Actions 0.60
The elastic effective length factor for a sway
Note: These are the values from NZS 3404 Table P3.3 that
are relevant to this design example. member with a fixed base is given by NZS 3404
Fig. 4.8.3.2 case number 5, ie. ke = 2.2.
Design Check on Telescopic Beam
However, the telescopic beam is not fixed at point
Critical location for member capacity E, but is continuous past that point to D. It
therefore undergoes rotation at E due to the
This is, by inspection, at the right hand side of applied moment over length DE. This rotation will
point E. increase the deflection at point F.
Design actions in member To allow for this, the deflection at F due to

cantilever plus support rotation must be
Refer to the axes shown in Fig. 73.2 for the signs determined, then converted to an equivalent fixed-
of the forces.
ended cantilever length EF that would give the Calculation of elastic buckling load factors
same deflection at F. This is to Clause 4.9.2.3;
Cantilever deflection at F, excluding rotation at E Nomsx 409

ëcx = *
= = 77.2
N 5.30
PL3
υ = = 22.0 x 10 −3 m Nomsy
3EI 140
ëcy = *
= = 26.4
N 5.30
P = 5.30 kN
L = 3.30 m Consideration of second-order effects
E = 200 GPa
-6
Ix = 14.4 x 10 m
4 As λcx and λcy ≥ 10, from Clause 4.4.2.2.1 of [5]
second order effects on the telescopic beam
Slope at E member can be neglected.
Bending about the X-axis

M∗x, E 2L
èE = = 3.44 x 10− 3 radians (From
6EI Determining critical cross section along boom
th
Table 3, item 3e, page 103 of [7] or page 107, 6 for bending moment determination
edition)
This involves checking Clause 5.3.3.
M*x,E = 17.5 KNm
M* 17.5
L = 1.70 m At point E; = = 0.28
Msx,E 62.8
Total deflection at E
M* 39.8
At point B; = = 0.30
υ(total ) = υ + èE × 3.30 = 33.4 × 10−3 m Msx,B 131
Hence, in practice, both points need checking as

Equivalent beam length as fixed ended either could be critical.
cantilever
Section moment capacity at E
PL3eq
υ= ΩMSX,E = 0.6 x 62.8 = 37.7 kNm
3EIx Ω = 0.6, from Table 73.2
Msx = 62.8 kNm, from Table 73.1
υ 3EIx
Leq = 3 = 3.79m Member moment capacity for length EF
P
This is determined using Clause 5.6.2 of [5]. The
This equivalent length is then used for Noms segment EF is the relevant segment; this has
calculation in the x and y directions. constant cross section. The end at E has full twist
restraint from the support to the main member; the
Calculation of Nomsx and Nomsy end at F is unrestrained.
π 2 EI x   π 2EI 
N omx = = 409KN   π 2EI   
(k ex L ) 2
Moa,EF = Mo =   2 
y
GJ +  2 w    = 929KNm
  L e 
   L e   
-6 4
Ix = 14.4 x 10 m (Eqn 5.6.1.1(4))
k ex = 2.2 (case 5, NZS 3404 Fig. 4.8.3.2;
-6 4
allows for curvature in main beam, Iy = 4.92 x 10 m
etc) Le = 3.30 m
L = 3.79 m k t = 1.0 (FU)
k l = 1.0 (Load applied above flange, but
π 2Ely this is taken into account by the
Nomy = = 140kN
(key L )2 torsion moment M*z )
k r = 1.0 (FU)
-6 4
Iy = 4.92 x 10 m
k ey = 2.2 G = 80 GPa
-6 4
L = 3.79 m J = 12.1 x 10 m
Iw = 0 (RHS member; see Clause 5.6.1.4)
  M 2  M  M*z 2.30 × 10 -3
   τu* = = = 12.4MPa
á s,EF = 0.6  sx  + 3 −  sx  = 1.0 2 × Ae × t 2 × 18.5 × 10 -3 × 5 x 10 -3
  Moa    Moa 
   
(Eqn 5.6.1.1(3)) Ae = (b − t)(d − t ) = 18.5 × 10−3 m2
(see section 8.2.4.1 of [9]
Msx,E = 62.8 KNm or Appendix H, Clause
H4 of [5])
αm,E = 1.25 (see Table 5.6.2, case Number 2). b = 100 mm
d = 200 mm
ΩMbx,E = Ωαs αm Msx ≤ ΩMsx t = 5 mm
Vw = Vv x = 380 kN
ΩMbx,E = ΩMsx = 37.7 kNm fy = 350 MPa
As αs αm > 1.0, the segment EF has full lateral *

Veq = 27.7kN < ΩVw = 0.62 x 380 = 236 kN
restraint.
Check interaction of equivalent shear and
(Check on point B is covered in the design of the bending
main member)
Checking x-axis moment adequacy M*x,E 17.5

= = 0.46 < 0.75
ÙM sx 0.6 × 62.8
M*x,E ≤ ΩMbx,E is required
Therefore don’t need to check interaction of
equivalent shear and bending (Clause 5.12.2 of
M*x,E = 17.5 kNm ≤ 37.7 kNm √ OK
NZS 3404 applied to working loads).
Bending about the y-axis The y-axis check is similar and will be OK by
comparison.
M*y ,E ≤ ΩMsy,E is required
Calculation of member compression capacity
M*y ,E = 4.30 kNm ≤ 0.6 x 31.6 = 19.0 kNm √ OK Member compression capacity is calculated for the
length EF.
Calculation of equivalent shear
The actual length EF of 3.3 m is used for this, with
As described in section 8.2.4 of the Structural an effective length factor of 1.0, as this is now
Steelwork Limit State Design Guides Volume 1 [9] design of the member and second-order effects
and also in Commentary Clause C8.5 of have already been determined.
NZS 3404: Part 2 [5], the uniform torsion, M*Z , will
Nc = á cNs
interact with the applied shear, Vy* ,E to produce an
Ncx = 0.895 × 911 = 815 KN
equivalent design shear force.
Ncy = 0.675 × 911 = 615 KN
The second-order influence of on the design M*x
torque must first be determined, as described in αcx = 0.895 From Table 6.3.3(2) of [5]
C8.5.4.2 (c) of [5]. for αb = -0.5 and λnx = 52.5
αcy = 0.675
1 1 αb = -0.5
δz = = = 1.02
M*x,E 17.5  Le   fy 
1- 1-
929
ën =   (k f )  
 250 
Moa,EF  r   
λnx = 52.5
M*z,E = M*z x δ z = 2.25 x 1.02 = 2.30 kNm λny = 89.8
Equivalent shear is now given from C8.5.5.2 of [5] rx = 71.5 mm
as; ry = 41.8 mm
Le = 3.3 m
 τ* V  ke = 1.0
*
Veq = Vy* ,E + u w  = 27.7 KN
 0.60 × f  L = 3.3 m
 y 
kf = 0.925
Vy* ,E = 5.30 KN fy = 350MPa
Check on member adequacy in compression R *y ,A = - M*Bx / 1 .2 = - 33.2kN
N* ≤ ΩNs
5.30 ≤ 0.6 x 911 = 547 kN √ OK Determination of second-order effects
N* ≤ ΩNcx The same situation applies over length BC of the

5.30 ≤ 0.6 x 463 = 278 kN √ OK main member as applied over length EF of the
telescopic boom, in terms of the need to calculate
N* ≤ ΩNcy an equivalent fixed ended cantilever length BC.
5.30 ≤ 0.6 x 137 = 82.2 kN √ OK
Cantilever deflection at C, excluding rotation
Check combined bending and compression at B
The section capacity check at E uses Clause

PL3 −3
P8.3.4, as applied through Clause 8.3.4.1. υc = = 17.04 × 10 m
3EIx
N* M*x M*y 5.30 17.5 4.30 P = Fy* = 5.30 kN (we are ignoring self
+ + = + +
ÙN s ÙM sx ÙM sy 0.6 × 911 0.6 × 62.8 0.6 × 31.6 weight)
= 0.701 ≤ 1.0 L = 4.20 m
E = 200 GPa
-6 4
The member capacity check on EF uses Clause Ix = 38.4 x 10 m
P8.4.5, as applied through Clause 8.4.5.1.
Slope at B
1.4 1.4
 M*x   M*y   17.5 
1.4
 4.30 
1.4 MB* 2L
  +  = + θB = = 1 .16 × 10 −3 radians
 ÙM   
 ÙM iy   0.6 × 62.1  0.6 × 31.1 
6EI
 cx   
MB* = 22.3 KNm
= 0.475 ≤ 1.0
L = LAB = 1.2 m
Mcx = Mix Full lateral restraint ; see Clause 8.4.5.1
Total deflection at C
 
Mix = Msx 1 −
N*
 = 62.8 × 1 −
5.30 
 = 62.1 KNm υ(total ) = υc + èB × 4.20 = 21.9 ×10 −3 m
 ÙN   0.6 × 815 
 cx 
Equivalent beam length as fixed ended cantilever
 N *   5.30 
Miy = Msy  1 − = 31.6 × 1 −  = 31.1 KNm PL3e
 ÙN   0.6 × 615 
 cy  υ=
3EIx
The design check on the telescopic boom is now
complete. õ 3EIx
Le = 3 = 4.57m
Design Check on Main Member P
The critical cross section for bending is, by This equivalent length is then used for Noms
inspection, over the hydraulic ram at point B. calculation in the x and y directions.
Design actions in member Calculation of Nomsx and Nomsy

M*x,B = F*y x 7.50 The main beam is a combined section and this
= 39.8 KNm needs to be accounted for. The relevant table
∗ from Roark, fifth edition [7] is page 534, table 34,
M*y,B = F x x 7.50 item 1a. From the sixth edition it is on page 670.
= 9.75 KNm
∗ π 2EIx1
M z,B = 2.25 KNm Nomx = K1 × = 170 KN
L2eq, x
∗
V y,B = 5.30 KN
∗
K1 = 0.419 from table 34 of [5]
V x,B = 1.30 KN
Ix2 38.4
R *y ,B = Fy* x (3.3 + 4.2 + 1.2) /1.2 = 38.5 kN = = 2.67 Therefore take as equal to 2.0
Ix1 14.4
(force required at ram for this configuration)
to match tables.
a 4.82 Bending about the x-axis
= = 0.58 Therefore take as equal to 0.5
L eq, x 8.36
This involves checking moment capacity at B;
section moment capacity at E and member
P2 0 moment capacity over segment length AF. The
= =0 (There is no increase in
P1 5.30 latter is based on the hydraulic ram not providing
compression load on the effective twist restraint at B, which is probably
larger section) conservative.
L eq = 4.57 + 3.79 = 8.36 m Section moment capacity at B
ΩMsx,B = 0.6 x 131 = 78.6 kNm

K1 x π 2 EÉy 1 Ω = 0.6, from Table 73.2
Nomy = = 39.8KN
(2.2 2 )2 L2eq, y Msx,B = 131 kNm, from Table 73.1 for the
lower section.
The (2.2/2) multiplier on the denominator for Nomy Member moment capacity along length AF
makes allowance for the increase in effective
length for a fixed cantilever specified by NZS 3404
This is determined by using Clause 5.6.2 of [5], in
Fig. 4.8.3.2 Case 5. Given that K1 from Roark conjunction with Clause 5.6.1.1.2 which accounts
already takes account of the cantilever
for the change in cross section at C.
configuration, ie. k=2, with regard to elastic
compression buckling load, the adjustment for
Calculation of non-uniformity factor, αst
NZS 3404 is (2.2/2).
á st = 1.0 - [1.2rr (1 - rs )] = 0.777
K1 = 0.419 from table 34 of [5].
rr = Lr/L = 0.38
Éy 2 17.5
= = 3.56 ⇒ take as equal to 2.0 for tables
Éy 1 4.92 Af m   0.4dm  
rs = 0.6 +  
 = 0.511
Afc   dc  
a 5.4
= = 0.59 ⇒ take as equal to 0.5
L eq, y 9.2 Af m = 0.100 x 0.005 x 2 = 1.00 x 10 m
-3
-3
Af c = 0.150 x 0.006 x 2 = 1.80 x 10 m
P2 0 dm = 200 mm
= =0 dc = 250 mm
P1 5.30
Lr = 3.3 m
L = 1.2 + 4.2 + 3.3 = 8.70 m (Actual
L eq = 1.20 + 4.2 + 3.79 = 9.2 (The distance AB length of main beam AC and length of
is added, because there is no support against telescopic beam EF)
buckling about the y-axis offered by the hydraulic
support at B. The actual length ABC is therefore Calculation of uniform elastic buckling moment,
used). Moa, based on cross-section at B (same as at A)
Calculation of elastic buckling load factors

  π 2El   2 
Moa, u,AF =  y  GJ +  π El w    = 1193 kNm
 2   L2  
ëcx =
N omsx
=
170
= 32.1   eL   e   
*
N 5.30 (Eqn 5.6.1.1(4))
N omsy -6 4
39.8 Iy,A = 17.5 x 10 m
ëcy = = = 7.51
N* 5.30 Le = 1.0L = 8.70 m
kt = 1.0 (FU)
As λcx > 10, no need to magnify M*x . kl = 1.0 (Load above flange but taken
into account by moment Mz)
As λcy < 10, must magnify M*y . kr = 1.0 (FU)
G = 80 GPa
-6 4
0.95 J = 39.0 x 10 m
äm = äs = = 1.10 lw = 0 (RHS member; see Clause 5.6.1.4)
 1 
1-  
 λ cy  Reduction in elastic buckling moment for the
segment due to the change in cross-section at C.
M*y ,B = äm M*y ,B first order = 1.10 x 9.75 = 10.73 kNm
Moa,AF = αst x Moa,u,AF = 0.777 x 1,193 = 927 kNm M*Z,B 2.35 × 10 -3
τu* = = = 5.59 MPa
2 × Ae × t 2 × 35.1× 10 -3 × 6.0 × 10 -3
  M 2  
   M sx  
 sx  + 3   
á s,AF = 0.6 
 M oa 
-   = 0.96 Ae = (b − t )(d − t) = 35.1× 10-3 m2
     M oa  
  b = 150mm
(Eqn 5.6.1.1 (3)) d = 250mm
t = 6.0mm
Msx = 131 kNm
αm = 1.25 (To allow for self weight and the Vw = Vv x = 577 KN
moment distribution in the beam
due to the telescopic beam fy = 350 MPa
reactions, refer DCB No. 16 for
improved αm ) *
Veq = 20.6 kN << ÙV w = 0.62 x 577 = 358 kN
Mbx = αmαsMs x = 1.25 x 0.96 x 131 = 156 kNm ≤ Msx Check interaction of equivalent shear and
(Eqn 5.6.1.1(1)) bending
Mbx,B = Msx,B = 131 kNm M*x,B 39.8

= = 0.51 < 0.75
ΩMbx,B = 0.6 x 131 = 78.6 kNm ÙM sx 78.6
(As αsαm > 1.0, the segment AF has full lateral Therefore don’t need to consider interaction of
restraint). equivalent shear and bending.
Checking x-axis moment adequacy The y-axis check is similar and will be OK by
comparison.
M*x,B ≤ ÙM bx,B is required
Calculation of member compressive capacity
M*x,B = 39.8 kNm ≤ 78.6 kNm √ OK Member compression capacity is calculated for the
length BF for the x-axis and the length AF for the
Bending about the y-axis y-axis, as the hydraulic ram does not provide
y-axis restraint.
M*y ,B ≤ Ω Ms y B, is required
Both lengths comprise the main member and the
telescopic member, thus requiring design to
M*y ,B = 10.73 kNm (including second - order effects)
Clause 6.3.4.
≤ 0.6 x 72.9 = 43.7 kNm
√ OK This first requires calculation of Nomx and Nomy , so
as to calculate the slenderness ratio.
Calculation of equivalent shear
Calculation of Nomx and Nomy
The second-order influence of Mx* on the design
The relevant table from Roark fifth edition [7]
torque on the main member must first be is Table 34, p.535. For the sixth edition it is on
determined. page 670.
1 Earlier in this main member design, the Nomx and
ä = = 1.04
M* Nomy for the elastic effective lengths for this sway
1- x member were calculated in order to determine the
M oa
second-order effect multipliers. For individual
M*x = 39.8 kNm member design, in accordance with NZS 3404
Moa = 927 kNm Clause 4.8.3.1 (a) (iv), the member effective length
factor is taken as ke = 1.0. This corresponds to a
M*z,B = M*z x äz = 2.25 x 1.04 = 2.35 kNm pin-pin ended member and so means that the item
number from Table 34 of [7] corresponding to the
Equivalent shear is now calculated thus: k e = 1.0 (pin-pin) case must be used. That is case
number 1b.
 τ* V  π 2EIx1
*
= Vy* ,B +  u w  = 20.6 KN Nomx = K1 × = 577 KN
Veq
 0.60 × f
 y

 (ke L eq, x )2
Vy* ,B = 5.30 KN K1 = 1.297 From table 34 of [7], Item 1b.
Ix2 38.4 Ncy = 0.150 x 911 = 137 kN
= = 2.67 Therefore let equal 2.0 to
Ix1 14.4
αcx = 0.508 for λnx = 113 From Table 6.3.3 (2) of [5]
match tables.
αcy = 0.150 for λny = 223
a 4.2
= = 0.525 Therefore let equal 0.5
L eq, x 7.99 αb = -0.5
P2 0 Check on member adequacy in compression

= =0
P1 5.30
N* ≤ ΩNs
5.30 ≤ 0.6 x 1433 = 860 kN √ OK
k e = 1.0
Leq,x = 4.20 + 3.79 = 7.99 m
N* ≤ ΩNcx
5.30 ≤ 0.6 x 463 = 278 kN √ OK
π2EIy 1
Nomy = K1 × = 149 KN
(ke Leq, y )2 N* ≤ ΩNcy
5.30 ≤ 0.6 x 137 = 82.2 kN √ OK
K1 = 1.297 From table 34 of [1], Item 1b
Check combined bending and compression
Iy 2 17.5 The section capacity check at B uses Clause

= = 3.56 Therefore let equal 2.0 to
Iy 1 4.92 P8.3.4, as applied through Clause 8.3.4.1.
match tables.
N* M*x M*y 5.3 39.8
+ + = +
a 5.4 ÙN s ÙM sx ÙM sy 0.6 × 1433 0.6 × 131
= = 0.588 Therefore let equal 0.5
L 9.19 10.73
+ = 0.767 ≤ 1.0
0.6 × 72.9
P2 0
= =0
P1 5.30 The member capacity check on BF or AF
respectively as appropriate (for the x-axis and the
L eq,y = 5.40 + 3.79 = 9.19 m y-axis) uses Clause P.8.4.5, as applied through
Clause 8.4.5.1.
Calculation of modified member slenderness
1.4 1.4
 M*x   M*y   39.8 
1.4
This is to Clause 6.3.4 (b)   +  = 

 ÙM   ÙM iy   0.6 × 129 
 cx   
1.4
 N   10.73 
ën = 90  s  +  = 0.55 ≤ 1.0
 N om   0.6 × 68.2 
Mcx = Mix Full lateral restraint; see Clause 8.4.5.1

 911 
ënx = 90 x   = 113
 577 
 N* 
 = 131 ×  1 −
5.30 
Mix = Msx 1 −  = 129 KNm
 ÙN   0.6 × 463 
 c 
 911 
ëny = 90 x   = 223
 149   
N*
 = 72.9 × 1 −
5.30 
Miy = Msy  1 −  = 68.2 KNm
 ÙN c   0.6 × 137 
Ns = 911 kN calculated for the smallest cross  
section, which is the telescoping beam.
The design check on the main boom is now
Nomx and Nomy are as calculated above. complete.
Calculation of member compression capacity Conclusion
Nc = αc Ns The telescopic lifting boom shown in Fig. 73.2 can

carry the applied loads when extended and raised
o o
Ncx = 0.508 x 911 = 463 kN 45 and situated on a slope of 10 .
Restraint Issues Relating to
The use of a spine beam also results in higher
Portal Frame Spine Beams column axial loads, which results in larger column
sizes that may have greater resistance against
Structural Engineer. accidental impact (but also increase the foundation
loads and possible size of foundation pad or pile
Scope required).
Fig. 73.3 shows a typical example of a spine beam However, the use of a spine beam introduces
in a portal frame building. Spine beams are used restraint issues relating to the spine beam itself,
in propped portal construction to support the portal the rafter it supports and the columns that support
frame in lieu of a column. They carry the vertical it, that must be considered.
loading (either downwards or uplift) in bending
across to supporting columns. This allows the The scope and purpose of this article is to cover
number of supporting columns to be reduced from the general restraint issues relating to portal frame
one every portal frame to one every second or spine beams. It addresses the following topics:
third portal frame, as appropriate. It also means
that an extra beam, typically under the apex, is • restraint of the portal frame rafter
required. • restraint of the spine beam
• restraint of the column
Given the pitch on a portal frame, the clear height • detailed design advice for common
from floor to bottom of spine beam at the apex will configurations of rafter and spine beam
usually be no less than that from floor to underside • some general restraint and design issues.
of rafter at the knees, so the addition of a spine
beam at the apex does not reduce the clear head
height within the building.
Spine Beam
Portal Frame Rafter
Fig. 73.3
Example of Spine Beam in Portal Frame Building
Portal Frame Rafter
Brace
Spine Beam
Top of
Column
Fig. 73.4
Close up of Spine Beam/Portal Frame/Column Support
The article is written around the restraint provisions or 20 from [10] applies and the spine beam is not
of NZS 3404 Clauses 5.4 and 6.7 and the use of required to provide restraint to the rafter.
HERA Report R4-92 [10] Restraint Classifications
for Beam Member Moment Capacity Determination Where the rafter is in negative bending going over
to NZS 3404. It covers these items in general the spine beam, the rafter bottom flange is critical.
terms initially, then goes into detail for common In that case, from Connection Detail Nos. 19 or 20,
configurations of rafter and spine beam. the cross section would have less than full twist
restraint (F) without the spine beam and the
Prior to commencing with the first of these topics, additional restraint offered by that beam can be
some definitions of directions and location are used to provide full twist restraint. The restraining
given. These are used repeatedly throughout the system must prevent the rafter from twisting - ie.
article. the bottom flange from moving parallel to the span
of the spine beam.
Definitions of Directions and Location
If the rafter has one or two full depth stiffeners in
These should be read in conjunction with Fig. 73.4, this case (as does the system shown in Fig. 73.3),
which is a view looking along the span of the rafter, then the restraint against twist can be provided
with the spine beam running at right angles through the flexural restraint of the rafter to spine
underneath, across the picture. beam connection and the rafter to purlin
connection. The restraining moments are then
The key directions are: resisted by in-plane bending resistance of the
purlins at the top and the spine beam at the
• parallel to the rafter, which means in the bottom. If there is a typical moment connection
direction of the span of the rafter between rafter and purlin (see Connection Detail
• transverse to the rafter, which means at right 19 from [10]) and at least two bolts between rafter
angles to the span of the rafter and hence and spine beam that can resist in-plane moment in
parallel to the span of the spine beam the spine beam generated by the out-of plane twist
• parallel to the span of the spine beam, which of the supported rafter, then this is a viable
means in the direction of the span of the solution. It is the solution used in Fig. 73.3.
spine beam
• transverse to the span of the spine beam, An alternative is to provide direct lateral restraint to
which means at right angles to the span of the rafter bottom flange via the spine beam. This
the spine beam and hence parallel to the doesn't require the rafter to spine beam or the
span of the rafter rafter to roof connections to provide moment
• the rafter and spine beam are assumed to resistance against rafter twist. However, it puts a
be at right angles in this article lateral restraining force into the spine beam, which
travels along the spine beam and accumulates in
• the top of the column for restraint
accordance with Clause 5.4.3.3 of [5]. This
discussions is taken at the bottom of the
spine beam, as shown in Fig. 73.4. restraining force must be anchored back into the
roof system, or else there could be a restraint
failure caused by the lateral movement of the spine
Restraint of Portal Frame Rafter
beam as a rigid unit, with all rafters connected to
the spine beam rotating in the same direction. In
There are no Connection Details from [10] which
the case of Fig. 73.3, for example, a way of
describe exactly the rafter over spine beam set-up,
providing this anchorage is to connect the spine
however Connection Details 11 and 12 come
beam into an end column in the wind wall, the top
close. The main differences between those details
of which is tied into the roof bracing system in the
and the rafter/spine beam case is that, in the latter:
end bay.
(i) The top of the rafter is typically tied into the
A final alternative offered is to use a fly brace to
roof system, which provides a plane of
the rafter bottom flange, as shown in Connection
inherent lateral restraint
Detail 21 from [10]. In this case, the fly brace plus
spine beam mean that F restraint will be provided,
(ii) The rafter is continuous over the spine
even when the purlin is flexible (see C5.4.2.2 of
beam.
NZS 3404 [5]).
Connection details 19 and 20 are also relevant.
See the cases described under Detailed Advice for
Common Configurations for more detailed
In the case where the rafter is in positive bending
guidance.
going over the spine beam, the rafter top flange
is the Critical Flange (CF - see NZS 3404 [5]
As discussed under Restraint of the Column, later
Clause 5.5 for definition). At points of restraint to
in this article, the column restraining forces parallel
the roofing system, Connection Detail Nos. 19
to the spine beam operate in the same direction as
those generated by the rafter bottom flange under Under vertical downwards loading (dead, live,
negative moment and must be effectively anchored snow, downwards wind), such a spine beam will be
back into the roof plane. The restraining system subject to negative moment over the intermediate
needs to be designed to resist the greater of these supporting columns and positive moment under
two sets of restraint forces, not the sum of the two. the supported rafters.
Restraint of Spine Beam The moment signs will be reversed for loads
involving dead + wind that produce a net uplift.
Fig. 73.3 shows a system where every second
portal frame apex is supported by a spine beam, Under negative moment, the bottom flange is the
the others being supported by a column. The Critical Flange. Full section restraint should be
vertical stiffness offered at the apex by a column is provided, either via a stiffener and moment system
potentially much greater than that offered by the as shown in Connection Detail 12 from [10] or a fly
spine beam. In order to control differential vertical brace as shown in Figs. 73.3 and 73.4. Design of
deflection at the apex between adjacent portal these systems is covered by [10].
frames, the spine beam design is likely to be
governed by serviceability deflection limitations; Under positive moment, the top flange is the
eg. differential deflection limits of (frame spacing / Critical Flange and Full section restraint is
200) or (frame spacing / 250) may apply under the provided, by inspection. The lateral restraining
relevant load combinations (see eg. NZS 4203 [11] force feeds into the rafter and through into the roof
Table C2.4.1). There will be more stringent limits system, via the in-plane rigidity of the rafters,
required where the roof system supports a without the need for further calculation.
suspended ceiling. This means that the spine
beam is likely to be made continuous over the See the cases described under Detailed Advice for
supporting columns, as indeed is the beam shown Common Configurations for more detailed
in Figs. 73.3 and 73.4, and pinned at the end guidance.
supporting columns.
Spine beam continous over

Rafter internal column
Lateral restraint force
RL1*
Rc* Rsb*
Internal column
Nc*
(a) Propped portal frame
Rsb*
Lateral restraint force
RL2*
(b) Intermediate portal frame
Fig. 73.5
Propped and Intermediate Portal Frames Showing Restraint Forces from Spine Beam and Column
Propped portal Spine beam
frame Rsb,1*
a below portal
b
Rr,left* Rr,right *
c
Rsb,2* Restraint to
spine beam
d
e
Intermediate
portal frame f
a,b,c = restraint positions of spine beam

under propped portal frame
d,e,f = restraint positions of spine beam

under intermediate portal frame
Fig. 73.6
In-Plan Restraint to Spine Beam Critical Flange from the Rafter System
Restraint of the Column under Restraint of Portal Frame Rafter, on page 14

above. Whichever solution is adopted to resist
The top of the column, the position of which is these forces needs to be designed for the greatest
shown in Fig. 73.4, must be a point of magnitude restraint force from each source, not
effective restraint, to NZS 3404 [5] Clause 6.7. the sum of the two.
This requires restraining forces determined by
Clause 6.7.2.1 to be resisted about each of the Detailed Advice For Common Configurations
column's principal axes.
Preamble and assumptions
In the direction transverse to the spine beam
(parallel to the rafter), the lateral restraining force This section of the article provides detailed advice
must be transferred by either of design options 1 or on the derivation of restraint forces and their
2 described on pages 18-20 herein. Once this resistance by the overall building system for
restraining force gets into the rafter, it is resisted common spine beam/column configurations.
by the portal frame/roof system as described on
page 17. These configurations are:
In the direction parallel to the spine beam • propped portal frame (Fig. 73.5 (a))
(transverse to the rafter), the lateral restraining • intermediate portal frame (Fig. 73.5 (b))
force must transfer into the rafter and from there to • in-plan restraint to spine beam critical
the roof system. This lateral restraining force is flange from the rafter system (Fig. 73.6).
acting in the same direction as the rafter bottom
flange restraint force generated under negative
moment, solutions for which have been given
The assumptions made in this section are as Because the roof system provides inherent overall
follows: lateral stability, this force is not required to be
resisted by the portal frame as a lateral force, so it
• The spine beam is continuous over the does not contribute to R*L1 .
supporting column of the propped portal
frames
The column restraint force, R*c , is carried through
• The portal frame building has a normal
bracing system for building stability in into the rafter by the fly braces (or through the
addition to the cladding system (see pages stiffener/column system if design option 2 on
2-4 of DCB No. 50 for more details on what pages 18-20 is used), where it has to be resisted
this requirement entails) by the portal frame, ie.:
• The roof system provides inherent
*
overall lateral stability (see pages 2-4 of RL1 = Rc* (73.3)
DCB No. 50 and/or pages 2.7 to 2.9 of
HERA Report R4-92 [10] for more details).
The restraint force R*L1 can be resisted by the
The details on restraint are as follows: portal frame, in which case it becomes an
additional applied force in the load case generating
Propped portal frame case the design actions on the spine beam and column.
The critical load case for this is typically either
This is shown in Fig. 73.5 (a). In this case the 1.2G + 1.6Q, or 1.2G + 1.2S u, from NZS 4203 [11]
portal frame is providing restraint to the top of the Clause 2.4.3.3.
internal column, requiring a restraint force, R*c ,
However, the fact that the cladding system
given by; provides a stiffening effect - as described on
pages 4-7 of DCB No. 49 and 2-4 of DCB No. 50
Rc* = 0.025 Nc* (73.1) - can be used to share the resistance of this force
between the portal frame and the bracing system
where: in the transverse direction (typically in the gable
walls). The split of this force is in accordance with
N*c = design axial compression on internal
the advice for wind and earthquake given on
column page 7 of DCB No. 49 - ie. for a pinned base portal
frame, 0.5 R*L1 is resisted by the portal frame and
The portal frame is also providing restraint to the
bottom flange of the spine beam, this being the 0.5 R*L1 goes into the roof system and hence to the
critical flange for vertical load cases - ie. the flange gable walls (or other transverse bracing system).
in compression under the negative moment. The
spine beam restraint force at the propped portal, Intermediate portal frame case
R *sb, pp , is given by;
This is shown in Fig. 73.5 (b). In this case, the
spine beam is in positive moment and the top
M*sb,col
pp = 0.025
* flange, which is attached directly to the underside
R sb, (73.2)
(d b - tf )sb of the portal frame, is the critical (compression)
flange. The restraint force, R *sb,ip , is given by:
where:
M*sb, col = design negative moment in spine 0.025 M *sb,ip
ip =
*
R sb, (73.4)
db, tf
beam at the column
= spine beam depth and flange
(d b - tf )sb
thickness
where:
The fly braces shown in that figure must be M*sb,ip = design positive moment in the spine
designed to transfer (R*c + R*sb ) into the rafter, as beam at the intermediate portal frame.
shown in Fig. 73.7, design option 1. The
design of these braces is covered by section This lateral force must be resisted directly by the
2.5.3 of R4-92 [10]. portal frame, thus:
* *
For the reasons given in section 2.5.2 (3) of [10], RL2 = R sb,ip (73.5)
the spine beam restraint force is resisted by
in-plane bending in the rafter (see Fig. 2.3 of [10] *
The restraint force, RL2 , can be resisted solely by
for the distribution of restraint forces in the fly
brace system). the portal frame or split between the portal frame
and the roof/gable wall as described above.
Accumulated restraint force in roof/gable wall o
equal to R *sb,1 and R *sb,2 for the braces at 45 to
system
the spine beam and rafter, as is shown in
If the decision is made to split the lateral Fig. 73.6.
restraining forces R*L1 and RL2 *
between the portal If the in-plan braces connect into the bottom flange
frames and the roof/gable wall system, then the of the rafter, then this restraint force will tend to
gable wall bracing and the roof braced bay that twist the rafter at that point and must be carried up
feeds forces into the gable wall bracing must be to the purlin line where it is resisted by major axis
designed for accumulated restraint forces in bending in the purlin. If fly braces are used for this
accordance with the parallel restrained members - ie. fly braces from the rafter bottom flange up to
provisions of NZS 3404 [5] Clause 5.4.3.3. The the purlin, the design of these is covered by
restraint forces are those from each portal frame section 2.5.3 and Fig. 2.3 of [10].
(ie. 0.5 R*L1 and 0.5 RL2*
for pinned portal frames)
The other option is to anchor these braces into the
and the upper limit total restraint force into the rafters near the top flange, where the restraint
gable walls or similar is that from one full quantum forces can be effectively anchored into the roof
of restraint force (ie. 0.5 R* for pinned portal system without further consideration. This will
frames) plus six half quanta of restraint forces. eliminate the need for specific rafter twist restraint
In-plan restraint to spine beam critical flange but at the expense of longer and more complex
from the rafter system in-plan bracing members and connection details.
These are the situations shown in Fig. 73.6. In Because there is no net lateral restraint force
these cases, additional restraints are provided, from this in-plan bracing into the plane of the
adjacent to the portal frame/spine beam portal frame, the portal frame lateral restraint
intersection, to reduce the effective length of the forces, R*L1 , and RL2*
, remain as given by
spine beams for lateral buckling (so as to increase equations 73.3 and 73.5, respectively.
the member moment capacity). These restraints
are triangulated back to the portal. Design options 1 and 2 for spine
beam/rafter/column restraint of forces parallel
These restraints may be provided to the spine to the rafter
beam under the propped portal (positions a and c)
or under the intermediate portal (positions d and f). Fig. 73.7 shows two design options for the spine
beam/rafter/column restraint. The first of these
In the first case - ie. at the propped portal - the involves fly braces, which, as previously described,
points of restraint could be in either negative or carry the restraint forces R*sb and R*c up into the
positive moment regions. It is important that the
restraints go to the correct flange of the spine rafter and portal frame/roof system. This option
provides a point of dependable restraint at the top
beam (ie. the critical flange), which will depend on
of the column. It means that the column need not
the sign of the bending moment.
be designed to resist any restraint forces and
In the second case - ie. at the intermediate portal - therefore is designed to resist only N*c and a
the points of restraint will be in positive moment moment in the plane of the spine beam (ie. about
under vertical loading and the restraints would go the column axis transverse to the spine beam)
to the top flange in this instance. (However, for a generated by the eccentric transfer of vertical load
load case involving wind uplift, the moment is requirement of NZS 3404 Clause 4.3.4.2.
reversed although the design actions are likely to
be lower). Design option 1, in contrast, is based on the top
connection transmitting restraint actions due to
The restraints are required to transfer the restraint
( R*sb + R*c ) into the rafter system, although as
force, R*sb , back to points of anchorage. As the
described above only R*c goes into R*L1 , which is
spine beam is continuous under the rafter, the
buckled shape of the spine beam critical flange required to be resisted by the portal frame/roof
over the length of interest (ie. a-b-c or d-e-f) will system.
involve one flange trying to move to the left and the
Design option 2, in contrast, is based on the
other to the right, ie. as shown in Fig. 73.6. Thus
column/spine beam resisting the moment
there will be no net lateral restraint force
generated by the restraint actions shown in
developed along the portal frame.
Fig. 73.8. The peak magnitude of this moment,
The tendency of the spine beam critical flange to which occurs at the top of the column, is given by:
rotate in-plan about points b or e, as appropriate,
must be resisted by the rafters. The transverse *
Mmax =
(R*
sb )
+ Rc* d sb Lcol
(73.6)
forces exerted on the rafter, Rr,* left and R *r,right , are (d sb + Lcol )
where all variables are as defined in Fig. 73.8. strength and stiffness requirements. As a result of
That moment must be able to be developed by the studies that are referenced from Commentary
stiffened spine beam cross-section at the bottom of Clause C5.4.3.1 of NZS 3404 Part 2 [5], the
the spine beam, the connection between the spine stiffness requirement has been removed.
beam and column and the column itself. The However, this is only the case where the
moment in the column acts in a plane transverse to restraining elements are made of steel or involve
the spine beam - ie. about the column's other anchorage into a reinforced concrete slab or
principal axis to the moment generated through the structural system. The key is to provide the
eccentric transfer of vertical load requirement of strength requirements to "transfer to anchorage or
NZS 3404 Clause 4.3.4.2. This means that the reaction points" [5] the design restraint actions.
column is subject to biaxial bending plus axial
compression for design option 2. For a column Restraint actions based on design actions
section that complies with NZS 3404 Clause 8.1.5,
the critical condition will be section capacity to The restraint actions required by Clauses 5.4.3.1,
Clause 8.3.4.2. 5.4.3.2, 5.4.3.3 or 6.7.2 are based on the design
actions, not the member capacities. For load
General Issues to Consider combinations not including earthquake this means
that, where the member requiring restraint is
Restraint stiffness requirements oversized for strength, the restraining forces to be
resisted are less than those generated by the
Editions of NZS 3404/AS1250 prior to 1992 had member moment or compression capacity.
requirements for restraining systems to meet both
Rafter
Stiffeners
Rsb*
Fly braces
Rc*
Design Option 1
Rafter
Top Connection
Stiffeners
Rsb*
Bottom Connection Rc*
Design Option 2
Fig. 73.7
Design Options 1 and 2 for Spine Beam/Rafter/Column Restraint
≈ (Rsb* + R c*)
dsb
Rsb* + Rc*
M*max
Lcol
Fig. 73.8
Restraint Force Application and Moments for Design Option 2
Load height classification for spine beam Judicious use of beam web stiffeners
supports to rafter
The designer should ascertain carefully where
Where the spine beam supports the rafter, the stiffeners to the beam web are needed in a
rafter load is applied to the spine beam via the rafter/spine beam system and only specify them
spine beam top flange. The structural system where required.
transferring this load is laterally restrained, so that,
for a spine beam with a vertical axis of As described in DCB No. 52, pp. 11-13, stiffeners
symmetry, k1 = 1.0 applies from the NOTE (1) to to the (spine) beam over the supporting
Table 5.6.3 (2). In most instances, such a support intermediate columns will almost always be
is also the end of a segment, both ends of which needed.
are restrained, hence k1 = 1.0 from Table 5.6.3 (2)
irrespective of the load height position. However, stiffeners in either the spine beam or the
rafter over the locations where the rafter is
Bolts fully tensioned supported by the spine beam alone may not be
necessary, especially where fly braces are also
The high strength structural bolts used in and used on the spine beam, and these applications
around the spine beam should be fully tensioned to should be checked more closely.
increase the rigidity of the overall system.
Where slotted or oversize holes are used, these

bolts must be fully tensioned; see NOTE to Clause
5.4.2.1 and 5.4.2.2 of NZS 3404 [5].
NZFl-Vib1 Programmed by: Y. Khwaounjoo, HERA Date: 1 May 2002
Version: 1
Project: Example 2: HiBond slab (Location 2)

Designed by: YRK
ββ = 0.05 Slab Span (m) = 2.75

Beam/Joist Span 1 (m) = 9.00 Beam/Joist Span 2 (m) = 9.00
Girder 1 Span 1 (m) = 8.25 Girder 1 Span 2 (m) = 8.25
Vibration analysis based on the recommendation of AISC/CISC Design Guide 11- Floor Vibration
Due
to Human Activity, 1997, Murray et al., NZS3101:Part1:1995 and NZS 3404:Part 1:1997.
E. FINAL RESULT: FOR SLAB SPAN OF 2.75m
Fundamental Peak
Member frequency (Hz) Acceleration (% g)
Slab 18.18 0.02
Beam/Joist 8.18 0.10
Girder 1 12.04 0.05
Girder 2
Combined Floor 6.767 0.199
Limiting Combined Floor Acceleration (% g) = 0.50
2.5
Peak Acceleration (% g)
1.5
0.5 Upper Limit

Actual Value
0
1 10 100
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 73.9
Example of Output from Floor Vibration Program
Floor response against limiting criteria
Fig. 73.9
Example of Output from Floor Vibration Program
Floor Vibration Program interpreted appropriately. Guidance on this is now
given.
NZFl_Vib 1: What the Slab
Output Represents
Applying The Results from NZFl_Vib1
This article is written by Yadav Khwaounjoo, the developer of
the program NZFl_Vib 1, with additional material by G Charles Fig. 73.9 on page 21 shows an example of the
Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer. output. As previously stated, this is for Design
Example 2 from the User's Manual [12], in which
General all the dimensions of the floor system are shown.
The program NZFl_Vib 1 is a program for the The output given in the Table E: Final Result of
analysis of floor vibration of floor systems Fig. 73.9 is for the slab, beam/joist, girder 1, girder
comprising steel beams supporting a concrete 2 (none in this instance) and combined floor.
slab. It is a spreadsheet based program and
comes with a comprehensive users manual, HERA The first of these, the slab output, is for the slab on
Report R4-112 [12]. rigid supports as determined by [13]. This would
apply to the slab close to supporting columns, for
That manual contains seven worked design example. This value does not consider combined
examples. Fig. 73.9 shows the output from action effects of the slab with the supporting
Design Example No. 2, which comprises a system and should be considered in isolation from
concrete slab on Hibond decking, supported on a the rest of the items in that table.
network of secondary and primary beams.
The rest of these items are determined using [13]
The program implements two published and relate to each floor system component in turn,
procedures for floor vibration assessment. The followed by combined actions.
first of these is the AISC Design Guide Series 11
[13] and the second is the Applied Technology The graphical output is that for the combined floor
Council Design Guide 1 [14]. system.
The reason for using both procedures is because Fig. 73.9 shows a design example where the slab
neither covers the full range of floor systems built spans only 2.75m onto supporting beams
in New Zealand for which vibration checks are (secondary beams), which span onto supporting
required. The first and most widely used girders (primary beams), which are supported by
procedure [13] covers slabs supported on beams, columns. Fig. 73.10 then shows the output for the
where the response of the slab and the response same slab thickness but for the slab span
of the beams will contribute to the overall vibration increased to 5m between secondary beams. The
response. example is not a realistic practical solution,
because in this instance the size of the beams
The second procedure [14] covers the vibration of would need to be increased, as would the slab
the slab when spanning between stiff supports, thickness, however these have been deliberately
such as walls, where the vibration response of the kept the same to illustrate the affects of changing
floor is solely dependent on the slab. only the slab span.
A brief overview of the FOR SLAB SPAN OF 5 m

E. FINAL RESULT:
scope and coverage
of these two floor
vibration design Fundamental Peak
procedures is given in Member frequency (Hz) Acceleration (% g)
DCB No. 56, pp. 25- Slab 4.54 0.70
27. Beam/Joist 6.01 0.19
Girder 1 12.24 0.05
Because NZFl_Vib 1 Girder 2
incorporates and
presents results from Combined Floor 5.462 0.257
both procedures and
these procedures Limiting Combined Floor Acceleration (% g) = 0.50
treat the vibration
response of the slab
differently, the input and output needs to be
Fig. 73.10
appropriate for the support conditions (eg. slab on
Result for the Slab Span Doubled to 5m
walls or slab on beams) and needs to be read and
The effect on the slab alone is considerable; the These responses occur at different regions of the
peak acceleration for the slab alone close to rigid floor and, for a complying floor system, all peak
supports is now critical; which would be the case in accelerations must be below the limiting floor
practice if this system were built. acceleration criteria. As previously mentioned, the
upper limit line shown in the graphical output of
Increasing the slab span also affects the beam and NZFl_Vib 1 gives the limiting floor acceleration as
girder stiffnesses and participating masses. In this a function of frequency that each component of the
case, doubling the slab span decreases the beam floor system must meet. The combined floor
frequency and increases the peak acceleration, response is plotted on that graph. However, the
because the increase in participating mass is slab response is not shown there and must be
greater than the increase in stiffness. However, it checked seperately. In the case of the slab shown
slightly increases the girder frequency, although in Fig. 73.11, the limiting acceleration (for this type
this does not change the calculated girder peak of occupancy) for the slab with a frequency of
acceleration. 7.5 Hz is 0.5% g, so the slab is satisfactory.
Modelling the Effect of Stiff Supports

Design of Multi-Storey Steel
For a slab spanning directly onto stiff supports, eg. Buildings for Satisfactory In-
walls, type NR into the Sec. Beam/Joist and the
Pri. Beam 1 boxes. The slab response is then Service Wind-Induced
calculated in accordance with [14], which is the Acceleration Response: Update
appropriate procedure in this instance (ie. with no
supporting beams).
on DCB No. 66
This update is written by G Charles Clifton, HERA Structural
However, when the slab spans onto a mixture of Engineer.
stiff supports and supporting beams, then the
details of these beams must be entered and the Background
calculation is undertaken to [13]. Fig. 73.11 shows
the results for a 150 mm thick slab on Hi-bond, DCB No. 66, pp. 1-10, February 2002 contains a
spanning from a wall onto a 530UB82 supporting procedure for the design of multi-storey steel
beam - ie. one end of the deck span is supported buildings for satisfactory in-service wind induced
by the wall, the other runs over the supporting acceleration response. This procedure is based
beam. on a preliminary design technique developed by
Cenek et. al. [15] and the
FOR SLAB SPANNING 5m FROM WALL ONTO Joint Australian/New Zealand
E. FINAL RESULT: A SUPPORTING BEAM wind loadings standard,
AS/NZS 1170.2:2002 [16].
Fundamental Peak
Member frequency (Hz) Acceleration (% g) The DCB paper also gives the
Slab 7.50 0.48 background to this topic, a
Beam/Joist 8.09 0.05 commentary to the procedure
Girder 1 and a worked design
Girder 2 example.
Between then and now, the

Combined Floor 5.632 0.241 following developments have
occurred which call for an
Limiting Combined Floor Acceleration (% g) = 0.50 update on the DCB No. 66
procedure:
Fig. 73.11
Result for 5 m Span Slab on Hi-Bond, 150 mm • AS/NZS 1170.2 [16] has been published (it
Thick, Spanning from Wall to over a Supporting was in draft when that paper was written)
Beam
• Some errors and ambiguities have been
In this instance, what the results show is: noted in that paper
• the response of the slab alone close to the • Clark Hyland has undertaken further
supporting wall (which in this instance has research into the comparison of design
the highest peak acceleration value) provisions for calculating the peak
• the response of the supporting beam, and acceleration at the top of the building and
• the combined response of the slab and found a more accurate expression for this.
supporting beam, where the slab Details are given in session 1 of [17] and
contribution is that away from the supporting briefly discussed on the next page.
wall.
These aspects are all covered in the update SPM0103: Potential Problem
details, which are as given below.
and Solution
Details of Update
This short article is written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
(1) The building mass to be used, mo, should be
expressed in kg/m height and is the average
The second edition of the Slab Panel Method has
building mass/unit height over the top
been published in DCB No. 71. It comes with a
one-third of the building, when applying the
computer program, SPM0103, which allows
provisions of DCB No. 66 or Appendix G of
designers to rapidly design the slab panels.
AS/NZS 1170.2 [16]
The program is available as a single executable
(2) In the example of application given on pages
file entitled SPM0103. It is accompanied by a
7,8 of DCB No. 66, mo is also expressed as
sample calculation file, being the design
tonnes/m height when making the level 1
example presented in section 9, pages 12-14 of
assessment. For the equation used in that
1.3 DCB No. 71.
assessment, h / mo > 1.6, this change from
kilogrammes to tonnes is correct. Equation
To date, no one to whom the program has been
G1 from [16] is the same equation, but with
sent has reported any problems with its
the 1.6 changed to 0.0016 to allow mo in
installation. One firm, however, has reported a
kg/m height to be used.
problem with trying to run new jobs. What
happens is that they can input the data on the
(3) The design acceleration and the
input screen, however the program does not
acceleration limit must be in the same units.
perform the calculations when the calculate button
The amax from equation 66.2, DCB No. 66, is
is pressed, displaying instead a run time error.
calculated in m/s/s and converted to milli-g
through the (1000/9.81) factor at the end
The SPM0103 version of the program is written as
of the equation. The equation given in
a design tool, however the coding for the program
Fig. 66.3 is equation 66.7 without the
actually contains code for the design version and
(1000/9.81) adjustment factor. Its units are
for a research version, which was developed for
therefore m/s/s, although the vertical axis of
HERA research use and allows more variables to
that figure is given in milli-g
be altered than are required for design. In the
design version, the coding for the research version
(4) Also in equation 66.7, fo = fundamental
is supposed to be switched off. However, what
frequency, not fundamental period as stated
has happened, in this instance, is that modules of
the research version have been activated by the
(5) Note the frequency scale in Fig. 66.2 is in
design example and have tried to run in
steps of 20, not 2!
conjunction with modules of the design version,
causing incompatibility problems and a run-time
(6) It is recommended that readers use
error to develop. Why we don't know.
Equation G3(1) from AS/NZS 1170.2 [16]
instead of equation 66.2 from the
However, if a user encounters this problem, the
DCB No. 66 paper to calculate the
solution is straight forward. It is to overwrite the
(cross-wind) design maximum acceleration
data, in the design example supplied, with the
at the top of the building. This is the
design data for the case under consideration, do
critical wind acceleration for design. This
the calculation, then save as under a new
recommendation comes from Hyland's
filename. That approach has worked in the two
comparison study, which shows Equation
instances where this problem has occurred.
G3(1) giving the best match in cross-wind
acceleration with experiment of all the
If any users have encountered this problem,
procedures available. This equation gives
please advise Charles Clifton, email address:
the acceleration in m/s/s directly, which is
structural@hera.org.nz
then compared with alimit from equation 66.7,
taking account of the units. Equation G3(1)
is more complex to use than the Cenek et.
al. equation 66.2, but gives more accurate
answers. See details from Session 1 of [17]
for more information. When using Equation
G3(1), be careful in determining the value
of Cf s to use from Clause 6.3.2.3 of
AS/ZNS 1170.2 and make sure the
appropriate option for the building's shape
and proportions is being used.
References
13. Murray, TM et. al.; Floor Vibration due to
1. AS/NZS 2312:2002, Guide to the Protection
Human Activity; American Institute of Steel
Construction, 1997, Steel Design Guide
Series 11.
14. Allen, DE et. al.; Mnimising Floor Vibration;
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
USA, 1999, ATC Design Guide; 1.
1999/2001, HERA Report R4-100.
15. Cenek, P et. al.; Designing for Dynamic
Serviceability Under Wind Loading; Recent
Advances in Wind Engineering, Volume 1,
TF Sun (Editor); Pergamon Press, 1989, pp.
Report R4-96.
399-406.

Actions Part 2; Wind Actions; Standards
Second Edition, Volume 2: Hollow Sections,
17. Hyland, C et.al; Notes Prepared for the Steel
Structures Seminar 2003; HERA, Manukau
City, New Zealand, 2003, HERA Report
R4-119.
6. AS 1418.1 : 2002 (Plus Amendment No1 :

1997), Cranes ( Including Hoists and
Winches) Part 1 : General Requirements;
7. Roark, RJ and Young, W C; Formulas for

Stress and Strain (Sixth Edition); McGraw-
Hill International, Tokyo, Japan, (1975).
8. AS 1163:1991, Structural Steel Hollow

Sections; Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia.


Beam Member Moment Capacity
Determination to NZS 3404:1997; HERA,

Zealand.
12. Khwaounjoo, YR; Report and User’s Manual

for NZFl_Vib 1 Program (Program for the
Analysis of Floor Vibration); HERA,
Report R4-112.
P O Box 76-134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 74 June/July 2003

The author(s) of each item in this publication are noted The material herein has been the subject of review by a
at the beginning of the article. number of people. The effort and input of these reviewers is
Introduction prescribed requirements for the welding of shear

studs used in buildings, etc. to that offered by the
The expression "let's do the time warp again" was 1993 edition.
coined by the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
However, it is applicable to this issue of the DCB. For a start, it is now a joint Australia/New Zealand
Due to the impact of other events, this issue is standard and therefore sits better in the Building
running much later than intended. Controls System framework than an Australian
only standard.
The topics covered by this issue are ones not
affected by the delay in publication. There are Of much more significance is that it incorporates
three topics. The first is an article on the new requirements for the latest stud welding machine
shear stud welding standard AS/NZS 1554.2 [1]. technology, which has wet weather capability and
The second and third are papers on objective 1 can record weld cycle parameters. The
and objective 2 of HERA's current FRST - funded advantages that this new technology offers are
research programme into Enhanced Steel Building recognised in the Standard in terms of procedural
Performance in High Risk Events. This is followed control for preproduction testing, production
by the references. testing, workmanship and inspection of the finished
welds. It also still covers the requirements relating
to the conventional style stud welding equipment in
In This Issue Page
these areas.
New Standard for Welding and 1
Testing of Shear Studs This article comprises an introduction to the new
Floor Isolating System for Superior Stud Welding Standard [1] and provides a short
5 commentary on aspects of its use. It is written
Seismic Performance
principally for the person undertaking independent
Modelling of Slab Panels in Severe quality control testing. Under the requirements of
25
Fires NZS3404 [2] Clause 1.6.3 (see especially
Commentary Clause C1.6.3), this will be the
References
38 construction reviewer. It also looks at the
requirements of the stud welding operator in terms
of weld procedure qualification and production run
Welding and Testing of Shear testing.
Studs in Accordance With the
The article is presented in four parts: first, dealing
2003 Stud Welding Standard with the preproduction testing aspects, secondly,
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA the production testing by the stud welding
operator, thirdly, the quality control testing by the
construction reviewer, and fourthly, a brief
discussion on replacement of unacceptable studs.
This is followed by some practical aspects to the
AS/NZS 1554.2:2003 Structural Steel Welding Part
testing of studs and the article concludes with a
2: Stud Welding (Steel Studs to Steel) [1] is now
summary of the benefits of the new Standard.
available. More widely (and more simply) referred
to as the Stud Welding Standard, this revision
represents a very significant advance in the
This article replaces the guidance given in Testing training and experience to satisfy the
of Shear Studs During Construction, presented on requirements of Clause 4.3.2 (a) to (e).
pages 3 to 6 of DCB No. 44. Finally, all references These five areas of technical knowledge are
to AS 1554.2 given in the HERA Specification for vital to the successful execution of stud
the Fabrication, Erection and Surface Treatment of welding over the range of conditions that
Structural Steelwork [3], HERA Report R4-99, may occur in practice.
should be replaced by references to the same
clause number in the new Standard [1]. The preproduction testing procedure of
References to HERA DCB Issue No. 44 should be Clause 4.1 differs for stud welding machines
replaced by references to this article - ie. to HERA which record weld cycle parameters (Clause
DCB No. 74, pp. 1-5. 4.1.1) from those that don't (Clause 4.1.2).
There is a considerable practical advantage
Terminology for the former case, where the pre-
production testing may be done off-site. For
Prior to commencing the body of this article, a note the older technology machines, this must be
on terminology. The terminology used herein done on-site and at the commencement of
applies to the person typically doing the job. The each floor area of studs to be welded.
relation of this to the relevant Standard is as
follows:- (ii) The qualification of joint details is handled
through a three-way prequalification
(a) The stud welding operator is the person process. The performance of the headed
performing the stud welding operation. This stud is verified through experimental testing
is the same definition as given in in accordance with AS/NZS 1554.2
AS/NZS 1554.2. Appendix C. This is a normative appendix.
It is a requirement under the material supply
(b) The construction reviewer as used herein is provisions of NZS 3404 Clause 2.3.4 (which
the person appointed to undertake the cross-references back to the Stud Welding
programme of construction review worked Standard) that the manufacturer of any
out between the design engineer (for proprietary stud confirms (in writing) that the
the owner) and the (territorial) authority stud has been tested to, and achieved
prior to commencement of construction. compliance with, this appendix. Compliance
This person is termed the inspector by with the detailing provisions of NZS 3404
NZS 3404 [2] and AS/NZS 1554 in regard to Clause 13.3.2 is then required to ensure
welding. satisfactory as-built performance of the joint
detail. Compliance with the material supply
(c) The territorial authority as used herein is grades listed in AS/NZS 1554.2 (also in
the authority as defined by NZS 3404 or NZS 3404 Clause 13.3.2.1(a)) will ensure
the inspecting authority as defined by that the parent stud metal delivers the
AS/NZS 1554.2 [1]. appropriate material characteristics.
Part 1: Prequalification Requirements (iii) The qualification of welding consumables

is covered through the requirements of
There are specific preproduction requirements AS/NZS 1554.2 Section 2 in regard to the
in regards to general welding to NZS 3404 and stud material, stud design, supply of ferrule
AS/NZS 1554.1 [4] to maximise the probability of and supply of flux.
the completed weld meeting the specified
level of quality. These requirements cover; (iv) There are no weld procedure sheets
i) the qualification of stud welding operators, required for arc stud welding of
ii) qualification of joint details, iii) qualification of proprietary headed shear studs. Instead,
welding consumables and iv) the preparation and the pre-production testing procedure that is
approval of weld procedure sheets. specified in Clause 4.1 of AS/NZS 1554.2
confirms the appropriateness of the weld
In the arc stud welding of proprietary end welded procedure being followed (in regard to
headed shear connectors, these four areas of equipment settings, etc.).
procedural control are covered by the following
requirements: The construction reviewer's role in regard to the
prequalification requirements should be to:
(i) The qualification of stud welding operators
is covered in two clauses. The first is the (i) Obtain written confirmation from the stud
preproduction testing procedure specified in welding operator that at least one member of
Clause 4.1 of AS/NZS 1554.2 [1]. The the gang has the technical knowledge
second is the fact that stud welding required from Clause 4.3.2 and how this
operators must now have a minimum level of knowledge has been obtained. Also to
obtain written confirmation that any reviewers when undertaking inspection of these
members of the stud welding gang who do studs.
not have this level of knowledge will weld
studs under the direct on site supervision of For welding of studs through metal decking, the
a qualified stud welding operator. It is a provisions and cautionary points of Clause 5.5 are
requirement of Clause 4.3.2 that the especially important.
fabricator (ie. the stud welding operator)
provides evidence "acceptable to the In terms of workmanship, there are different
principal" that the stud welding operators are requirements for studs placed by a machine that
suitably qualified. In the absence of a formal records weld cycle parameters compared to one
training course and qualification for this, that doesn't. The former (Clause 5.6.1.1) is much
requiring written confirmation from the stud quicker and simpler to apply, provided that the stud
welding operator that at least one member of welding operator has a system for matching the
the gang is qualified and that this person will printout to the stud. In this instance, studs that are
directly supervise all other operators is the within the current deviation limits but which do not
best approach that can currently be taken. It show a full 360o flash do not require bend testing.
is a major improvement over the lack of any In addition (last paragraph of Clause 5.6.1.1) all
requirements in the previous edition. studs placed in wet weather conditions with a wet
weather capable machine shall be ring tested.
(ii) Obtain written confirmation from the stud Practical guidance on ring testing is given on
welding operator that the pre-qualification pages 4, 5 herein.
requirements of Clause 4.1 have been
followed. This is especially important for For machines that do not record weld cycle
operators using stud welding machines that parameters (and which are not wet weather
record weld cycle parameters, as this work capable), the requirement of Clause 5.6.1.2 is
will very likely have been undertaken off-site, either to replace with a new stud, or repair by
resulting in no pairs of studs bent ≥ 30o on adding extra fillet weld, any stud on which a full
site to provide a visual check. 360o flash is not obtained.
(iii) Visually check prequalification bending on Prior to this, the stud welder must remove the arc
site, as appropriate, whenever a site shields from the base of the studs, to allow the
inspection is undertaken and the welds to be inspected.
prequalification is to Clause 4.1.2. This
prequalification procedure involves the The flash is the fillet-weld like appearance around
bending of at least two successive studs to the base of the stud that forms from the molten
30o from the vertical. (30 o off vertical is metal and gasses expelled through the arc shield.
equivalent to a lateral movement of the top The containment of this molten metal around a
of the stud equal to half the height of the welded stud by the arc shield assists in securing
stud). These studs are not to be included in
the number of studs specified for the design. sound fusion of the entire cross-section of the stud
base. (A more detailed description is given in Note
(iv) Where the stud welding operator will use a 1 to Clause 5.4 of AS/NZS 1554.2). It also
machine which records weld cycle increases the shear strength of the embedded
parameters, obtain details of how the stud stud.
welding operator matches the weld record
printout for each stud with the location of If the weld is to be repaired, then the process is as
that stud on site. This is critical, in order that specified by Clause 5.2.3. This process is time-
the quality control provisions for consuming and expensive and many stud welders
workmanship (Clause 5.6.1.1) and testing of will simply add a new stud where one is obviously
finished welds (Clause 6.1.1) can be deficient.
implemented.
Missing Clause 6.1.2: Details
Part 2: Production Testing by the Stud
Welding Operator During the writing of this article, the HERA
Structural Engineer noticed that Clause 6.1.2 has
The requirements for production testing are been omitted from the Standard. This is a
specified in AS/NZS 1554.2 [1] Section 5, entitled publishing error; details of that clause as taken
Production Technique and Workmanship. All stud from the document approved for publication are as
welding operators should be thoroughly familiar follows (the clause goes on page 20 of [1]
with this section, as should design engineers when immediately following clause 6.1.1).
preparing their contract specification covering
proprietary stud welding, and construction
6.1.2 Placed by a stud welding machine which Part 4: Replacement of Unacceptable Studs
does not record weld cycle parameters
Where studs fail the pre-production testing, the
For non-threaded studs, where visual inspection production testing or the quality control testing, this
reveals any stud that has been repaired by will often be by part failure through the unsound
welding, such stud shall be bent to an angle of weld and failure through part of the parent metal.
approximately 15o from its original axis. The The area from which the stud was removed will be
direction of bending for studs with less than a 360o left jagged, typically with a residue of weld metal
flash shall be opposite to the missing portion of the and quite possibly tearing of the parent metal.
flash.
Clause 5.6.2 of AS/NZS 1554.2 specifies
The method of bending shall be in accordance with requirements for the repair of the parent metal
Clause 4.1.2. Bending shall preferably be done by surface at locations of stud failure. These
continual slow application of load. At temperatures requirements are specified in two separate sets of
below 0oC, impact loading such as striking with a provisions; studs in tension areas (Clause 5.6.2.1)
hammer shall not be used. and studs in compression areas (Clause 5.6.2.2).
Studs that show no signs of fracture shall be The requirements for repair of stud sites in tension
acceptable for use and left in the bent position, areas are onerous, particularly in regard to
unless otherwise required by the inspecting replacement of missing parent metal. They are
authority or principal. For studs that crack in the aimed at reinstating a smoothness of parent metal
weld, the base metal or shank under inspection surface finish consistent with the provisions of
shall be replaced. NZS 3404 Clause 14.3.3. This is especially
important for the surfaces of members subject to
In addition, the inspection authority or principal fatigue loading or within yielding regions. Any
may select up to 1 in 100 studs at random for shear studs in these locations, which fail during
statically loaded structures and one in 20 studs at bend testing, will very likely leave a surface finish
random for dynamically loaded structures and test requiring remedial work. On through-deck
each stud as specified above. construction, undertaking such remedial work will
be at best difficult and probably completely
The inspecting authority or principal shall stipulate impractical.
which loading condition applies and the number of
additional studs to be tested. It follows that through-deck welding of shear studs
should be avoided in these locations. This is not
Part 3: Quality Control Testing by the likely to be a serious constraint in building practice,
Construction Reviewer because:
With the addition of the missing Clause 6.1.2 - (i) Composite construction involving through-
details of which are given above - the requirements deck welding is not often used in negative
for independent quality control testing are now well moment regions of beams or in members
covered by the Standard, hence much of subject to fatigue loading
the additional material previously contained in
DCB No. 44 is now in the Standard. Only the (ii) The recommended design practice for
following points need be made: members of seismic-resisting systems is to
avoid the use of shear studs in yielding
(i) Note the different requirements for studs regions.
placed by a machine which records weld
cycle parameters compared with those for Bridge decks and active link regions of
one that doesn't. eccentrically braced frames are two locations
where either through-deck welding of shear studs
(ii) Studs that successfully pass the 15o bend should be avoided, for this reason, or the studs
test may be left in place and assumed fully should be ring tested before bend testing, as studs
effective in design, provided that they are that pass the ring test, even without a full 360o
not overbent. How to avoid this is covered flash, do not need subsequent bend testing.
under practical aspects to the testing of
studs below. Practical Aspects to Testing of Studs
(iii) The additional number of studs to be tested Ring testing

is now specified and is dependent on the
loading condition. This must be stipulated in Ring testing is a permitted testing option in the new
the contract documents. Standard and is required for studs placed in wet
weather conditions by a wet weather capable
machine. It is defined in section 1.4.6 of [1] as:
Tapping a stud with a 3 kg (approximately) from the vertical cut on it. The former is especially
hammer in the direction of the beam - if the stud important. This will avoid routine overbending of
gives a "ring" sound, it passes the test; if it gives a production run studs during testing. Not only does
"dead" sound, it fails the test. this expend unnecessary time and energy, but it
may also reduce the design capacity of the
Ring testing is very quick and simple to undertake, installed stud.
however it requires practice in order to become
familiar with the difference in sound produced by a Benefits of the New Standard
complying weld and a defective weld. The HERA
Structural Engineer would strongly recommend In conclusion, the new Stud Welding Standard,
that construction reviewers (or their AS/NZS 1554.2:2003, brings with it many
representatives) who are going to undertake advantages over the 1993 edition. The principal
testing of welded shear connectors on a regular ones are:
basis become proficient with the ring test. The
assistance of a competent and reliable stud welder • It is a formal joint standard and so refers to
is valuable in this regard. This familiarisation the New Zealand Building Control System
process involves correlating the sound from the framework and specific requirements
ring test with the physical performance from a
soundly welded stud. • It recognises new stud welding technology
through all stages of application and testing
The ring test involves lightly striking the head of the
as-welded stud with a heavy hammer (preferably a • It introduces the requirement for studs to be
3kg to 5kg construction hammer). This can be placed by a qualified operator or under
done by walking along a row of studs, lightly his/her direct supervision
"dragging" the hammer over the top of each stud.
• It specifies the five areas of knowledge that
A stud with a complying weld will give a high- this qualified operator must have
pitched metallic "ping" when struck with the
hammer, whereas one with a defective weld will • It provides more complete requirements
give a dull, lifeless "thud". On clean-beam welded relating to the testing of studs, meaning that
studs, the difference in tone is easily recognisable. construction reviewers do not need to refer
On through-deck welded studs, especially once to and apply provisions of the Standard and
slab reinforcement etc. is in place, the difference is other documents concurrently when
less noticeable, with the metallic "ping" being undertaking their quality control work.
dampened by the decking, contact with mesh etc.
Any loose object in contact with a stud (including
slab reinforcement) should be separated from the
Floor Isolating System For
stud prior to undertaking the ring test. Superior Earthquake Response
This paper has been written by Raed Zaki, HERA Assistant
When ring testing through-deck welded studs, the Structural Engineer and Charles Clifton, HERA Structural
Engineer.
change in sound over a clean-beam stud will
produce conservative results, in that it will lead to
1. Introduction and Scope of Paper
complying studs failing the test rather than
defective studs passing it. A typical multi story structure comprises a gravity
load carrying system and a separate earthquake
Any stud which fails the ring test should then be load resisting system. The former is designed to be
subjected to the 15 o bend test.
sufficiently flexible to resist the earthquake
imposed rotations without loss of gravity load
When undertaking ring testing, hold the hammer in
carrying function, while the latter is designed with
one hand as you test a row of studs and a can of
the high strength, stiffness and ductility required to
spray paint in the other. Mark any studs that
resist the earthquake actions and to ensure the
sound possibly unacceptable for later bend testing.
overall building stability.
Once the ring testing is finished, bend test all the
marked studs. This results in a smoother and
While the building is designed for earthquake
faster operation than stopping to bend test every
action by means of an imposed lateral load, the
stud that sounds dubious, then recommencing ring
impact of the earthquake on the structure actually
testing.
comes from the ground movement reacting against
the inertial mass of the building, which is in the
Avoid overbending of studs through use of a floor system at each level. The floor system at
template each level is tied into the seismic system, so that
the inplane diaphragm forces generated by the
Make up a template from sheet steel (a decking inertial mass at each level can get into/out of the
offcut) or timber with the slopes of 15o and 30o
seismic system and from the building plane direction to allow the design floor movement
superstructure into the ground. The lateral load to occur.
resisting system must resist the forces resulting
from this interaction. A much smaller gap would be required in the out of
plane direction, as the seismic resisting system’s
The idea behind Floor Isolating System for flexibility in this direction will allow it to deform as
Superior Earthquake Response (FISSER), is to required, without generating large actions in the
partially isolate the floor from the seismic system at members and system. The only exception may be
each level. This will reduce the actions generated at the column bases where some additional
within the seismic resisting system and reduce the detailing might be required.
acceleration on the floors of the building, as well as
reducing the actions transmitted through the 3. Design Philosophy
foundations. It will deliver some of the benefits of
base isolation (but being applied through each 3.1 General building concept and system
floor).
Fig 74.3 shows a floor plan of a typical building
This paper presents the idea behind the concept layout that would be used for the FISSER system.
and takes a look at the performance of FISSER in This comprises a separate gravity system
severe earthquakes, in terms of design philosophy, supported around the edges by perimeter MRFs.
target performance requirements and behaviour The concept will work best when the perimeter
determined from using the RUAUMOKO computer frames are oriented in two perpendicular axes;
program. [5] however it would be possible to apply the concept
to buildings with non-orthogonal frames.
2. FISSER Concept
The design philosophy for the seismic-resisting
The main concept of FISSER is to partially isolate system and the gravity system is now briefly
the floor from the seismic system as mentioned in covered, in sections 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.
the introduction. This should reduce the coupling These details relate to practical options for
between floors and ground, which will reduce the construction and also to systems developed for
acceleration and deformations experienced by the subsequent study to determine the performance of
floors. The concept is one of partial isolation of the system under severe earthquake attack.
each floor within the superstructure achieving
some of the benefits of base isolation but without
the cost and other resources required.
This partial isolation is achieved by using a

compound section formed by welding a channel
toes down onto the top flange of an I section, as
shown in Fig 74.1. The I section is part of the
seismic resisting system, eg. a moment-resisting
steel frame (MRF). The floor slab is connected
rigidly into the channel but the channel is not
welded to the beam. The two are connected only
by the weight of the floor slab tributary to the
channel, which keeps the two members together.
When the earthquake occurs, the stiff seismic-
resisting system will be able to move relative to the
flexible floor system at each level. A sufficiently
large gap is needed to ensure that the two systems
can undergo sufficient relative movement in a
severe earthquake without the floor slab severely
impacting the seismic-resisting system. A gap of
250 mm has been used in the analysis reported
herein and found to be suitable.
Also, the system can be given resistance to impact

and self-centring ability by making the gap larger
and putting a spring into the gap. This spring could
be a metal spring or a rubber block. See Fig. 74.2
for details of where this spring would fit into the
system. There would need to be a gap left
between the floor slab and the column in the in-
Shear stud welded to Decking edge
channel support
Decking edge
support
Decking Channel
supported on
channel No fixed connection here
Support lug transferring

Supporting beam out-of-balance
compression to beam
web
Extension lug to
channel
Cross section away from column Cross section away from column primary
secondary beam configuration beam configuration, showing incoming
secondary beam
Fig. 74.1
Cross Section of Different Beam Configurations
Edge of concrete.
Plate welded to stiffeners to
support deck
GAP
Weak, insulating filling around column
Column with stiffeners Spring or rubber

damper placed in
Shear
pocket- 250mm gap
studs
typical.
welded to
channel
Channel over
beam
FBJ
Beam
Fig 74.2
Fig. 74.2
Detail Around Perimeter Frame Beam, Column
A B C D E F


Secondary Beams @ 2.5m
2
3 @ 7m = 21m
Gravity Carrying Columns Primary Beams
4 Span of Decking
Gravity system
represented by 1
column and beam.
5
Perimeter Frame No. 2 (PF2) Frame
5 @ 7m = 35m Analysed
Fig. 74.3
Floor Plan of Prototype Building Used in NITH Studies for FISSER
Basic design data for this building comprises: centreline of the building, supported on gravity load
carrying columns.
1. Building located on either intermediate or
soft soil. When designing the gravity system, the
2. Building loads are Gfloor = 4.5 kN/m2 connections of beams into the columns must not
Qb,floor = 3.5 kN/m2 generate significant moment due to imposed
Groo = 2.25 kN/m2 rotation. Also, the system must allow for
Qb,roof = 0.25 kN/m2 appreciable interstorey drift, especially between
Gperimeter cladding = 3.5 kN/m the first floor and the ground. This will probably
(line load) require the use of slotted holes in the cleats, as
3. Building is 10 storeys high, shown in Fig. 74.4. The column therefore will be
H = interstorey height pinned at each floor slab level by the slab going
= 3.5 m. around the column.
3.2 Seismic-resisting system The gravity columns will be designed to remain

elastic during the earthquake. They will therefore
This comprises a perimeter frame around each provide a restoring force to help bring the floor
side of the building, utilising the semi-rigid Flange systems back into line above one another at the
Bolted Joints (FBJs) between beams and columns end of the earthquake. This will be important for
post earthquake rapid restoration of the building’s
The seismic-resisting systems have been designed function.
for two levels of ductility demand, µ = 2 and µ = 4.
The design details for moment-resisting frames The columns will need to be designed for some
utilising the FBJ are given in DCB Nos. 58 and 64. extent of induced moment due to the differential
As reported on in section 4.7.1 below, the decision displacement of the top and bottom of the column
ends, which is especially important on the first floor
had been made to adopt µ = 2 as the design level
above ground. There will be a shift of bearing of
for the FISSER system.
the compression force on the ends of the column
due to the seismic action which will mean that the
3.3 Gravity system
displacement of the centroid of compression
bearing area for NG+Qu will be less than the
The floor system used in a typical steel framed
centreline movement of the column ends. This will
building comprises a composite floor (concrete
slab on profiled steel deck supported on a especially be the case in the weak axis direction of
framework of secondary and primary steel beams). an I section column. One of the aims of the
Such a floor system is shown in Fig. 74.3. In that analyses is to determine the extent of design
instance, there is one primary beam down the moment required to be considered in the plane of
MRF.
Slab around column
Gravity beam
Slotted cleat
Fig. 74.4
Connection to a Gravity Column
The column will need to be designed for concurrent The perimeter frame model used in the analysis is
actions from these moments. This would involve that for the Flange Bolted Joint (FBJ) frame used in
combined moments of 100% from one direction section 3.3.2, DCB No. 64, “Modelling of the
and 30% from the other, with the 100% direction MRSF’s: general details”, except for the following
being that generating the largest moment. changes:
4. Performance in Severe Earthquakes 1. My,joint, which originally came from equation

58.42, DCB No. 58. is now changed to:
4.1 Introduction
φMy,joint = φNy,bfp db (74.1)
The principal concept of FISSER is to provide where:
partial decoupling of the gravity system from the
φ = 0.9
seismic-resisting system. In order to quantify the
benefits from this, a programme of Numerical Ny,bfp = 1.1As,bfpfy,bfp (74.2)
Integration Time History (NITH) analysis has been
undertaken. As,bfp = gross area of bottom flange plate
fy,bfp = yield stress of bottom flange plate
Section 4 describes this work, starting with a db = depth of beam
description of the analytical model developed, then
moving on to the selection and scaling of input 2. θy is taken as equation 64.3, DCB No. 64,
earthquake records used. but where the minimum value is changed
from 1.5 millirads to 2 millirads.
The results obtained are then discussed, followed
by the planned further research into the FISSER This model was used for the FBJ frame that didn’t
system under the current programme of work. have the FISSER system and which is used as the
benchmark comparison between the FISSER
4.2 General Details of Model and Seismic- frames and the Non-FISSER frame (known as the
Resisting System Model. FBJ from now on) . Design of the FBJ frames has
been to NZS 4203 [6] Section 4, except that the P-
The analytical model shown in Fig 74.5 represents delta provisions of the Draft AS/NZS 1170.4 PPCD
the building plan shown in Fig. 74.3. The models 8 [7] Clause 6.5.5 have been incorporated into the
are two dimensional in nature, in that they design, along with the near-fault factor from Clause
represent the building response for an earthquake 3.1.6.2. in the latter instance, the maximum value
about one principal axis only. is used, corresponding to the building being
located ≤ 2 km from the fault generating the near –
The symmetry of the building has been used to fault action.
further simplify the model. This results in the model
incorporating one of the perimeter frames shown in 4.3 Gravity system and FISSER system
Fig. 74.3 – eg. PF2 - plus one half of the gravity Fig. 74.5 shows the 10 storey model developed for
floor and frame system. the NITH studies.
Level:
Fy1,T = Fy1,C = spring force at which sliding
10
commences.
9
0.35 =coefficient of friction between the steel on
8
steel sliding surfaces.
Representative
Gravity System Wvy =vertical force due to seismic weight over the
7
tributary area supported vertically by the
Beam
6 perimeter frame.
FBJ
5
F
4
3 FISSER Springs
3
Fy1,T
2
Panel Zone
Spring
1
ko,1
Column ∆y,1c
X
Spring ∆y,1T
Spring
Fig. 74.5 shortening ko,1
Elevation of 10 Storey Model Developed for Input into lengthening
RUAUMOKO
Fy1,c
The FBJ model is the same model as used for the
10 storey analyses reported on in DCB No. 64
(compare Fig. 64.4 with 74.5 in that regard).
However, in the FBJ model, the seismic masses
supported laterally by the perimeter frame are input
as lumped masses at each node at each level.
This means that one half of the total mass of the Fig 74.6
gravity system shown in Fig. 74.3 is applied to Spring 1, Representing the Spring Force-Deflection
each level in the FBJ analyses, with one quarter of Generated by Friction Between the Supported
this applied to each node on each floor. Floor and Perimeter Frame Beams.
In the FISSER analyses, the gravity system is

modelled by a single column, which represents one F
half of the total columns in the gravity system. The
seismic masses earned by the perimeter frame are
only those directly bearing on that frame, with the
majority of the seismic masses carried on the
gravity system column. For a typical floor, the split
of mass supported laterally is 13% by the FBJ and
87% by the gravity system.
Fy2,T ko,2
X
The gravity system is then tied into the perimeter
Spring Gap + = offset
frame at each level through the FISSER springs. shortening
There are three of these, shown in Figs 74.6 to Gap - = initial
74.8 and described below: ko,2 gap
Fy2,c
Spring 1: Force-deflection generated by friction Spring
between the supported floor and the perimeter r comp = 1.0
frame. lengthening
This is shown in Fig. 74.6. It has equal capacity in

tension (spring lengthening) and compression Fig 74.7
(spring shortening). The spring is represented by Spring 2, Representing the Buffer Spring Placed
an elasto-plastic hysteresis model, IHYST =1 from Between the Floor System and Frame to Modify
[5]. The key parameters are given by: the Response
Fy1,t = Fy1,c = 0.35 W vy/2 (74.3)
where:
F Fy2,c = C1W x (74.6)
where:
C1 = user defined factor, with three values
used in these studies – 0.1,0.5 and 2.5.
Wx = seismic weight of floor.

Spring F
shortening y3,T ko,3 Fy 2 ,c
X k o ,2 = (74.6)
Gap Gap (GAP − INITGAP − 10)x10−3
Spring
ko,3 lengthening where:
GAP = the user defined gap into which the buffer
Fy3,c spring sits (mm) (see Fig 74.2)
= 250 mm for all analyses reported on
ro,comp ko,3 herein.
INITGAP = initial gap to allow for spring to be

fitted into place (mm).
Fig 74.8
Spring 3, Representing Impact Between Floor = 1 mm for all analyses reported herein.
System and Perimeter Frame When the Gap is
Closed. The 10 mm is an allowance for practical
considerations.
This is shared evenly between the two springs,
hence the factor 2 in the denominator in equation The hysteresis model used for this spring is bi-
74.3. linear with slackness - IHYST=5 from [5].
∆y is assumed to be 2mm – ie the floor system GAP+ = the user specified offset = 250 mm
transition from at rest to stable sliding takes place
over 2mm of horizontal movement. GAP- = -1mm, to account for a small
precompression of the spring.
Fy1
k o ,1 = (74.4) To make the spring elastic in compression,
∆ y1 rcomp = 1.0.
Spring 2: Force-deflection generated by the Spring 3: Force-deflection generated by full

buffer spring. compression of the contact spring.
This is the spring to be placed in the pocket shown The third spring models the major increase in
in Fig 74.2. Its properties can be varied by the compression resistance that is obtained when the
designer to obtain the best response. buffer spring is fully closed.
In the analyses reported herein, three values of This uses the same hysteresis model as spring 2,
spring 2 strength have been used. but with different parametric values on the
compression side, ie as given by:
The force-deflection properties are shown in
Fig 74.7. It is envisaged that the spring operates in Fy3,c = 1.5 W x (74.8)
the compression mode, with minimum resistance
to elongation. While this means that only one In practice, the “yield” resistance of spring 3 will be
spring in each bay resists the seismic action, it is controlled by the joint detail. A value of 1.5x the
much easier to construct and fit such a spring. seismic mass gives a reasonable estimate for this,
at least for the initial analyses:
The spring yield force in tension (elongation) is set
at a nominal value of 10 kN. This is shown in 1.5Wx
k o ,3 = (74.9)
Fig 74.7 as; 5x10− 3
Fy2,t = 10 kN (74.5) This is based on the yield force being reached over
5mm of deflection.
The spring yield force in compression is given by:
The remaining input data required for the IHYST=5 4.6 Naming system for the analysis
model is given by: undertaken:
GAP+ = the user defined offset = 250 mm An alphanumeric string has been used to uniquely
define each analysis run. This is compiled as
GAP- = (GAP+) -5 mm follows:
ro,comp = 0.1 (post-elastic stiffness) (74.10) 1. Frame type:
4.4 Analytical modelling of the frame FB: FBJ frame

FIS: FISSER frame
Using the computer analysis program
RUAUMOKO, version RUAU 2001 [5], which is 2. Site Location:
described in section 3.3.1, DCB No. 64, a series of
analyses have been undertaken to determine key W: Wellington
performance parameters for the FISSER system A: Auckland
and for the FBJ design used for comparisons.
These key performance parameters are the 3. Earthquake Scale:
displacement over time for certain nodes and
springs used in the frame design, and D: Design Level (500 year RP)
rotation/moment details for the FBJ connection. M: Maximum Considered Level (taken as
the 2000 year RP)
All the results have been written in EXCEL, to be
able to read and display them. The outputs shown 4. Member Sizes:
in Figs. 74.9 to 74.26 are from EXCEL.
These are given by Table 74.3.
4.5 Selecting and scaling of earthquakes
5. System Ductility Level:
A set of earthquake records have been selected
and scaled, in accordance with the provisions of D2 = µdesign = 2
Clause 5.5 of the draft earthquake loading D4 = µdesign = 4
standard [7]. The records used to generate the
results reported herein are: 6. Earthquake Record:
1. For near fault forward directional effects: S: SYLMARHOSP360.EQS

HP: HOLHOR0.EQS
• Sylmar County Hospital 360° 1994 N1: NEWH941.EQS
2. For soft soil to DZ 1170.4 [7]/soft soil to NZS 7. Column Base Fixity:
4203 [6] and without near fault forward P : Column bases are pinned to NZS 3404
directional effects: Clause 4.8.3.4.1 (a)
F : Column bases are fixed to NZS 3404
• Hollister and Pine Horiz 0 1989 Clause 4.8.3.4.1 (b)
3. For intermediate soil without near fault 8. Stiffness Option:

forward directional effects:
See Table 74.4 below:
• Newhall Station 94 Direction 1 1994
Symbol Stiffness value.
As for scaling the earthquakes, the procedure in S1 0.1
section 2.4, DCB No. 70 “Selection and scaling of S2 0.5
earthquake records”, was followed. See Table 74.1 S3 2.5
for the scale factors used for Wellington (maximum
seismic zone), and Table 74.2 for the scale factor
used for Auckland (minimum seismic zone).
Table 74.1
Scale Factors k1k2 for Wellington Design Level Event
Wellington, Design
T1 = 1.5 secs T1 = 1.6 secs T 1= 2.1secs T 1= 2.9secs
k1 k2 k 1k 2 D1 k1 k2 k1 k 2 D1 k1 k2 k 1 k2 D1 k1 k 2 k 1k 2 D1
EL Centro (1940 NS) 1.09 1.0 1.09 0.128 1.08 1.0 1.08 0.123 1.08 1.0 1.08 0.106 1.18 1.0 1.18 0.137
Newhall 0.91 1.0 0.92 0.104 0.92 1.0 0.93 0.101 0.97 1.0 0.98 0.112 1.01 1.0 1.02 0.101
Sta 241(shallow soil) 1.36 1.0 1.36 0.127 1.34 1.0 1.34 0.127 1.21 1.0 1.21 0.167 1.15 1.0 1.15 0.139
El Centro Stn 6 1.01 1.0 1.01 0.092 1.00 1.0 1 0.090 0.92 1.0 0.92 0.129 0.83 1.0 0.83 0.152
Sylmar Country Hosp 0.72 1.0 0.72 0.053 0.73 1.0 0.73 0.053 0.76 1.0 0.76 0.071 0.86 1.0 0.86 0.162
Hollister S & Pine 1.10 1.20 1.32 0.085 1.10 1.21 1.33 0.082 1.15 1.25 1.44 0.092 1.22 1.60 1.95 0.104
Sta 241 (soft soil) 1.70 1.20 2.04 0.117 1.68 1.21 2.03 0.119 1.53 1.25 1.91 0.164 1.47 1.60 2.35 0.140
Table 74.2
Scale Factors k1k2 for Auckland Design Level Event
Auckland,Design
T1= 1.5secs T1= 1.6 secs T1= 2.1secs T1 =2.9 secs
k1 k2 k 1k 2 D1 k1 k2 k1k 2 D1 k1 k2 k 1k2 D1 k1 k2 k 1k 2 D1
EL Centro (1940 NS) 0.59 1.0 0.59 0.129 0.59 1.0 0.59 0.123 0.59 1.0 0.59 0.106 0.65 1.0 0.65 0.137
Newhall 0.50 1.0 0.51 0.104 0.50 1.0 0.51 0.101 0.53 1.0 0.54 0.112 0.56 1.0 0.57 0.101
Sta 241( int soil) 0.74 1.0 0.74 0.127 0.73 1.0 0.73 0.127 0.66 1.0 0.66 0.167 0.63 1.0 0.63 0.139
Hollister S & Pine 0.60 1.0 0.6 0.085 0.60 1.0 0.6 0.083 0.63 1.0 0.63 0.092 0.67 1.14 0.76 0.104
Sta 241 (soft soil) 0.93 1.0 0.93 0.117 0.92 1.0 0.92 0.119 0.84 1.0 0.84 0.164 0.80 1.14 0.91 0.140
Table 74.3
Scale Factors k1k2 for Auckland Design Level Event
Level Name [M1] Name [M2] Name [M3] Name [M1] Name [M2] Name [M3]
Designation Weight Designation Weight Designation Weight Destignation Weight Destignation Weight Destignation Weight
1 2 3 1 2
Beam 1 610x305 UB 149 838x292 UB 176 914x305 UB 201 700 WB 115 914x305 UB 201 914x305 UB 201
2 610x305 UB 149 838x292 UB 176 914x305 UB 201 700 WB 115 914x305 UB 201 914x305 UB 201
3 610x305 UB 149 838x292 UB 176 910EB 175 700 WB 115 914x305 UB 201 914x305 UB 201
4 610 UB 101 838x292 UB 176 838x292 UB 176 610 UB 101 914x305 UB 201 914x305 UB 201
7 610 UB 101 700 WB 115 838x292 UB 176 610 UB 101 762x267 UB 173 762x267 UB 173
8 530 UB 82 610x229 UB 101 838x292 UB 176 460 UB 67 610 UB 101 610 UB 101
9 530 UB 82 610x229 UB 101 610 UB 101 460 UB 67 530 UB 82 530 UB 82
10 530 UB 82 457x152 UB 52 610 UB 101 410 UB 54 530 UB 82 530 UB 82
Column 1 686x356 W 289 762x267 W 366 762x267 W 366 762x267 W 337 838x292 W 362 838x292 W 362
2 686x356 W 217 762x267 W 308 762x267 W 366 762x267 W 337 838x292 W 362 838x292 W 362
3 686x356 W 217 762x267 W 308 762x267 W 366 762x267 W 337 838x292 W 362 838x292 W 362
4 686x356 W 217 762x267 W 308 762x267 W 275 762x267 W 185 838x292 W 278 838x292 W 362
5 686x356 W 217 762x267 W 220 762x267 W 275 762x267 W 185 838x292 W 278 838x292 W 278
6 686x356 W 217 762x267 W 220 762x267 W 275 762x267 W 185 838x292 W 210 838x292 W 278
7 686x356 W 217 762x267 W 220 762x267 W 220 762x267 W 185 838x292 W 210 838x292 W 210
8 686x356 W 217 762x267 W 134 762x267 W 185 762x267 W 134 838x292 W 176 838x292 W 176
9 686x356 W 217 762x267 W 134 762x267 W 185 762x267 W 134 838x292 W 176 838x292 W 176
10 686x356 W 217 762x267 W 134 762x267 W 185 762x267 W 134 838x292 W 176 838x292 W 176
Gravity 1 400 WC 361 400 WC 361 400 WC 361 a. Auckland Des & Max b. Wellington Des & Max c. Wellington Design S, IV
column 2 400 WC 361 400 WC 361 400 WC 361 HP,N1,T1,El HP,N1,T1,El Near Fault
3 400 WC 303 400 WC 303 400 WC 303
4 400 WC 303 400 WC 303 400 WC 303
5 400 WC 303 400 WC 303 400 WC 303 FBJ member Type
6 400 WC 303 400 WC 303 400 WC 303
7 400 WC 144 400 WC 144 400 WC 144
8 400 WC 144 400 WC 144 400 WC 144
9 400 WC 144 400 WC 144 400 WC 144
10 400 WC 144 400 WC 144 400 WC 144
a. Auckland Des & Max b. Wellington Des & Max c. Wellington Des & Max
HP,N1,T1,El HP,N1,T1,El S, IV Near Fault
FISSER Member Type
4.7 Principal results obtained opposite is true for displacement. Ductility 2 has
appreciably reduced the displacement of the
4.7.1 Reason why ductility 2 was chosen FISSER frame compared to ductility 4 and the FBJ
frame. The same is found at levels 1 (lowest floor)
As mentioned in section 3.2 two levels of ductility and 10 (top) for this earthquake and for all others
were used for the design of the FISSER system, used. However, the FISSER floor system
these being µ=2 and µ=4. The former is the same acceleration is not significantly reduced by going
as that used for the FBJ frame. The decision to from ductility 2 to ductility 4. The decision has
adopt µ=2 for the FISSER system was taken been made that it is preferable to minimise the
based on the comparison of the results obtained displacement governing the design than
from the different ductility levels. Fig. 74.9 and Fig acceleration of the FISSER system, hence µ=2 is
74.10 demonstrates the result of the displacement chosen for the FISSER system.
and acceleration respectively, of the FISSER frame
for Wellington, Design, Newhall Earthquake for The earthquake used in these analyses for
Level 5. Wellington were Sylmar County Hospital, Hollister
& Pine, and Newhall. For Auckland, Hollister &
0.2 Pine and Newhall were used, as near fault effects
0.18
0.16
are not relevant to Auckland.
0.14
0.12 4.7.2 Performance of FISSER for Wellington
0.1
Displacement (m)
0.08
0.06 4.7.2.a Sylmar County Hospital 360°° 1994
0.04 FBJ
Duct 2
0.02
0
Duct 4
Sylmar was the near fault earthquake chosen for
-0.02 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 analysing the FISSER near fault performance
-0.04 reported herein. It was chosen over Imperial
-0.06
-0.08
Valley Station 6 because, for periods up to 2.5
-0.1 seconds, Sylmar has greater spectral
-0.12
accelerations. Fig. 74.11 shows the comparisons.
-0.14
Time (sec)
2.50
Fig 74.9
Displacement of Floor System for Wellington,
2.00
Newhall, Level 5
Shallow Soil Draft Std Near
Acceleration (xg)
fault, D=2 km
Sylmar Country Hosp
1.50 El Centro stn 6
11
10
9
8 1.00
7
Acceleration (m/sec/sec)
6
5
4
3 0.50
2
1 FBJ
0 Duct 2
-1 0 Duct 4 0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-2
0
5
5
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.7
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.9
3.2
3.5
3.8
4.1
4.4
4.7
5.0
-3
-4 Period (seconds)
-5
-6
-7
-8 Fig. 74.11
-9
-10
5% Damped Elastic Scaled Spectra for the Two
-11 Near Fault Earthquakes
Time (sec)
The results obtained for Sylmar showed that, for

the stiffness option S1, the frame displacement
Fig 74.10 compared to the FBJ frame was lower than the
Acceleration of Floor System for Wellington, other two stiffness options. For nodes 9, 93, and
Newhall, Level 5. 201, which are the nodes for levels 1,5 and 10
respectively of the perimeter frame, displacements
are lower than the same nodes in the FBJ. Even
Even though FISSER floor system acceleration is though the displacements of levels 1, 5 and 10
reduced when ductility 4 (µ = 4) is used compared respectively of the FISSER gravity frame are
to ductility 2 (µ = 2) and the FBJ frame (which is greater for the perimeter frame nodes, they are still
designed for µ=2), as seen in Fig. 74.10, the within the limit of the spring system. Since the main
goal of the FISSER system is to reduce the
displacement of the perimeter frame, spring option
1 is most successful at achieving this. This option One of the principal aims of the FISSER system is
generates the largest displacements of the floor to reduce the demand on the perimeter frame,
system springs, however these are well within the such that this suffers minimal permanent damage
250 mm gap set. Figs. 74.12 show the in the design level event. Fig. 74.14 shows the
displacement records and Figs. 74.13 show the moment-rotation curves for the FBJ to exterior
acceleration records for this earthquake. column, level 1, for the Sylmar event. It is clear
from those curves that spring option 1 (FS1)
When studying the acceleration records, it was appreciably reduces the demands on these joints,
noted that the acceleration of the gravity frame was thus ensuring that they remain near elastic. While
lower than the perimeter frame and the FBJ. The the demand increases considerably under
opposite was true for the displacement, where the maximum FISSER spring stiffness (FS3), it is still
perimeter frame has higher displacements than the readily repairable under all options.
gravity frame and the FBJ for option S1, however
these occur only in one peak time.
0.04
0.07
0.06 0.03
0.05
0.02
0.04
Displacement (m)
0.03 0.01
Displacement (m)
0.02
0 PF
0.01 PF
GF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 GF
-0.01 FBJ PF
0 FBJ PF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-0.01
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03 -0.03
-0.04 -0.04
-0.05
-0.05
-0.06
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Fig. 74.12 a Fig. 74.12 c

Sylmar Displacement Records for Stiffness Option Sylmar Displacement Records for Stiffness Option
1 Level 1. 3 Level 1.
0.35
0.06
0.3
0.05 0.25
0.2
0.04
0.15
0.03 0.1
Displacement (m)
0.05
Displacement (m)
0.02
0
0.01 -0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PF
PF GF
0 GF -0.1 FBJ PF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 FBJ PF -0.15
-0.01 -0.2
-0.02 -0.25
-0.3
-0.03
-0.35
-0.04 -0.4
-0.45
-0.05
-0.5
-0.06 Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.12 b Fig. 74.12 d

Sylmar Displacement Records for Stiffness Option Sylmar Displacement Records for Stiffness Option
2 Level 1. 1 Level 10.
0.35 7
0.3 6
0.25
0.2 5
0.15 4
0.1
3
Displacement (m)
0.05
0 2
PF
-0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PF
1 GF
-0.1 GF
FBJ PF
-0.15 FBJ PF 0
-0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-1
-0.25
-0.3 -2
-0.35 -3
-0.4
-0.45 -4
-0.5 -5
-0.55
Time (sec)
Time (m)
Fig. 74.12 e Fig. 74.13 b

Sylmar Displacement Records for Stiffness Option Sylmar Acceleration Records for Stiffness Option 2
2 Level 10. Level 1.
0.35 9
0.3 8
0.25
7
0.2
6
0.15
0.1 5
Displacement (m)
0.05 4
0 3
-0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PF PF
GF 2 GF
-0.1 FBJ PF FBJ PF
-0.15 1
-0.2 0
-0.25 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-0.3
-2
-0.35
-3
-0.4
-0.45 -4
-0.5 -5
Fig. 74.12 f Fig. 74.13 c

Sylmar Displacement Records for Stiffness Option Sylmar Acceleration Records for Stiffness Option 3
3 Level 10. Level 1.
2000
6
5 1500
4
1000
Acceleration (m\sec\sec)
3
500
Moment (kNm)
2
0 FS1
1
PF -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 FS2
GF -500 FS3
0
FBJ PF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-1 -1000
-2
-1500
-3
-2000
-4
-5 -2500
Time (sec) Rotation (radians)
Fig. 74.13 a Fig. 74.14

Sylmar Acceleration Records for Stiffness Option 1 Sylmar Moment Rotation Curves for Semi-Rigid
Level 1. Joint in FISSER Perimeter Frame, Level 1; Three
FISSER Spring Stiffness Options
4.7.2.b Hollister and Pine Horiz 0 1989
0.1
0.09
For Hollister and Pine, which represents the most 0.08
severe case for soft soil conditions, stiffness option 0.07
1 has emerged as the best choice. Option 1 does 0.06
Displacement (m)
0.05
not result in the perimeter frame developing a 0.04
permanent offset, while option 2 will result in a 0.03 PF
GF
small permanent displacement of the perimeter 0.02

0.01
FBJ PF
frame at the base of the building and option 3 0
results in higher permanent displacements. Even -0.01 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

-0.02
though option 1 does have a permanent -0.03
displacement of the gravity frame, it is a small -0.04
value that can be neglected and controlled with -0.05
Time (sec)
suitably large spring stiffnesses used. The main
problem for this earthquake is level 10, were the
top level will have a “whiplash” effect caused by
the earthquake movement. Option 1 has proved to Fig. 74.15 b
be the most effective, as it reduces the overall Hollister and Pine Displacement Records for
displacement of both perimeter and gravity frames Stiffness Option 2 Level 1.
while option 3 has a permanent displacement for
both frames. Fig 74.15 demonstrates the
displacements of the different stiffness options.
0.06
In regard to the accelerations, in option 1 level 1 a 0.05
large spike in the acceleration is noted. This is 0.04
attributed to the gravity frame displacement, which

Displacement (m)
0.03
is much greater than the perimeter frame. 0.02

However, this acceleration spike is transient and 0.01
PF
GF
hence will not cause any major damage to the 0

FBJ PF
building. Figs. 74.16 demonstrate the different -0.01

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
acceleration results.
-0.02
-0.03
Finally, Fig 74.17 shows the moment-rotation
-0.04
demands on the FBJ connections for level 5. This
Time (sec)
shows the rotation demand on the top levels of the
seismic - resisting system. This demand is
considerably greater for stiffness options 2 & 3 Fig. 74.15 c
than it is for stiffness option 1. Hollister and Pine Displacement Records for
Stiffness Option 3 Level 1.
0.11
0.1 0.6
0.09
0.5
0.08
0.07 0.4
Displacement (m)
0.06 0.3
Displacement (m)
0.05
0.2
0.04 PF
0.03 GF 0.1
PF
FBJ PF
0.02 0 GF
0.01 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FBJ PF
-0.1
0
-0.01 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 -0.2
-0.02 -0.3
-0.03
-0.4
-0.04
-0.05 -0.5
Time (sec) -0.6
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.15 a Fig. 74.15 d

Hollister and Pine Displacement Records for Hollister and Pine Displacement Records for
Stiffness Option 1 Level 1. Stiffness Option 1 Level 10.
0.6 5
0.5
4
0.4
0.3 3
Displacement (m)
0.2
2
0.1
PF PF
0 GF 1 GF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FBJ PF FBJ PF
-0.1
0
-0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.3 -1
-0.4
-2
-0.5
-0.6 -3
Fig. 74.15 e Fig. 74.16 b

Hollister and Pine Displacement Records for Hollister and Pine Acceleration Records for
Stiffness Option 2 Level 10. Stiffness Option 2 Level 1.
5
0.7
0.6 4
0.5
3
0.4
0.3
Displacement (m)
2
0.2
PF
0.1 PF 1 GF
GF FBJ PF
0 FBJ PF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0
-0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.2
-1
-0.3
-0.4 -2
-0.5
-3
-0.6
Fig. 74.15 f Fig. 74.16 c

Hollister and Pine Displacement Records for Hollister and Pine Acceleration Records for
Stiffness Option 3 Level 10 Stiffness Option 3 Level 1
7 2500
6
2000
5
4 1500
3
1000
Moment (kNm)
2
1 500
PF FS1
0 GF FS2
FBJ PF 0 FS3
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
-2
-500
-3
-4 -1000
-5
-1500
-6
-7 -2000
Fig. 74.16 a Fig. 74.17

Hollister and Pine Acceleration Records for Hollister and Pine Moment Rotation Curves for
Stiffness Option 1 Level 1. Semi-Rigid Joint in FISSER Perimeter Frame,
Level 5; Three FISSER Spring Stiffness Options
0.03
4.7.3.c Newhall Station 94 Direction 1 1994
0.02
For Newhall, option 1 again emerged as the best
choice, compared to the other options. Figs. 74.18
Displacment (m)
0.01
demonstrates the different displacement options.
PF
0 GF
For acceleration, the values are very close to each 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 FBJ PF
other, with only minute differences. But as we

-0.01
reach the upper levels the acceleration decreases
but the displacement increases, with the least -0.02
perimeter frame deflection associated with the
lowest FISSER spring stiffness. That’s why option -0.03
1 is taken. Fig 74.19 demonstrates the acceleration Time (sec)
of the building while Fig 74.20 shows the largest
moment-rotation actions generated in the FBJ. Fig. 74.18 c
Newhall Displacement Records for Stiffness Option
0.03 3 Level 1
0.4
0.02
0.3
0.01
Displacement (m)
0.2
Displacement (m)
0 PF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0.1
GF
FBJ PF PF
-0.01
0 GF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 FBJ PF
-0.02 -0.1
-0.2
-0.03
-0.3
-0.04
Time (sec) -0.4
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.18 a Fig. 74.18 d

Newhall Displacement Records for Stiffness Option Newhall Displacement Records for Stiffness Option
1 Level 1 1 Level 10
0.03 0.4
0.3
0.02
0.2
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
0.01
0.1
PF PF
0 GF 0 GF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 FBJ PF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 FBJ PF
-0.1
-0.01
-0.2
-0.02 -0.3
-0.4
-0.03
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.18 b Fig. 74.18 e

0.35
7
0.3
6
0.25
5
0.2 4
0.15 3
Displacement (m)
0.1 2
0.05 1
PF
0 PF
0 GF GF
FBJ PF -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 FBJ PF
-2
-0.1
-3
-0.15 -4
-0.2 -5
-0.25 -6
-0.3 -7
-0.35 -8
Fig. 74.18 f Fig. 74.19c

Newhall Displacement Records for Stiffness Option Newhall Acceleration Records for Stiffness Option
1500
7
6
5 1000
4
3 500
2 Moment (kNm)
FS1
1 0 FS2
PF
-0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 FS3
0 GF
FBJ PF
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
-500
-2
-3
-1000
-4
-5
-1500
-6
Rotation (radians)
-7
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.20
Newhall Moment-Rotation Curves for Semi-Rigid
Fig. 74.19a Joint in FISSER Perimeter Frame, Level 1; Three
Newhall Acceleration Records for Stiffness Option FISSER Spring Stiffness Options
1 Level 1
4.7.3 Performance of FISSER for Auckland
7 It has been noticed for Auckland runs that the

6 spring stiffness used has minimal effect on the
5 results. Note that there no near fault action for
4 Auckland. The members designed for Auckland
3
design are also smaller in size (Table 74.3) since
2
the actions generated are less.
1
PF
0 GF
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 FBJ PF 4.7.3.a Hollister and Pine Horiz 0 1989

-2
-3 In this, the soft soil option, option 1 emerged as the
-4 best option for Hollister and Pine in Auckland
-5 design for the lower levels but, for the top level
-6 (level 10), which has the “whiplash” effect, option 3
-7 appeared to be the best option.
Time (sec)
Option 1 and 2 generate similar peak floor

Fig. 74.19b accelerations, while option 3 shows an increase in
Newhall Acceleration Records for Stiffness Option acceleration. As for the rotation moment actions
2 Level 1 they are considerably smaller than the Wellington
design, but option 3 still gives the highest rotation
moment actions compared to the other options and
as the levels increase, that difference increases as
well. Fig 74.23 shows the moment-rotations in the
semi-rigid joints for level 10.
0.03
0.025 0.55
0.5
0.02 0.45
0.4
Displacement (m)
0.015
0.35
Displacement (sec)
0.01
0.3
PF
0.005 GF 0.25
PF
FBJ PF
0.2 GF
0 FBJ PF
0.15
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.005 0.1
0.05
-0.01
0
-0.015 -0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.1
-0.02
-0.15
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.21 a Fig. 74.21 d

0.03 0.6
0.025
0.5
0.02
0.4
Displacement (m)
0.015
Displacement (m)
0.3
0.01 PF
PF 0.2 GF
0.005 GF FBJ PF
FBJ PF
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-0.005 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.01 -0.1
-0.015 -0.2
Time (sec)
-0.02
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.21 e
Fig. 74.21 b Hollister and Pine Displacement Records for
Hollister and Pine Displacement Records for Stiffness Option 2 Level 10
Stiffness Option 2 Level 1
0.03 0.6
0.025 0.5
0.02 0.4
Displacement (m)
0.015
Displacement (m)
0.3
0.01 PF
9 0.2 GF
0.005 223 FBJ PF
FBJ PF
0.1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.005 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.01 -0.1
-0.015
-0.2
-0.02 Time (sec)

Time (sec)
Fig. 74.21 c Fig. 74.21 f

1.8 300
1.6
1.4
200
1.2
Moment (kNm)
100
0.8
0.6 FS1
PF
0.4 GF 0 FS2
FBJ PF -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 FS3
0.2
0
-100
-0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.4
-200
-0.6
-0.8
-1 -300
Fig. 74.22a
Hollister and Pine Acceleration Records for Fig. 74.23
Stiffness Option 1 Level 1 Hollister and Pine Moment-Rotation Curves for
Semi-Rigid Joint in FISSER Perimeter Frame;
Level 10; Three FISSER Stiffness Options
1.8
1.6
4.7.3.b Newhall Station 94 Direction 1 1994
1.4
1.2
1 Option 3 emerged as the best option for the lower

0.8 levels for both gravity and perimeter frame, where
0.6
0.4
PF
GF
reductions in displacements compared with the
0.2
FBJ PF other options were small but significant. But as we
0 go up in levels, option 1 gives the lowest demand.
-0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
This demonstrates that it might be worthwhile to
-0.4
-0.6
vary spring stiffness over the height of the building.
-0.8
-1 For accelerations, all options have similar results.
Time (sec) As for the moment-rotation moment demand they
are similar as for the Auckland Hollister and Pine
actions, with option 3 still have the highest rotation
Fig. 74.22b moment actions compared to the other options and
Hollister and Pine Acceleration Records for as the levels increase that difference increase as
Stiffness Option 2 Level 1 well. However the results are still much smaller
than Wellington design. Fig 74.26 shows the
actions for level 10.
2.4
2.2 0.016
2
1.8 0.012
1.6
1.4 0.008
1.2
0.004
1
Displacement (m)
PF
0.8 GF 0
0.6 FBJ PF 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0.4 -0.004 PF
0.2 GF
0 -0.008 FBJ PF
-0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
-0.012
-0.4
-0.6 -0.016
-0.8
-1 -0.02
Time (sec)
-0.024
-0.028
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.22 c
Hollister and Pine Acceleration Records for Fig. 74.24 a
Stiffness Option 3 Level 1 Newhall Displacement Records for Stiffness Option
1 Level 1
0.016 0.25
0.012 0.2
0.008 0.15
0.1
0.004
Displacement (m)
Displacement (m)
0.05
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PF 0 PF
-0.004 GF GF
FBJ PF
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 FBJ PF
-0.008
-0.1
-0.012
-0.15
-0.016
-0.2
-0.02
-0.25
-0.024
-0.3
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.24 b Fig. 74.24 e

0.02
0.25
0.015 0.2
0.01 0.15
0.1
Displacement (m)
0.005
Displacement (m)
0.05
0 PF 0 PF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 GF 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 GF
-0.005 FBJ PF -0.05 FBJ PF
-0.1
-0.01
-0.15
-0.015 -0.2
-0.02 -0.25
-0.3
-0.025
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.24 f
Fig. 74.24 c Newhall Displacement Records for Stiffness Option
Newhall Displacement Records for Stiffness Option 3 Level 10
3 Level 1
0.25
4
0.2
3
0.15
2
0.1
Displacement (m)
1
0.05
0 PF 0 PF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 GF 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 GF
-0.05 FBJPF -1 FBJ PF
-0.1 -2
-0.15
-3
-0.2
-4
-0.25
-5
-0.3
Time (sec)
Time (sec)
Fig. 74.25a
Fig. 74.24 d Newhall Acceleration Records for Stiffness Option
Newhall Displacement Records for Stiffness Option 1 Level 1
1 Level 10
4.8 Discussion
4
3
After studying the analysis results, it was clear that
stiffness option 1 (S1) was the best option for the
2
Wellington frames and for some aspects of the
1 Auckland frames, by reducing the displacement of

PF the perimeter frame. In the case of the Wellington
0 GF
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 FBJ PS analyses, soft soil using option 1 prevented the
-1 perimeter frame from becoming permanently
-2
displaced, see for example Figs 74.15a and d.
The gravity frame withstood major displacement in
-3
comparison to the perimeter frame, however that
-4 relative displacement would in practice be
Time (sec) accounted for in the designing of the frame and
can be withstood by the spring system.
Fig. 74.25b The maximum displacement of the gravity frame

Newhall Acceleration Records for Stiffness Option relative to the perimeter frame in all instances was
2 Level 1 well under the 250 mm gap needed to cause
contact between the floor and perimeter frame
column – ie. to activate spring 3. This means that,
4
in practice, the gap of 250 mm could be reduced.
3 What extent of gap is required will be the subject of
2
ongoing study.
1
The maximum interstorey deflections within the
0 PF
gravity system (which are not reported on herein
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 GF
FBJ PF
but will be in the next report on this FISSER
-1
development) occur at the base and are within the
-2 interstorey drift limits specified by [7].
-3
Another note was in Auckland design where it was
-4
clear that the different stiffness options at different
-5 levels might improve the overall gravity frame
Time (sec) behaviour. Future testing will test out this theory.
As for the moment rotation of the gravity frame

Fig. 74.25 c connection joints the results show that the FISSER
Newhall Acceleration Records for Stiffness Option system reduces the demands on the perimeter
3 Level 1 frame to levels where negligable permanent
damage would be imposed, thus allowing
immediate reinstatement of the structural system.
200
This is especially the case for FISSER spring
150 option 1. Read DCB 58 and 64 for detailed reports
100 on the FBJ system.
50
4.9 Future Testing and Analysis.
Moment (kNm)
0 FS1
-0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 FS2
-50 FS3 This will involve the following:
-100
1. Pretension spring 2 so that the restoring
force is sufficient to return the floor to the
-150
earthquake condition
-200
2. Try different pre-tensioned spring stiffnesses
-250 for this spring
Rotation (radians)
3. Determine practical construction details for
spring 2 and the pockets housing the springs
4. Analyse a wider range of options, record and
Fig. 74.26 plot key values to show the differences
Newhall Moment-Rotation Curves for Semi-Rigid generated by the full range of options
Joint in FISSER Perimeter Frame, Level 10; Three considered
FISSER Spring Stiffness Options 5. Develop design procedures and detailing
requirements for the seismic and gravity
systems.
Modelling of Slab Panels in
Severe Fires
This paper has been written by Nandor Mago, HERA Finite
Element Analyst and Charles Clifton, HERA Structural
Engineer.
1.1 Background
HERA has developed a fire engineering design

method for determining the dependable strength
available from deformed composite floor systems
in fully developed fires.
Called the Slab Panel Method (SPM), this utilises Fig. 74.28
two way action in a region of floor slab Slab Panel Fire Tests; Position of Applied Loads
incorporating unprotected secondary beams or (from [8])
joists to determine the load-carrying capacity of the
slab panel under severe fire conditions. The
second edition of the procedure is presented in
HERA DCB No. 71 (full issue). The basis of the
procedure is given in section 2 of DCB No. 71, on
page 4 therein.
In a landmark series of fire tests undertaken in

2002 and reported in [8], six 4.15m by 3.15m slab
panels were subjected to standard fire testing. An
overview of these tests is given in section 3, pp. 3-
6 of DCB No. 70. Very brief details are now given
as part of the introduction to this paper.
Fig. 74.27 shows the test set-up section across the

short span of the furnace, while Fig. 74.28 shows
the system generating the applied loading. Fig.
74.29 shows a slab in position on the furnace, prior
to the test commencing. Fig. 74.30 shows the top
surface crack pattern from the flat slab with the Fig. 74.29
lightest reinforcing at the conclusion of the 3-hour Slab Panel Fire Tests; Slab in Position for Test
fire test.
Fig. 74.27
Slab Panel Fire Tests; Section Across the Short
Span of the Furnace (from [8])
Fig. 74.30
Top Surface Crack Pattern of the D147 Flat Slab
The results of these tests were used to amend the Table 74.5
first edition of the SPM procedure, as described in Configuration of Slabs (from [8])
the commentary to DCB No. 71, Appendix A.
Only by fire testing can the performance of a slab

panel under the representative ultimate limit state
environment of constant vertical load and
concurrent severe fire conditions of high
temperatures and thermal gradient development
be experimentally determined.
In this regard, the fire tests [8] have generated

crucial information that the ambient temperature
tests cannot provide.
The SPM is based on yield line development plus

tensile membrane action. The stresses and strains
can be recorded experimentally through to failure
under ambient temperature. The same could not
be done in the fire tests, as the strain gauges all
failed due to elevated temperatures at around 60-
100 minutes into the tests, corresponding to their
limiting temperatures of 300 oC and well short of
slab panel failure. Therefore, it requires numerical
modelling to track strains and stresses in the
slab/reinforcement under fire. The first purpose of
the FE modelling reported on below and in more
detail in HERA Report R4-118 [10] has been to
obtain this information, having validated the
models against the experimentally recorded slab
centre deflections and cracking patterns.
The second purpose of this modelling is to

determine the influence of slab panel support
deformation on the strength of the panel itself. As
described in section A2.1, page 36, DCB No. 71,
the slab panel is a region of floor slab bounded on
4 sides by supports that remain effectively
undistorted under severe fire conditions, relative to
the peak downwards deflection expected within the
slab panel region. In the current procedure, DCB
No. 71, support design and detailing requirements
are presented which will restrict the supporting
beam deformations to no greater than 1/6 th of the
peak slab panel deflections.
Fig. 74.31
The second stage of the research programme is to Cross Section of Slabs (from [8])
make the supports to the slab panels deform and
to determine the effect of this on the slab panel The thickness of the slabs ranged from 90 mm to
response. This will then be incorporated into the 130 mm. The three flat slabs were all 100 mm
third edition of the slab panel design method, to be thick and differed from each other by the amount of
published in 2004. reinforcing steel. The different amounts of
reinforcing were intended to investigate its effect
1.2 Scope of paper on controlling the widths of the cracks in the slabs,
especially to prevent integrity failure, as well as
The six slabs that were tested consisted of three providing three slab panels with different strengths.
flat slabs and three proprietary composite steel-
concrete slabs (Table 74.5 and Fig. 74.31). The properties of the different types of
reinforcing steel used for the tests are shown in
Table 74.6. The reinforcing bars of the mesh that
spanned the short direction were placed below the
bars that spanned the long direction. The ribs of
the Hi-bond and Traydec steel decking, and the
joists of the Speedfloor slab, spanned parallel to fire and this deflection generated by factored
the long span of the furnace. vertical loading only under ambient temperature
conditions.
The concrete that was used in the tests was
normal weight concrete, supplied by Firth Finally, section 6 very briefly outlines the scope
Industries Ltd. 19 mm greywacke (siliceous) and purpose of the next stage of the research.
aggregates were used. The specified compressive
strength of the concrete was 30 MPa. 2. General Description of Finite Element
Models and Analyses
Table 74.6
Properties of the reinforcing steel at ambient The FE models were built in ABAQUS/CAE [9] pre-
temperature (from [8]) processor. The solver used was HKS/ABAQUS
Standard (Version 6.3-001 and -004). SI units are
N, m, Pa.
In most of the cases one quarter of the panel slab

is modelled using shell elements, taking advantage
of symmetry in materials, loading and boundary
conditions.
The non-linear static analyses have been

performed in three steps. In the first step the
gravity load is applied (Total time 1.0). Next, the
payload is applied (Total time 2.0), which is
followed by the fire load (between total time 2.0
and 180 or 182) – within the internal spans of the
This paper presents details of the finite element model. In steps 1 and 2, time has no physical
modelling and results obtained for the three flat meaning, while in the third step, the ABAQUS time
slabs. Results for the Traydec and Speedfloor has been set up to correspond to the real time in
slabs are given in [10] and not included herein, due minutes of the fire test. The temperatures applied
to space limitations. are taken from the experimental tests, including
modelling of the cooler region around the edges,
The Hibond slab has not been modelled, because see details in [10].
of the difficulty in obtaining reliable data on the slip
between concrete and decking under fire The ABAQUS analyses used the *CONCRETE
conditions. Such slip was observed, however the DAMAGED PLASTICITY constitutive model. It
magnitude was not recorded; which makes it not requires specification of the concrete uniaxial
possible to meaningfully account for it in the tension (ie. tension stiffening) and compression
analyses. If the decking contribution is ignored the stress behaviour (as a function of temperature).
slab reverts to an effective reinforced concrete slab The behaviour of concrete material is complex.
only but with a different temperature distribution The FE models were built on the basis of all
and there was no advantage in modelling this in available data in terms of loading, boundary
addition to the three flat slabs modelled. conditions and temperature dependent material
properties. Most of the material property
Section 2 covers general aspects of the FEA. information required was available from the
experimental testing, with other from the relevant
Section 3, 4 and 5 cover the D147 flat slab, the Eurocodes, in some instances with modifications
661 flat slab and the HD12 flat slab, respectively. made from previous fire research. However, some
very specific data relating to concrete behaviour
Each of these sections covers: described by this constitutive model was not
available and educated assessment had to be
• details of the model (comprehensive made.
coverage for the D147 flat slab, overview for
the others) Other reasons that complicated the problem and
required detailed investigation are as follows.
• results (comprehensive coverage for the There is a mesh sensitivity issue, since refining the
D147 flat slab, deflection and cracking only mesh does not lead to a unique solution. The issue
for the others) of each element containing a rebar is also present,
as some results showed that models in which each
In addition, section 3.3 looks at the differences in element contains one or more rebars give the best
internal actions within the D147 slab at 100 mm agreement with the experimental results. The shell
central vertical deflection, between this deflection element type employed to model the slab (type
generated by the applied vertical loading and the
S4R or S4 - ie. reduced or fully integrated
element) has also significant influence.
The number of
section points at element integration
points has an influence on the recorded
midspan deflection versus time curves,
too. Moreover, the concrete tension
stiffening effect requires an estimate
since it depends on such factors as the
density of the reinforcement, the quality of
the bond between the rebar and the
concrete, relative size of the concrete
aggregate compared to the rebar
diameter, and the mesh.
The process of FE model validation with

experimental results has also highlighted
the significance of the applied amplitude curve
Fig. 74.32
shape that describes the temperature variation
FEM of D147 Flat Slab Showing the Shell
through the slab thickness versus time.
Elements’ (S4R) Normal and Node/Element
Numbering
To sum up, the problem is very complex. The
results of the in depth investigations will be given in
Fig. 74.33 shows the geometry and support
[10]. Therefore, engineering judgement has been
conditions modelled. These involved the slab
made wherever it was necessary to specify
resting on the supporting 32 mm dia bar and with
sophisticated data in the ABAQUS input files.
tie-down of the slab panel corners.
The above-described difficulties lead to a
not unique solution in terms of the concrete
damaged model input data required for
each test to obtain a good match between
the predicted and experimental results. The
target in each case of fire test was to
closely match the recorded midspan versus
time curves. This has been achieved, with
excellent agreement in some cases and
less good, but satisfactory, agreement in
others.
3. D147 Flat Slab
3.1 Overview
This was the first slab modelled and third

slab tested. The general factors in section 2 are Fig. 74.33
discussed now in some detail as applied to this Geometry of the Slab and Supporting Ö32mm
model. Reduced integration shell elements (S4R) Bars Showing the Boundary Conditions on the
with 9 integration points were used through the Quarter of the Slab. Contact between the Bottom
thickness. The reinforcing bars (with temperature Face of the Slab Panel and These Supporting Bars
dependent stress strain curves) were modelled is Modelled
with the ABAQUS *Rebar Layer option. See Fig.
74.32. Regretfully this does not allow the The temperature profile through the shell thickness
visualisation of individual rebars as embedded at the end of the fire loading (ie. 180 minutes) is
parts of the shell modelled slab. specified in nine equally spaced points through the
100mm thick slab as follows:
• 183.2 C at the top face

• 290.7 C
• 398.3 C
• 461.9 C
• 525.5 C
• 636.1 C
• 755.6 C 3.2 D147 flat slab fire loading - results
• 901.3 C
• 1055.3 C at the slab bottom face. The best matches of the recorded central
deflection versus time are shown in Fig. 74.35.
These temperatures have been applied on the
region of the slab that is directly exposed to fire. In The slight deviation at the location around 40
practice the temperature rise with time obtained minutes is very likely due to the extracted shape of
experimentally (eg. from [8]) is different for each the fire curve. Namely, the recorded data shows
layer. In addition, it is slightly different in various that the temperature distribution has a different
regions of the slab. However, a limitation of the pattern at the bottom surface and through the
model is that all layers had to follow the same section points up through the slab thickness (see
amplitude curve. The two different amplitude Fig 17 in the Appendix of [8]). The influence of this
curves used in the analyses are shown in (amplitude) curve is shown in the curve marked
Fig. 74-34. with D147-5aa-Amp. In this run, the fire loading
followed the trend recorded at the bottom of the
Amplitiude curves slab. The ABAQUS response for this run shows a
1 distinct peak around 32 minutes, which
corresponds to the experimentally recorded
0.9
change in the “slope” of the central deflection
0.8
curve. To sum up, more precise fire loading data
0.7 from the tests would result in more accurate
Normalized temperature
0.6
modelling and match with the recorded central
deflection versus time. The temperatures reached
0.5
in the slab and reinforcement are detailed in [10].
0.4 They are controlled by the input temperature data,
0.3
as described in section 3.1. The deformed shapes
of the slab from the analyses for the amplitude
0.2
curve D147-5-aa are shown in Figs. 74.36 to
0.1 74.38. The horizontal deflections at the midspans
0 of the slab are shown in Fig. 74-39.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Time (min)
D147-5aa D147-5aa-Amp
Fig. 74.34
Two Amplitude Curves Used for D147 Flat Slab
Analyses
Note:
1. D147-5aa represents the temperature - time
relationship at he level of the reinforcement
2. D147-5aa-Amp represents the temperature - time
relationship at the fire-exposed surface of the flat
concrete slab
D147 - COMPARISON of TEST DATA & BEST MATCH FEA OPTIONS (Linear interplation of
temperature distribution through the shell thickness)
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00
-50
Figure 74.36
CENTRAL DEFLECTION [mm]
-100
Actual Deformed Shape of D147 Flat Slab at 180
Minutes in Step-3. The Shell Reference Surface is
-150
the Slab Bottom (SNEG) Face, Which is in Contact
-200
with the Solid Modelled Supporting Bar
-250
-300
ABAQUS TIME i.e. ACTUAL TIME + 2 MIN
TEST DATA D147-5aa D147-5aa-Amp
Fig. 74.35
D147 Flat Slab Central Deflection Versus Time
(Marking Relates to the Name of the ABAQUS
Files).
The rebar forces in the shorter and longer span
direction are given in Figs. 74.40 and 74.41. The
contour scale levels are identical for all analysed
slabs.
Fig. 74.37
Vertical Deflection Along the Centreline in the
Shorter Span Direction (m) for 0, 30, 60, 120.5 and
180min of Loading in Step-3.
Fig. 74.40
Rebar Forces in the Shorter Span Direction (ie.
Direction 3) at the Start and at the End of Fire
Loading.
The Evolution of These Forces is Given in [10]
Figure 74.38
Vertical Deflection along the Centreline in the
Shorter Span Direction (m) for 0, 30, 60, 120.5 and
180min of Loading in Step-3
20
Fig. 74.41
Edge horizontal deflection at the bottom of the slab -
15 Rebar Forces in the Longer Span Direction (ie. 1)

at the Start and at the End of Fire Loading
positive is outward
10
(H1+H2)/2 - slab bottom TEST
The comparison of the cracking pattern is given
(mm)
(H3+H4)/2 - slab bottom TEST
5
H1-ShorterSpan FEA
H4-LongerSpan FEA next. The visualisation of "crack directions" is given
according to the ABAQUS description [9].
“Unlike concrete models based on the smeared
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 crack approach, the concrete damaged plasticity
model does not have the notion of cracks
-5
Fire Time (Minutes)
developing at the material integration point.
However, it is possible to introduce the concept of
an effective crack direction with the purpose of
Fig. 74.39 obtaining a graphical visualisation of the cracking
Comparison of Experimentally Recorded patterns in the concrete structure. The direction
(Averaged and Manually Corrected to the Bottom of the vector normal to the crack plane is
of the Slab) and ABAQUS Derived Horizontal assumed to be parallel to the direction of the
Deflections at the Centreline of the Slab at the maximum principal plastic strain.”
Outer Edges
This has been done and a fairly good match can
Note: H1 and H2 are at the midpoints of the long side of the
slab be identified on the top and bottom surface of the
H3 and H4 are at the midpoints of the short side of the slab, as it is shown on the pictures below. The full
slab animation in colour of the cracking pattern is given
on CD in [10]. The length of the dark arrow is
proportional to the amount of cracking, while the
crack plane is perpendicular to it.
Fig. 74.44
Crack Pattern at the Bottom Surface of the D147
Flat Slab (Figure 6-28 of [8]). The Shorter Span of
the Slab is Vertical.
Fig. 74.42
Crack Pattern at the Top Surface of the D147 Flat
Slab (Figure 6-27 of [8]).
The Shorter Span of the Slab is Vertical.
Fig. 74.45
This Model is the Upper Right Corner of
Figure 74.44
25000
20000
Fig. 74.43
This Model is the Upper Right Corner of Figure 15000
74.42. The Crack Plane is Perpendicular on the ShorterSpan averaged strain at the CENTRE
(TEST)
Microstrain
Darker Arrow (Which is Horizontal for the Left 10000

LongerSpan averaged strain at the CENTRE
(TEST)
ShorterSpan REBAR - ABQ
Bottom Corner Element). This Arrow Represents LongerSpan REBAR - ABQ
the Maximum Principal Plastic Strain. 5000
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00
-5000
Time (Min)
Fig. 74.46
Strain Gauge Measurement in the REBAR at the
Centre of the Slab Versus Nominal Strain (NE11)
in the REBAR at the Integration Point of Element
31 (Figure 74.32).
Note: ABQ = ABAQUS
Figure 74.46 shows the averaged strain in the
rebars (S7, S18, S19 – shorter span; S8, S15,
S16, S17 – longer span, [8]) that was recorded up
to around 80 minutes, but is valid only up to 300C
(which was achieved in the rebars at around 35
minutes; and is the dependable maximum
temperature rating for the strain gauges) versus
the ABAQUS nominal strain. The results show
fairly good agreement in the valid range of up to
approximately 35 minutes. At ambient temperature
strengths, ie. yield strain for this reinforcement
under ambient temperature conditions is given by
2756 microstrain.
3.3 Slab internal actions and deformations Fig. 74.49

due to factored gravity loading alone and Horizontal (Outward) Displacement at Nodes H1-
a comparison with the internal actions H2 and H3-H4 (See Fig. 74.47 for Location of
produced by gravity load plus fire These Points) Versus Slab Central Sagging.
The D147 flat slab was also analysed with factored

gravity load, sufficient to generate 100 mm central
sagging, which is equal to sagging at 60 minutes in
fire as is given in the chapter above. The internal
actions and deformations generated by the two
different loading conditions can then be compared.
Figs. 74.47 and 74.48 show the vertical

displacement under factored gravity loading.
Fig. 74.50
Vertical Deflection Along the Plane of Symmetries
for the Two Loading Cases at the Same Central
Displacement.
Fig. 74.47
Contour Plot of Vertical Displacement on the
Deformed Shape Magnified Five Times.
Fig. 74.51
Rebar Forces in the Shorter (Left) and Longer
(Right) Span Direction at 100 mm Central
Deflection Due to 7.05 Times Gravity Loading.
Fig. 74.49 shows the comparison of horizontal

deflection at the midspan of the sides versus
Fig. 74.48
central vertical deflection, while Fig. 74.50 shows
Slab Centre Deflection Versus Time (This “Time”
the deflected shape along the centrelines, for each
Has No Physical Meaning!).
load case.
Fig. 74.52 Fig. 74.55
Cracking Pattern on the Top Face of the Slab at Cracking Pattern on the Bottom Face of the Slab at
100 mm Central Deflection Due to 7.05 Times 100 mm Central Deflection Due to 60 Minutes Fire
Gravity Loading. Loading.
The comparison of the cracking pattern between

the two cases is similar up to some extent. The
length of the vectors indicates different magnitudes
of cracking.
The reinforcing bar nominal strains at the centre of

the slab for each load case is shown in Fig. 74.56.
Fig. 74.53
Cracking Pattern on the Top Face of the Slab at
100 mm Central Deflection Due to 60 Minutes Fire
Loading.
Fig. 74.56
Reinforcing Bar Strains at the Centre of the Slab
Panel under Each Loading Condition.
4. 661 Flat Slab
4.1 Overview
This test was the first one of the experimental tests

in which the corners of the slab were not clamped,
Fig. 74.54 thus curling of the four corners occurred. Following
Cracking Pattern on the Bottom Face of the Slab at this test the slab corners were restrained at their
100 mm Central Deflection Due to 7.05 Times vertical position before the payload was applied.
Gravity Loading. For completeness the 661 slab was firstly
thoroughly analysed with clamped corners (as all
The cracking patterns for each load case are others) and next without it, reflecting the in-situ
shown in Figs 74.52 and 74.53 for the top face of condition.
the slab and Figs. 74.54 and 74.55 for the bottom
face of the slab. The temperature through the thickness of the slab
versus time was not recorded for this test.
Therefore, the appropriate values of maximum
temperature in each layer and the amplitude curve
to be followed for every layer had to be determined 661 FLAT SLAB - COMPARISON of TEST DATA & TWO FEA OPTIONS (Linear interplation of
temperature distribution through the shell thickness) - INFLUENCE OF MESH DENSITY
by comparison of the furnace temperature data
with that for the two other flat slab tests, where this 0
-20.00 0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00
data was recorded. As it turned out, the
temperatures for the HD12 and 661 slabs were -50
almost identical; data from the HD12 test was
CENTRAL DEFLECTION DUE TO FIRE ONLY

finally taken. This is the normalised amplitude -100
curve from the HD12 test as the average of
[mm]
thermocouples TT1.1 and TT2.1 at the bottom face
-150
(0mm) of the slab. This amplitude curve reached
the same peak values of temperature through the
shell cross section as in the case of D147 slab at -200
the end of the fire loading.

-250
FIRE TIME
This slab has been investigated from other TEST 2 REBARS per ELEMENT 1 REBAR per ELEMENT
prospective, too. Options with one rebar per Fig. 74.58

element (meaning longer running time) and two 661 Flat Slab Experimentally Recorded and FE
rebars per element have yielded almost identical Derived Central Sagging with Time.
results (but the concrete tension stiffening has
been fine-tuned). In addition, in both options the Note: the test results are for the corners not restrained.
result are checked using the ABAQUS *REBAR
and *REBAR LAYER keywords -, which are two The cracking pattern at the end of the fire test (180
different ways of adding the reinforcement to the mins of fire) is shown in Fig. 74.59 for the top face
shell modelled slab. The comparison from this is and Fig. 74.60 for the bottom face.
shown in Figure 74.57.
Fig. 74.59
Flat Slab 661 Top Face Cracking (Direction
Perpendicular on the Red Double Arrow Vectors)
Pattern Due to the Fire Loading (Quarter FEM!)
Fig. 74.57
661 Flat Slab Central Sagging Recorded in Four
Different Options,
in order to Check That the Results are Reliable for
the Given Input Data.
4.2 661 flat slab with clamped corners (ie.

Not the experimentally tested)
A comparison of the central deflections is shown in

Fig. 74.58. The FEA options include 2 levels of
mesh density.
Fig. 74.60
Flat Slab 661 Bottom Face Cracking Pattern Due
to the Fire Loading. The Full Development of the
Cracking is Given in [9].
Fig. 74.61
Fig. 74.63
History of Rebar Forces in the Longer (SP14) and
Rebar Forces in the Shorter Span Direction at the
Shorter (SP13) Span Direction at the Integration Start and at the End of Fire Loading.
Point (in This Case the Centre) of Element 121,
Which is the Closest to the Slab Centre.
The reinforcing bar forces in the centre are shown

in Fig. 74.61.
4.3 661 flat slab without clamped corners (as

tested)
This chapter describes the model response with

the boundary conditions present in the test. By
comparing the analytical results with those from
section 4.2, the influence of the corner vertical
restraint can be seen.
661 FLAT SLAB - COMPARISON of TEST DATA & TWO FEA OPTIONS (Linear interplation of
temperature distribution through the shell thickness) - INFLUENCE OF MESH DENSITY versus
REBAR
Fig. 74.64
Rebar Forces in the Longer Span Direction at the
-20.00
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00
Start and at the End of Fire Loading.
-50
-100
[mm]
-150
-200
-250
FIRE TIME
TEST ONE REBAR PER ELEMENT TWO REBARS PER ELEMENT
Fig. 74.62
661 Flat Slab Experimentally Recorded and
Numerically Derived Central Sagging (*REBAR
LAYER Option).
Fig. 74.65
Cracking Pattern of 661 Flat Slab (Long Span is
Across the Page) and the Crack at the Middle Can
be Nicely Identified in Figure 74.66.
loading is more or less the same as in the above
two described cases.
HD12 FLAT SLAB - COMPARISON of TEST DATA & TWO FEA OPTIONS (Linear interplation of
temperature distribution through the shell thickness)
0
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00
-50

-100
[mm]
-150
Fig. 74.66
Cracking Pattern on the Top Face of the Slab. -200
-250
FIRE TIME
TEST RebarLayer-1 Rebar-1
Fig. 74.69
HD12 Flat Slab in-situ Recorded and Numerically
Derived Central Node Sagging Versus Time.
Fig. 74.67
In-situ Cracking Pattern of the 661 Slab Bottom
After the Fire Test (Long Span is Along the Page).
Fig. 74.70
Rebar Forces in the Shorter Span Direction at the
Fig. 74.68
Cracking Pattern on the Bottom Side of the Slab.
5. HD12 Flat Slab
This slab has been solved with the adjusted

tension stiffening data and one rebar per element
mesh density. All valuable very specific concrete
Fig. 74.71
modelling knowledge from the previously modelled
Rebar Forces in the Longer Span Direction at the
two flat slabs has been built into this model. An
almost excellent match with the experimental
results has been obtained. The temperature
Reviewing the rebar force contour plots and results
from the three flat slabs fire test shows that, with
increasing steel content, the reinforcing bar tension
force around the slab centre also increase several
times over its magnitude at the start of the fire
loading (when only G + Q are present). With
increasing steel content the slab centre sagging
decreases, generally meaning higher rebar forces
at the end of the fire loading. These pictures also
show the proportion of the two-way action in each
direction.
Due to gravity and payload the FEA show higher

rebar forces in the shorter span direction under (G
+ Q alone). This is consistent with the slab yield Fig. 74.73
line pattern that is being developed under ambient Cracking Pattern on the Upper Side of the Slab.
temperature loading. By the end of the fire,
however, the greater force occurs in the long span
reinforcement. This is a direct illustration of tensile
membrane action, as proposed by Bailey [11]. It is
also due to higher temperatures in the shorter
span reinforcement, which is closer to the heated
face and hence has a slightly lower strength.
This comparison is given by Figs. 74.40, 74.63 and

74.70 for the D147, 661 and HD12 slabs shorter
direction and Figs. 74.41, 74.64 and 74.71 for the
D147, 661 and HD12 slabs longer direction.
Fig. 74.74
Cracking Pattern of HD12 Flat Slab Bottom Face.
Fig. 74.72
Cracking Pattern of HD12 Flat Slab Top Face Fig. 74.75
(Long Span is Across the Page). Cracking Pattern on the Bottom Side of the Slab.
6. Scope and Purpose of the Next Stage of 7. DR 1170.4 PPCD8 DR4/V Draft Joint
the Research Earthquake Loadings Standard, January
2003 Version; Standards New Zealand,
Having validated the models in each instance Wellington.
against the experimentally tested slabs, the next
stage of this research is to replace the rigid edge 8. Lim, L and Wade, C; Experimental Fire
supports on the models with deformable supports Tests of Two-Way Concrete Slabs;
or beams. This will model the slab panels being University of Canterbury School of
supported directly on columns at each corner and Engineering, Christchurch, 2002, Fire
along the sides, supported on beams that undergo Engineering Research Report 02/12.
deformation over the duration of the fire. This
deformation will follow a parabolic shape with a 9. ABAQUS/Standard; Finite Element Analysis
maximum midspan value of span/100, span/50 and Program; HKS Inc, Pawtucket RI, USA,
span/20 being reached. The rate at which this 2003.
happens will follow the amplitude curve recorded
experimentally for the Speedfloor slab. 10. Mago, Nandor & Clifton, GC; Stage 2
Development of the Slab Panel Design
The effect of this deformation on the slab panel Procedure; HERA, Manukau City, 2003,
external behaviour and internal actions will be HERA Report R4-118.
determined.
11. Bailey, GC; Design of Steel Structures With
This will then be used to revise the SPM design Composite Slabs at the Fire Limit State; UK
procedure to incorporate the effect of deformable Building Research Establishment, Watford,
supports to the slab panel. It is planned to present England, 2000, Report No. 81415.
results of the second stage analyses in April 2004,
complete the work by June 2004 and publish the
revised SPM procedure (Third Edition) by October
2004.
References
Welding Part 2: Steel Welding (Steel Studs
to Steel); Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.



Welding Part 1: Welding of Steel Structures;
5. Carr, AJ; RUAUMOKO – the Maori God of

Volcanoes and Earthquakes; University of
Christchurch, 1998.

Zealand.
P O Box 76-134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 75 August/September 2003

The author(s) of each item or paper in this publication are noted at the The material herein has been the subject of review by a
Introduction portal frame supporting a gable wall, but with no

Welcome to the first Bulletin issue for the structural floor system at rafter level to provide
2003/2004 year and to the 75 th issue of the DCB. lateral restraint. In this situation, there is no
external twist restraint or lateral restraint for
The first topic covers the design of portal frames bending provided at the knees, however there is
with limited or no external restraint at the knees. axial restraint, back through the gable wall, as the
Such applications are not common, however are forces involved are low.
readily covered by NZS 3404 [1].
The second case involves no external restraint at
This is followed by a brief elaboration on all to the knee - an example of which is shown in
secondary beam/joist continuity for the Fig. 75.2.
assessment of floor vibration.
The design of these two cases for member
The final and principal article is an update of the moment capacity, compression capacity and
What's in the DCB summary last presented in DCB combined actions is now covered.
No. 69. This summary is now updated to Issue
No. 75 - ie. up to mid-2003. The interactive access Portal Frames With No External Twist
to the DCB via the HERA website will be updated Restraint But With External Axial Restraint
to this new summary by the end of 2003.
Nature of the Axial Restraint Provided
Design of Portal Frames with This is the example shown in Fig. 75.1. The axial
Limited or No External Restraint restraint is provided to the knee in order that the
portal frame column can be designed as pin ended
at the Knees between base and knee. It is provided by the
Structural Engineer. gable wall framing system, through the use of a
double stud (if needed). The axial restraint force,
Introduction and Scope N*r , is given from NZS 3404 Clause 6.7.2.1 as:
Portal frames generally have good external
restraint to the knees and apex. Such frames In This Issue Page
come within the mainstream design provisions of
Design of Portal Frames with
NZS 3404 [1] Clause 5.6. A wide range of restraint
Limited Restraint at the Knees 1
classifications for typical as-built details are given
in HERA Report R4-92 [2], Restraint Secondary Beam/Joist Continuity
Classifications for Beam Member Moment Conditions for Assessment of Floor 6
Capacity Determination to NZS 3404. Vibration
What's in the DCB From Nos 1 to 75 7
However, there are applications where the portal
frames don't have the typical degree of external
restraint at the knees. Two examples are shown in References 21
Figs. 75.1 and 75.2. The first case involves a
Nr* = 0.025 N col
*
(75.1) There are no other points of effective external
restraint to the rafter or knees of the portal frame.
where:
The portal frame must not be subject to inelastic
N*col = design axial compression in the column. demand due to earthquake, or to moment
redistribution.
Note that the restraint is provided through the
external flange of the column at the knee and so is Determining member moment capacity for the
slightly off centre. It therefore relies on the twist portal frame rafter
restraint provided by the rafter to give effective
axial restraint to the column cross section. This is In terms of the moment restraint classification at
a dependable assumption for all practical the knee, this is taken as partial restraint (P), in
applications, provided that the stiffener accordance with the second criterion from
arrangement is as shown in Fig. 75.1 (ie. with 2 NZS 3404 Clause 5.4.2.2. (This was introduced in
horizontal stiffeners, not a single diagonal Amendment No. 1). This requires twist rotation to
stiffener). be effectively restrained and lateral deflection to be
partially restrained.
The restraint force required to be resisted by the
studs is low - for a column design compression of The latter condition is met by the axial restraint
20 kN, which is relatively high for a light framed through the stud - this will not provide the same
gable wall, N*r = 0.5 kN. stiffness of restraint as the connection into a roof
system would, however given that the studs are
The restraint force must be resisted by bending in designed to resist N*r .it will provide partial restraint.
the stud, between the stud top and bottom
supports (see Fig. 75.1(b)). Often a double stud The key question is whether the former condition
will be used for this. There must be direct of effective twist restraint is met and what to do if it
connection between the portal frame knee and isn't. NZS 3404 Clause H5 gives a method for
stud(s) to transfer this force. answering this question that is straight forward to
apply. Details are as follows:
Fig. 75.1
Gable End Wall with Portal Frame Support
Fig. 75.2
Portal Frame Knee with No External Restraint
(1) Calculate Mob from NZS 3404 Equation H4.2 axis bending, then replace 3 with 4.
(for an equal flanged I-section: use Equation Iy,col,eff = 0.5 Iy,col (conservatively the inner
H4.1 for a general section). half column section only is taken as
providing the twist restraint to the rafter)
In applying that equation, all input properties
are for the rafter. Le is calculated from Lcol = length of column segment (ie. in
Clause 5.6.3.1 for the PP condition at the this case, the full column length)
knees, and L is the rafter length to column
centrelines. The rest of the input variables for β+ are for
the rafter and have been determined during
(2) Calculate βt from Clause H5.1.2 step (1).
This involves calculating α rz, which is the (3) Calculate Mobr from Clause H5.1.1.
elastic stiffness of the end restraint against
twist. (4) Calculate α m (moment modification factor)
from Clause 5.6.1.1.1 (b). Equation 5.6.1.1
For the portal frame in Fig. 75.1, αrz is given (2) can be used for any rafter bending
by: moment distribution. This is determined for
the full rafter length.
3E ,Iy,col,eff
αrz = (75.2) (5) Calculate Moa from Clause 5.6.4, ie:
Lcol
where:
Mob
3 relates to the pinned detail at the column Moa = (75.3)
base. If the column base is fixed for minor ám
(6) Calculate α s from Equation 5.6.1.1 (3) - for = 1.4Mob Mob
an equal flanged I-section. This also
requires calculation of Msx,rafter. In this case, the elastic buckling moment is
not reduced by the support twist restraint
(7) Calculate Mbx from Equation 5.6.1.1 (1), ie.: conditions; hence:
Mbx = αmαsMsx (75.4) Mobr = Mob = 21.2 kNm
Example (4) ám = 1.6 is given

As an example, consider a portal frame comprising Mob 21.2
a 250UB25 Grade 300 member. Column height (5) Moa = = = 13.3 kNm
(base to centreline of knee) = 2.8 m, rafter ám 1.6
span = 6m.
(6) Calculate of ás
Calculate the member moment capacity for
the rafter of this portal frame, for a given value Msx = 92/0.9 = 102.2 kNm
of α m = 1.6. That value is consistent with the Moa = 13.3 kNm
bending moment distribution along the rafter ás = 0.12
shown in Fig. 75.1(a), in which most of the applied
load comes from the central gable support. (7) Mbx = ám ás Msx = 1.6 x 0.12 x 102.2
= 18.9 kNm
(1) Calculation of Mob
For the rafter, φ Mbx = 17.0 kNm.
(The section properties for the 250UB25 are
taken from [3] and not repeated herein.) This example illustrates two important points
relating to the portal frame application of Fig. 75.1,
Le = kt kl kr L = 1.02 x 1.4 x 1.0 x 6 = 8.57m namely:
kt = 1.02, from Table 5.6.3(1) of [1]
• The column does provide effective twist
kl = 1.4, from Table 5.6.3(2), restraint to the rafter, as is required for the P
because the majority of load restraint classification
comes in from the gable • The laterally unrestrained nature of the
support, which is laterally gable support onto the top flange of the
unrestrained onto the rafter rafter decreases the member moment
capacity, however that is unavoidable in this
kr = 1.0, from Table 5.6.3(3) circumstance.
K = 0.43 from Equation H4.3 of [1] Determining member moment capacity for the
portal frame column
Mob = Mo
(EIyGJ) Just as the twist restraint to the rafter is provided

=
ð
Le
(1 + K )
2
= 21.2 kNm by the (inside half of the) column, so the twist
restraint to the column is provided by the inside
half of the rafter.
(2) Calculate of βt
The process of determining what effect the
stiffness of the elastic rafter has on the twist
3EIy,col,eff restraint at the knee for the column follows the
árz = = 280.0 x 106 Nmm/radian
Lcol same approach but with some changes.
Iy,col,eff = 0.5Iy,col = 1.28 x 106 mm4 Details are as follows:
(1) Calculate Mob from NZS 3404 Equation H4.2

á reL e / GJ
βt =
(
5 1 + K2 ) = 75.1
In this case, all input properties are for the
column
(3) Calculation of Mobr
(2) Calculate βt from Clause H5.1.2
 2â t 
Mobr = Mob   ≤ Mob
 (1 + â t ) 
2EIy,rafter,eff
αrz = (75.5)
Lrafter
where:
2 relates to the rafter knee at the (3) The moment modification factor should be
opposite end also having an applied determined from NZS 3404 Equation
moment 5.6.1.1(2).
Iy,rafter,eff = 0.5Iy,rafter (4) Given the restraints of (1) and (2), the load
can be considered applied at the segment
Lrafter = length of rafter segment (ie. In ends, thus kl = 1.0 from Table 5.6.3(2).
this case the full rafter length)
Determining member moment capacity for the
(3) - (7) as for the rafter member moment portal frame column
capacity determination, however using
the column member section properties, This follows the same procedure as for the portal
dimensions and bending moment frame with the axial restraint at the knee.
gradient.
The key difference here is that the cantilever
Considering the same example as used for the column must be designed for a notional horizontal
rafter, the value of βt decreases from 75 for the load in the minor axis direction and the associated
rafter to 7.5 for the column. However, this still minor axis moments, as described below.
generates Mobr = Mob, thus the rafter provides
effective twist restraint to the column knee for the Design of column for axial load, minor axis
column segment. moment and combined actions
Portal Frames with No External Restraint to The column must be designed for the in-plane
the Knees moment and axial load that is generated by the
portal frame action.
Determining member moment capacity for the
portal frame rafter Given its lack of external restraint at the knee, it
must also be designed for:
This is the situation shown in Fig. 75.2. In this
case, the column must be designed and built as a (i) A notional horizontal force, H* , applied at
fixed base cantilever column about the minor axis, the intersection of the beam and column
although it may be pinned for major axis moment centrelines at the knee and acting about the
and axial loading. The length of rafter for design, column minor principal y-axis. This is shown
Lb, can be taken as: in Fig. 75.2 and its magnitude is given by
NZS 3404 [1] Clause 3.2.4.2.
Lb = Lclear + dbeam + 0.5dcol (75.6)
(ii) A minor axis bending moment generated on
where: the cantilever column by H* and magnified
Lclear = clear length from face of wall to inside by second-order effects, as required by [1].
face of column
db = depth of rafter How to account for the effects of (i) and (ii) is
dcol = depth of column described in DCB No. 40, pp. 6-8.
The rafter point of restraint under the floor is taken The column must be designed for combined
as 1.0db in from the face of the wall, provided that
the floor and wall system are integrally connected actions ( N * , M*x , and M*y ) in accordance with
to the rafter. (This will typically be the case). NZS 3404 Clause 8.4.5. Because it is subject to
combined M*x and M*y , the effect of axial
The rafter segment can be conservatively
compression N* must be considered. Sections
considered to have partial (P) restraint
which meet the alternative design provision criteria
classification at each end.
of Clause 8.1.5 will gain appreciable additional
design capacity.
The design for member moment capacity of that
segment is to Clause 5.6, noting the following:
Design of connection to column base
(1) The structural system must be braced in the
This must be able to resist the minor axis moment
direction out of the plane of the portal frame
for these provisions to be applicable. M*y . It may be pinned or fixed about the column
major axis.
(2) The portal frame must not be subject to
inelastic demand due to earthquake, or
moment redistribution.
Secondary Beam / Joist (b) Secondary beams spanning onto a primary
beam where there is no aligning incoming
Continuity Conditions for secondary beam on the other side of the
Assessment of Floor Vibration primary beam.
Structural Engineer. (c) Primary beams or secondary beams
supported directly on columns
Where the beams are supported on columns and
HERA has produced a spreadsheet based the connection is rigid, then the stiffening effect of
computer program and users manual for the column on reducing the midspan deflection and
assessment of floor systems for in-service floor hence changing the frequency can be considered.
vibration. These are contained in HERA Report Equations for different situations are given in
R4-112 [4]. section 3.4 of [5].
The design provisions are based on the principal Where shear deflection is important, modifications
North American provisions on this topic, namely to the calculated member second moment of area
the AISC Design Guide Series 11 [5] and ATC are required to calculate an appropriate frequency;
Design Guide 1 [6]. see sections 3.5 and 3.6 of [5].
There are a number of input parameters for the Changes to HERA Report R4-112
vibration assessment of a region of floor that
require careful designer consideration. One of HERA Report R4-112 [4] is written for applications
these is the continuity condition applicable to the where:
supporting beams or joists.
• All secondary and primary beams are simply
The first part of this article briefly presents the supported
requirements of the design procedures [5,6]. • Primary beams cannot take advantage of
continuity
The second part specifies the changes that should
be made to HERA Report R4-112 to ensure that The guidance relating to the continuity condition is
these requirements are correctly implemented. given on page 20 of [4]. For the continuity
condition to apply, the secondary beam must align
Requirements from Design Procedure with an incoming secondary beam on (or very
close to) the same gridline at the end under
When designing for walking excitation from chapter consideration.
4 of [5] or chapter 2 of [6], the participating panel
weight can be increased by up to 50% to allow for For Speedfloor joists, the continuity condition
continuity when certain conditions are met. These should always be set at zero.
conditions are:
In Example 4: Speedfloor flooring system (Location
(i) the members must be continuous over their 1) the continuity condition should be set to 0, not 2
supports and the adjacent span must be as is currently stated. The effect on the design
greater than 0.7 times the span under example final result is minimal, with the joist peak
consideration, and acceleration increasing from 0.07g to 0.10g and
the combined floor acceleration increasing from
(ii) For secondary beams with simple shear 0.434g to 0.454g.
connections supported on one side of a
primary beam and which lie on the same In Example 5: Speedfloor flooring system (Location
gridline as a secondary beam spanning onto 2) the continuity condition should also be set to 0,
the other side of the primary beam, not 1 as is currently stated. The effect is to
continuity can be considered at that end of increase the joist peak acceleration from 0.07g to
the secondary beam. 0.10g and the combined floor acceleration from
0.583g to 0.685g.
Continuity should not be considered for the
following: In both cases the floor system remains satisfactory
under the design check.
(a) Flange mounted joists, such as Speedfloor
Joists. This is because the flexibility of the
joist to primary beam connection is too large
to develop continuity conditions.
What’s Current in the DCBs A paper on quality control of metal spray coatings
is overviewed and referenced from DCB No. 20,
from No. 1 to No. 75 pp. 5.
The role of the Territorial Authority in enforcing
Introduction and Scope weld quality is addressed in DCB No. 40, pp.4-5.
This article presents an update on What's Current Ensuring that on-site quality control is achieved for
in the Bulletin Issues 1 to 75 - ie. through to mid intumescent paints is covered on pp. 6-7 of DCB
2003. No. 44.
This supersedes the previous article on this topic, Ensuring that on-site quality control is achieved
published in DCB Issue No. 69. with welded shear studs, which was previously
covered in that same issue, is now covered in DCB
It will be placed on the HERA website for the No. 74, pp. 1-5, which also introduces the new
interactive on-line service to access the DCBs by Stud Welding Standard, AS/NZS 1554.2 [8].
the end of 2003.
An inspection regime for the non-destructive
The details presented herein are grouped under examination of welds in a given project is
the same general topics as were the details in presented in DCB No. 44, pp. 2-3.
Issue Nos. 63 and 69. These topics are:
• Contractual issues and quality Design Examples, Design Queries and Design
• Design examples, design queries and Concepts
design concepts
• Design for durability There are a large number of design examples and
• Design for earthquake design queries presented in the 75 issues of the
• Design for fatigue DCB to mid-2003. There are also design concepts
given for a range of applications. Those which are
• Design for fire and behaviour in fire
still current are listed below, in chronological order,
• Design for serviceability
with the design examples listed first.
• Design of connections Design examples cover the following:
• Design of structural hollow section members
and connections • Design example 6.1, in DCB No. 6, pp. 1-2,
• Design of members not listed elsewhere covers design for moment of a solid
• Design of non-ferrous metals rectangular flat plate loaded about the
• Innovative and economical steel design x-axis
• Material properties and availability
• Publications • Design example 17.1, in DCB No. 17,
• Research results pp. 5-8 covers design of a single angle
• Steel Structures Standard, NZS 3404 truss chord member to NZS 3404 [1]. The
• Composite construction example, written for the 1992 edition of
• Miscellaneous items NZS 3404, is however still relevant. This
example replaces the single angle design
Use of this format means that some items are example in DCB No. 3, pp. 1-3 and
referred to more than once, however it significantly amendment in DCB No. 3, pp. 3-4
increases the usability of the information
presented. • Pages 2-5 of DCB No. 17 present the design
Contractual Issues and Quality concepts and background to single angle
member design
Specifications
DCB No. 44 presents an overview of the HERA • DCB No. 24, pp. 3-5, covers the design of a
Specification for the Fabrication, Erection and monosymmetric beam comprising a Tee
Surface Treatment of Structural Steelwork, HERA section with CHS bottom chord which is
Report R4-99 [7]. That specification was published subject to wind uplift. DCB No. 69, pp. 2-5,
in November 1998 and is still current. covers further aspects of Tee section design
Inspection and quality • DCB No. 39, pp. 6-7, covers the design of a
horizontal cantilever canopy flat plate rib
An inspection regime for bolts in bolted beam for major axis bending
connections is given in DCB No. 46,
• DCB No. 40, pp. 6-8, covers the ultimate
pp. 8-10. It covers snug tight and tensioned bolts.
limit state design of a cantilever column
carrying a vertical axial load. The purpose • DCB No. 72, pp. 14-15, presents an
behind this example is to illustrate example of determining the site-specific
application of NZS 3404 [1] for second-order corrosivity and then selecting a suitable
effect determination and subsequent coatings system in accordance with the
member design current Corrosion Protection Standard [16].
• DCB No. 41, pp. 7-9, covers calculation of • DCB No. 73, pp. 3-11, presents a
the lifting capacity of a spreader beam. This comprehensive design example covering the
is one of the more challenging applications design of nested RHS members for
of the beam member moment capacity combined compression, moment and
(lateral buckling) provisions torsion, including determination of second-
order effects
• DCB No. 51, pp. 16-22, presents two fully
worked beams to column MEP connection Design queries and concepts cover the
design examples. These utilise the material following:
in HERA Report R4-100 [9] as well as
performing all the additional checks required • DCB No. 1, pp. 2-3, addresses the question
on the column section. They should be read as to whether local wind pressure
in conjunction with DCB No. 52, pp. 13-16, coefficients from NZS 4203 [11] need to be
which introduce an improved method of applied to elements of cladding for design
panel zone doubler plate reinforcing and for serviceability limit state wind conditions
apply it to the MEP design examples from
DCB No. 51. See also DCB No. 57 for a • DCB No. 1, p. 3, covers how the torsion
detailed article on panel zone design and constant and warping constant are
detailing that supersedes all previous calculated for a monosymmetric I-section
articles on this topic, however that is going with lipped compression flanges
to be superseded by DCB No. 77, to be
published January 2004 • DCB No. 4, p. 5, covers how the effective
section modulus of a half round steel section
• DCB No. 55, pp. 2-15, presents a very carrying water is calculated
detailed design example and commentary
on the design of a cold-formed, thin-walled • DCB No. 5, p. 6, covers calculation of Zey for
single angle truss chord member subject to an I-section which is symmetrical about the
combined compression and bending. The y-axis
angle is formed from 3 mm thick cold bent
plate and the design is to AS/NZS 4600 [10] • DCB No. 7, p. 4-5, covers a restraint query.
However this and all other restraint queries
• DCB No. 58, pp. 20-23, presents a detailed up to DCB No. 34 have been superseded by
design example on the semi-rigid Flange HERA Report R4-92 [12]
presents errata to the FBJ procedure • DCB No. 16, pp. 3-4, covers the
contained in DCB No. 58; these are minor. determination of α m factors for segments
See also DCB No. 74, p.9, equations 74.1 unrestrained at one end and subject to a
and 74.2 for revised joint yield capacity for load pattern not covered by NZS 3404
the FBJ. Table 5.6.2. The expression for α m
presented on page 4 of that issue has been
• DCB No. 61, pp. 9-21, presents a detailed incorporated into the program MemDes [13]
design example for a brace/beam/column
connection in a braced steel frame (EBF or • DCB No. 29, pp. 5-6, covers determination
CBF). This uses the design concepts of the design tension capacity of plain, round
presented in DCB No. 56, pp. 2-11. A short reinforcing bar members. The concepts
errata is presented in DCB No. 63, pp. 1-2 presented therein are still applicable to
reinforcement which is now produced to
• DCB No. 71, whole issue, presents the AS/NZS 4671 [14], although the minimum
second edition of the Slab Panel Method for specified strengths have changed
the design of floor systems for dependable
inelastic response in severe fires. A design • DCB No. 49, pp. 1-4, presents advice on
example is given on pp. 12-14 and 28-29. member moment capacity determination for
How to overcome a potential problem with segments of portal frames. This supersedes
the use of the associated software is advice given in articles on this topic in DCB
covered in DCB No. 73, p.24 Nos. 22 , 23 and 25
• DCB No. 54, pp. 1-3, presents the DCB No. 62, pp. 16-18, for revisions to the
convention on signs for member and applied design procedure.
actions (moment, shear, axial force)
adopted, as of February 2000, for all • DCB No. 68, pp. 1-32, presents the design
subsequent HERA publications and detailing requirements for connections
and systems using the semi-rigid Sliding
• DCB No. 55, pp. 18-28, presents a detailed Hinge Joint (SHJ), followed by a design
background to the concepts involved in example. This refers back to DCB No. 59,
determining the shear stud design shear pp. 26-32, which covers the design concepts
capacity for shear studs used in composite for the SHJ. Analytical studies on the SHJ
construction. This should be used to are reported in DCB No. 70, pp 19-44
determine the shear stud capacity for
applications that are not covered by • DCB No. 68, p. 33, covers determination of
NZS 3404 [1], but should be read in the member compression capacity of a solid
conjunction with section 4.2 of [17]. See section to [1]
[15] for the most recent guidance on design
of shear studs in 55mm high trapezoidal • DCB No. 69, pp. 19-28, presents a
steel decks calculation method for plastic analysis
• For shear studs used on beams supporting • DCB No. 69, pp. 2-5, presents how to
precast hollowcore concrete slabs, the determine the effective section modulus of a
guidance given in DCB No. 45, pp. 8-11, can Tee section
be used, but only for hollowcore units of up
to 250 mm deep. This whole topic is now • DCB No. 73, pp. 12-20, covers restraint
covered in session 4.2 of [17], which should issues relating to the design of portal frame
be read first by anyone wanting composite spine beams
action from hollowcore slabs on steel
beams. It provides the most up-to-date • DCB No. 73, pp. 21-23, elaborates on how
design criteria including making allowance to read and use the output from the floor
for hollowcore units on steel beams to vibration program NZFl_Vib1 and associated
deliver acceptable behaviour under design users manual, HERA Report R4-112 [4].
severe earthquake attack Another issue with that program is covered
on page 6 in this issue (No. 75).
• DCB No. 52, pp. 18-28, covers the lateral
restraint and load bearing capacity in the Design for Durability
support regions of continuous beams
A wide scope of design guidance for durability is
• DCB No. 54, pp. 26-27, presents the covered, as noted below. This is presented in
concept of using rigging to restrain member
chronological order, covering those articles which
buckling of long, isolated columns in
are still current.
compression
• DCB No. 56, pp. 2-5, presents a method for • DCB No. 20, pp. 1-2, presents general
proportioning design actions from the braces guidance on selecting the appropriate
into the supporting members of environment for corrosion protection of
brace/beam/column connections. This external structural steelwork
supersedes all the guidance in DCB No. 47,
pp. 5-8 • DCB No. 20, pp. 2-5, covers allowance for
corrosion of unpainted beam top flanges in
• DCB No. 56, pp. 5-11, presents design car parking buildings
concepts for brace/beam/column
connections in braced steel frame seismic- • DCB No 36, p. 6, covers galvanizing of
resisting systems HSFG bolts
• DCB No. 56, pp.11-20, presents design • DCB No. 41, pp. 1-5, presents an article on
concepts for moment-resisting column single coat Inorganic Zinc Silicate paints
baseplate connections in seismic-resisting
systems • DCB No. 46, pp. 2-6, presents design long-
term corrosion rates for steel piles, with
• DCB No. 58, pp. 1-20, presents design follow-up material in DCB No. 62, pp. 6-8
concepts for connections and systems using
the semi-rigid Flange Bolted Joint (FBJ), • DCB No. 46, pp. 5-7, presents design
followed by a design example. Refer also to corrosion rates for long-term exposure of
unprotected structural steel to exterior the material covered by [19, 20], are as follows
atmospheric conditions. The guidance (presented in reverse chronological order);
in that article on allowance for
microclimatic effects has been superseded • DCB No. 74, pp. 5-24, introduces the
by DCB No. 62, pp. 8-16. An example using concept of the Floor Isolating System for
this guidance is presented in DCB No. 72, Superior Earthquake Response and the first
pp. 14-15 results from analyses on its performance
and potential advantages over existing
• DCB No, 46, p. 18, presents a short article systems
on the use of steel with no applied corrosion
protection in benign interior environments • Design of bolted hollow circular columns for
earthquake can be undertaken using the
• DCB No. 47, pp. 1-3, presents detailing Circular Bolted Flange Annulus connection,
requirements for steel to concrete interfaces which is presented in DCB Nos. 65,
in exterior environments. This references pp. 16-30, 66, pp. 12-16 and 67, pp. 1-16
back to DCB No. 46, as required
• Design of connections and systems using
• DCB No. 49, pp. 7-14, covers the durability the Flange Bolted Joint is covered in DCB
of car parking buildings, with follow-up No. 58, pp. 1-20, and DCB No. 62, pp.16-18
material in DCB No. 56, p.25. This article is
also in [17]. • Design of connections and systems using
the Sliding Hinge Joint is covered in DCB
• DCB No. 51, p. 8, overviews a coatings No. 68, pp. 1-32
guide for steel bridges
• The use of the Reid Engineering Systems
• DCB No. 51, pp. 12-14, provides guidance Ltd Brace LOKTM as a load rated rod bracing
on assessing the remaining structural system for CBFS is covered in DCB No. 64,
capacity of corrosion-damaged steel beams, pp. 2-3. The contact person at Reid is now
with an update in DCB No. 52, p. 4 Terry Seagrove, email: terrys@reids.co.nz
• DCB No. 52, pp. 5-7, introduces the • DCB No. 57, pp. 14-28, covers design and
changes to the galvanizing standards and detailing of panel zones in moment-resisting
gives a list of galvanizing baths available in beam to column connections. That
NZ, as of October, 1999 supersedes all earlier DCB articles on panel
zone design and detailing, but is in turn to
• DCB No. 62, pp. 8-16, provides detailed be superseded by DCB No. 77, January
guidance on allowing for microclimatic 2004
effects such as unwashed surfaces
• DCB No. 56, pp. 2-5, covers design
• DCB No. 65, pp. 31-32, covers selection of concepts for proportioning design actions
stainless steel for durability. This topic is from the braces into the supporting
greatly elaborated on in R4-111 [18] members of brace/beam/column
connections
• DCB No. 72, pp. 10-14, covers use of the
2002 corrosion protection Standard [16]. • DCB No. 51, pp. 14-23, covers design of
MEP connections for seismic-resisting
Design for Earthquake systems. See also DCB No. 57 and
ultimately No. 77 for revised panel zone
The principal source of design for earthquake is design criteria
HERA Report R4-76 [19]. It was published in 1995
for application with the 1992 edition of • DCB No. 50, pp. 20-26, covers general
NZS 3404. However, the changes required to use concepts and derivation of design actions for
it in conjunction with NZS 3404: 1997 [1] are connections in seismic-resisting systems.
minor. Details of these changes are given in the This includes specific guidance on design
useful set of notes entitled Tips on Seismic Design actions for column bases of MRFs, EBFs
of Steel Structures [20], which are overviewed in and CBFs, material which is not covered in
DCB No. 56, p.28. These tips are also now R4-76 [14]
included in each new copy of R4-76.
• DCB No. 49, pp. 15-19 and DCB No. 50,
The items relating to design for earthquake pp. 5-7, cover issues relating to P-∆
covered in the DCB, and which are additional to response and design of steel seismic-
resisting systems
• DCB No. 47, pp. 20-21, presents details of a • DCB No. 57, pp. 28-30, provides coverage
cost-effective X-braced, tension only CBF of three sources of fatigue design guidance
system with site welded strap braces covering welded construction in general and
welded hollow section joints in particular
• DCB No. 46, pp. 16-17, presents details of a
cost-effective V-braced CBF system with site • DCB No. 32, p. 4, references a report
welded braces. This system has been used available from HERA on the fatigue testing
in several recent buildings of riveted bridge girders
• DCB No. 45, p. 16, covers derivation of Cs Design for Fire and Behaviour in Fire
factors for CBF roof bracing systems
Design for steel structures response in fire and
• DCB No. 40, p. 3, contains a modification to
one of the principal topics covered in the DCB and
[19] when calculating the column design
by the HERA Structural Division in general. The
seismic axial force in columns of tension
most current overview of fire engineering
braced CBF seismic-resisting systems
application to multi-storey steel framed buildings in
• DCB No. 40, p. 4, presents the most recent New Zealand is given in [21], which was written in
empirical equations for preliminary October 2002. HERA Report R4-105 [22] Notes
determination of seismic-resisting system Prepared for a Seminar on The Behaviour and
fundamental period of vibration Design of Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings for
Severe Fires, Revised June 2001 covers Fire
• DCB No. 36, p. 6, presents an extreme Engineering Design (FED) of multi-storey buildings
upper limit on seismic design actions for and contains/supersedes much DCB material on
connectors and connection components. FED of multi-storey buildings published prior to
These should be used where the system is then. HERA Report R4-91 [23], Notes Prepared
such that the minimum design actions for a Seminar on Design of Steel Buildings for Fire
specified by NZS 3404 Clause 12.9.2 would Emergency Conditions, provides design and
be obviously excessive for the system detailing guidance for low-rise buildings. Various
DCB articles since [23] was published, in
• DCB No. 24, pp. 7-8, present the revised November 1996, have revised application of the
expressions for determining the post- procedures to keep them up to date with changes
buckling compression capacity of CBF to key documents such as C/AS1:2001 [24], the
braces that are given as Equations Approved Document for Fire Safety.
C12.2.3(1) and C12.2.3(2) in NZS 3404 [1]
This contents listing covers the DCB articles on
• DCB No. 19, pp. 6-7, covers design of behaviour and design for fire that are still current.
single-brace concentrically braced framed Because so much of the earlier published material
systems. (These are not covered in R4-76 on fire has been superseded by later articles or
[19], but the provisions from that report are other documents, they are listed in approximate
easily adapted for their use) reverse chronological order:
• DCB No. 18, pp. 1-10, presents guidelines • DCB No. 74, pp. 25-38, contains a report on
for assessing the seismic performance of the modelling of four slab panel fire tests
pre-1975 moment-resisting steel framed undertaken in 2002. The full details of this
buildings. These guidelines are currently modelling work are published in HERA
being incorporated, in part, into a new Report R4-118 [25].
document on this topic being prepared by a
NZSEE Study Group for the BIA • DCB No. 72, pp. 2-10, gives an overview of
a large-scale fire test undertaken on a 7
• DCB No. 8, pp. 1-6, DCB No. 9, pp. 1-4, and
storey reinforced concrete building and the
DCB No. 10, pp.1-3, present reports on the
implications for New Zealand
Great Hanshin (Kobe) Earthquake of
January, 1995
• DCB No. 71, whole issue, presents the
detailed second edition of the design
Design for Fatigue
procedure for design of multi-storey steel
framed buildings with unprotected
The DCB to date has not provided direct guidance
secondary beams or joists for dependable
on design for fatigue, but instead has referenced
inelastic response in severe fires. This
good sources of design guidance. Details are as
supersedes the first edition, which was
follows:
presented in DCB No. 66
• DCB No. 70, pp. 1-19, presents key provisions C/AS1 [24]. Its application has
research results used to update the first been made easier by the radiation
edition of the method provisions of [24] now employing the same
concept of a limiting width on the emitter as
• DCB No. 70, pp. 44-45, presents details of a is incorporated into the collapsed wall
simple parametric fire curve that can be condition concept. There have been two
used to model fully developed real fire rounds of modifications made, namely in
conditions DCB No. 51, pp. 3-5 and DCB No. 52
pp. 2-3
• DCB No. 70, pp. 45, presents a general
overview of the range of hot-rolled steel Designers using the collapsed wall condition
beam and column sections that will achieve concept should start with the advice given in
a 15 min Fire Resistance Rating without DCB No. 52, pp. 2-3 under the article
passive fire protection Extending Use of the Collapsed Wall
Condition for Support of External Wall
• DCB No. 66, p. 16, gives an overview of a Panels…. That article refers back, as
useful paper on the heat straightening repair required, to DCB No. 51 and to [23]. Pages
of damaged steelwork, which is relevant to 4 and 5 of DCB No. 51 give the method of
fire design application itself in terms of determining the
emitter height and width
• DCB No. 65, pp. 4-13, gives a number of
design examples on the design of members • DCB No. 51, pp. 2-3, provides guidance on
for fully developed fires modifying the S rating given by [24] to
account for the thermal inertia of the
• DCB No. 58, pp. 25-30, in conjunction with a bounding elements of the enclosure. This
Canadian paper described and referenced modification is very important, as the S
therein, covers the design of concrete filled ratings given in [24] are based on the most
steel hollow section columns for a specified severe condition possible in buildings and
fire resistance rating require significant reduction for any building
incorporating concrete floor slabs
• DCB No. 54, pp. 3-26, presents a state-of-
the-art report, as of February 2000, on the • DCB No. 51, pp. 5-6, provides guidance on
performance and design of modern, multi- the fire resistance ratings for structural
storey steel framed buildings in fully elements of steel framed car parking
developed fires. However, as this is such a buildings
rapidly developing area, that article was
getting out of date by February 2001. It was • DCB No. 50, pp. 9-10, overviews a useful
revised and updated for the seminars on paper on assessing the integrity of structural
Behaviour and Design of Multi-Storey steelwork after exposure to fire. The other
Buildings for Severe Fires held in March two FED articles in that issue have been
2001 and is now presented as session 4 of superseded
[22]. However, it does not reference the
second edition of the Slab Panel Method, • DCB No. 48, pp. 3-13, presents results from
which was produced at the end of 2002 HERA’s fire research programme on key
aspects of the behaviour of a multi-storey
• The collapsed wall condition concept, for steel framed building subject to fully
determining whether the steel columns developed natural fires
supporting fire rated external wall elements
of single-storey buildings are required to be • DCB No. 46, pp. 10-13, presents details on
passive fire protected, was first introduced in eliminating the need for passive fire
DCB No. 20, April 1996. It was then protection in multi-storey apartment and
developed further in subsequent DCB hotel buildings by using the shielding effects
articles and presented in detail in HERA of the linings
Report R4-91 [23], in November 1996.
Some errors in that report were noted and • DCB No. 44, p. 7, mentions a publication
corrected through DCB No. 30, pp. 3-4 and available from HERA on the fire engineering
more mention of the collapsed wall condition design of oil platforms and similar structures
design concept made on page 6. The
original condition was developed for a • DCB No. 28, pp. 2-3, provides a summary
previous edition of the BIA Acceptable of the scope and contents of HERA Report
Solutions for Fire Safety and needed R4-91 [23]
modification to be applied to the current
• DCB No. 27, pp. 1-8, provides interesting • Deflection of composite floor systems
material on the link between the fire and the links between deflection and
resistance ratings provided, the structural concrete placement are now covered
fire severity and the resulting performance in HERA Report R4-107-DD [29]. This was
in severe fire. That information, especially presented in conjunction with R4-112 [4]
pp. 4-5, is still of background interest, and R4-113 [17], at a composite
although the design recommendations construction seminar series in May 2002.
arising from it have been superseded A follow-up on this seminar series is given
in DCB No. 67, pp. 16-21
• DCB No. 27, p. 8, provides an overview of
HERA Report R4-89 [26], Fire Protection • The guidance given in DCB No. 37,
Manuals, Section 7 (Passive Protection) and pp. 9-10, on vertical deflection limits for
Section 8 (Active Protection) crane runway girders, is superseded by the
requirements of AS 1418 Part 18 [22]. This
• DCB No. 15, p. 8, makes reference to HERA very important new standard is overviewed
Report R4-82 [27] Calculation of the Design in DCB No. 61, pp. 6-9
Fire Resistance of Composite Concrete
Vibration of floor systems
Slabs With Profiled Steel Sheeting Under
Fire Emergency Conditions. An error in the • The latest US/Canadian based design
equation for he on page 15 of [27] is noted procedure for design of steel/concrete floor
and corrected in DCB No. 35, p.5 systems for satisfactory in-service floor
vibration response is overviewed in DCB
• DCB No.12, pp. 6-8, covers the fire No. 56, pp. 25-27. The principal source of
resistance of composite beams with profiled design guidance is HERA Report R4-112
steel decking, in particular addressing the [4], which comprises a program that
issue as to whether the voids between top of operates this procedure, a comprehensive
steel and decking in a ribbed deck need users manual and set of design examples.
filling with passive protection material when The program covers all floor system
the beams are protected types supported on steel beams except
precast concrete. Minor updates on R4-112
• DCB No.11, p. 6, covers fire stopping and are published in DCB No. 73, pp. 22-23
penetration seals for the construction and DCB No. 75 in p. 6. For floor systems
industry involving Dimond Hibond supported on steel
beams, the Hibond Design Wizard [31]
• DCB No. 6, pp. 4-6, covers the accuracy of covers the full preliminary and final design,
the structural fire severity time equivalent including vibration assessment
equation, te = ef fb wf, used to develop the S
rating provisions. Further brief background Wind-Induced Serviceability Vibration
to the ventilation factor, wf, is given in DCB
No. 8, pp. 7-8 • DCB No. 66, pp. 1-10, presents a procedure
for the preliminary design assessment
Design for Serviceability of multi-storey buildings for satisfactory
in-service response to wind induced
Acoustic performance: vibrations. When that procedure was
written, the appropriate wind standard was
• DCB No. 57, pp. 2-14, presents guidance on in draft form. That draft has now been
the acoustic performance of steel framed published as AS/NZS 1170.2 [32] and the
apartment buildings. However, in November procedure should be used in conjunction
2003 that will be superseded by the Noise with the published standard. (All Clause
Control Handbook [28] references and technical details from
DCB No. 66 are unaltered). An update on
• DCB No. 45, pp. 11-13, covers acoustic this topic is published in DCB No. 73,
insulation provided by Dimond Hibond floor pp. 23-24
systems. That will be superseded by
December 2003 by a Dimond publication Design of Specific Types of Structures
Deflections: This section of the content listings covers articles

relating to specific types of structures, typically
• DCB No. 49, pp. 4-7, together with DCB covering a range of topics in relation to that type of
No. 50, pp. 2-4, provide guidance on the structure. The listing is not exhaustive, especially
stiffening effect of the cladding on portal in that it does not cover articles on components or
frame deflections under lateral loading other items that are applicable to more than one
type of structure. Its principal purpose is to identify
articles that would not be referenced elsewhere issues present the current guidance and
within this contents overview supersede earlier articles;
Houses • DCB No. 31, pp. 1-10, covers general issues

and design of selective pallet racks
• DCB No. 52, pp. 9-10, covers guidelines for
light-weight steel framed house construction • DCB No. 53, pp. 6-12, covers design of
drive-in pallet racks
• DCB No. 48, pp. 17-18, provides an
overview of a BHP publication on the use of Bridges
steel in houses, which is available from
HERA. The publication is written for HERA has not published much guidance relating to
Australian conditions, however much of it is bridges in the DCBs, nor in our Structural Division
directly relevant to New Zealand and all of it activities. The priority given to bridges may be
has at least some relevance. There are raised from mid-2004 following a review of the
plans underway to produce a New Zealand potential of this market sector being undertaken in
version the 2003/2004 year.
Single-storey buildings Meanwhile, the following is available:
• DCB No. 50, pp. 2-4, covers the stiffening • DCB No. 46, pp. 2-6, presents design long-
effect of cladding on portal frame buildings term corrosion rates for steel piles, with
follow-up material in DCB No. 62, pp. 6-8
external walls for fire resistance • DCB No. 47, pp. 1-3, presents detailing
requirements for steel to concrete interfaces
• DCB No. 40, pp. 1-3, covers design of in exterior environments. This references
haunches, tapered universal beam sections back to DCB No. 46, as required
in portal frame rafters
• DCB No. 21, pp. 5-6, covers the minimum three international publications, available
required pitch for profiled metal roofing and from HERA, that contain material of
references an excellent publication for relevance to bridge designers. In each
profiled metal roofing design and installation case, even though the publications are not
specifically written for New Zealand
Multi-storey buildings application, they will be of benefit in bridge
design and coatings selection. Their
• DCB No. 49, pp. 20-24, presents general applicability to New Zealand is outlined in
concepts in selecting structural form and each case. The three publications cover:
multi-storey steel framed buildings • concepts and design charges for
composite steel road bridges
• DCB No. 50, pp. 20-26, presents connection (Australian)
design and detailing issues in selecting • coatings guide for new steel bridges
structural form and detailing for maximum (Australian)
cost-effectiveness in multi-storey steel • coatings system performance - review
framed buildings of actual performance of different
systems (UK)
• DCB No. 52, pp. 22-25, covers optimising
the cost of multi-storey steel framed • DCB No. 51, pp. 12-13 and No. 52, p. 4
buildings in New Zealand gives an article on assessing the structural
capacity of corrosion damaged steel bridge
• DCB No. 49, pp. 7-14, covers durability of beams and a brief design example
multi-storey car parking buildings. This topic
is also covered in section 3.3 of [17] with Design of Connections
matters arising presented in DCB No. 67,
pp. 16-21 Background
Pallet racking systems This section incorporates the summary

guidance presented in DCB No. 53 and
There have been various articles on pallet racking DCB No. 63, with new material that is presented
systems in the DCB, however the following two in Issue Nos. 64-68. It uses the same sub-
headings as those used in the Issue No. 53 article.
Introduction • General principles of design for connections
not subject to potential inelastic demand
The principal publication for design and detailing of • General principles of design for connections
connections is the Structural Steelwork which are subject to potential inelastic
Connections Guide, HERA Report R4-100 [9]. demand
This is being replaced in November 2003 with an • Design actions on connections at the bases
expanded second edition. The DCB No. 50 article of MRF, EBF and CBF seismic-resisting
that covers supplementary issues associated with system columns
[9] will be revised for the second edition of R4-100
and presented in DCB No. 77 DCB No. 57, pp. 14-28, covers the design and
detailing of panel zones in moment-resisting beam
There is also a considerable amount of connection to column connections and supersedes all
design and detailing information presented in previous guidance on that topic. It covers rigid and
previous DCB issues that is complementary to the semi-rigid connections to I-section and to hollow
guidance presented in [9]. Some of that section columns. There will be three minor
information was prepared in response to revisions to this procedure made in DCB No. 77,
connection issues arising during the preparation of based on advanced FEA of moment-resisting
Report R4-100, other topics have been covered connections undertaken as part of the
independently and subsequently. development work towards the new edition of
The information is spread through many DCB R4-100. Still current parts of DCB No. 57 will also
issues. The purpose of this article is to briefly be presented so that the full guidance is in the new
present the location and scope of this information issue.
to assist designers in making full use of it. The
guidance is presented under a series of headings DCB No. 56, pp. 29-32, covers determination of
starting with general issues and then moving on to the tension capacity of bolt/plate combinations, for
each connection type. any combination of bolts and plate.
Prior to starting this article, a quick reminder to Flexible end plate connections
readers of the connection types covered in HERA
Report R4-100 [9]. These are: • Required width of supporting column flange
(or web) is covered in DCB No. 50, p. 12
• Web side plate (Designation: WP)
• Flexible end plate (Designation: FE) Welded moment connections
• Beam to column welded moment
(Designation: WM) • Design of tension/compression column
• Beam to column moment-resisting bolted stiffeners is covered on pp. 12-14 of
end plate (Designations: MEP and STP) DCB No. 50
• Beam to beam moment-resisting bolted
endplate splice with flush endplates • Design of the web panel zone, including
(Designation: MEPS) doubler plate reinforcement, is covered on
• Bolted welded beam splice (Designation: pp. 14-28 of DCB No. 57, especially p. 25
BWBS)
• Bolted compression splice in columns Moment end plate connections
subject to combined actions including axial
compression (Designation: BCS) • Design of tension/compression column
• Bolted tension splice in columns subject to stiffeners is covered on pp. 12-14 of DCB
combined actions including axial tension No. 50
(Designation: BTS)
• Pinned column baseplate, column carrying • Column flange requirements (width, tension
compression and shear (Designation: BP-P). capacity) are covered on pp. 15-16 of DCB
No. 50. Design of the web panel zone,
DCB No. 61, pp. 3-6, presents an amendment to including doubler plate reinforcement, is
the FE connection provisions of R4-100 [9] covered on pp. 14-18 of DCB No. 57,
especially pp. 25-27
This summary covers only design and detailing
information complementary to and additional to • MEP connections in category 1 or 2 seismic-
that presented in Report R4-100. resisting systems are covered on pp. 15-16
of DCB No. 51 (this extends the coverage of
Connections: general issues [5] to these two categories; R4-100 covers
category 3 and non-seismic connections)
DCB No. 50, pp. 20-25, covers the following Note that the panel zone design is now
general issues: covered by DCB No. 57, pp. 14-28. (The
second edition of R4-100 will introduce a Brace/beam/column gusset plate connections
revised MEP connection with thinner,
stiffened endplates and covering all • Design guidance for proportioning the
categories of seismic demand) design actions from the braces into the
supporting members of brace / beam /
• Two design examples are presented on column connections is given in DCB No. 56,
pp. 16-22 of DCB No. 51 and updated on pp. 2-5. This design guidance allows the
pp. 15-16 of DCB No. 52 and pp. 22-27 of analysis to proceed on the basis that the
DCB No. 57, in relation to the panel zones centrelines of all members intersect, then
the joint to be reconfigured to achieve an
Beam bolted welded splices economical layout without violating this
assumption. This article supersedes
• R4-100 covers splices between the same previous advice on this topic in DCB No. 47
beam size; extending this to splices between
beams of different weights within the same • Design concepts for brace / beam / column
designation is covered on pp. 17-18 of DCB connections in a braced steel frame seismic-
No. 50 resisting system are given in DCB No. 56,
pp. 5-11
Column splices
• A fully worked connection design
• R4-100 covers splices between the same using these concepts is given in DCB
column size; extending this to splices No. 61, pp. 9-21, with a minor errata in
between columns of different weights DCB No. 63, pp. 1-2
within the same designation is covered
on pp. 18-19 of DCB No. 50 • Design of a gusset plate is given on pp. 4-5
of DCB No. 47. This is the only part of the
• Extending this further to splices between article on beam / brace / column gusset
columns of different designations is covered connections given on pp. 3-8 of that issue
on pp. 19-20 of DCB No. 50 that is still current; the rest is superseded by
DCB No. 56, pp. 5-11
Semi-rigid joints
Column base connections
• DCB No. 58, pp. 1-24, presents the design
and detailing provisions for the Flange • Design actions on connections at the bases
Bolted Joint (FBJ). There is a minor revision of seismic-resisting system columns are
in DCB No. 62, pp. 16-18 and an extension covered in DCB No. 50, pp. 22-25. That
to the original scope of application in DCB guidance extends the coverage of R4-76
No. 64, pp. 3-24 [19] into the column base area for moment-
resisting and for braced framed systems
• DCB No. 64, pp. 24-33, covers finite
element analysis work undertaken to • General design guidance on connections at
October 2001 on the Sliding Hinge Joint the bases of seismic-resisting system
(SHJ). The full design and detailing columns is given in DCB No. 50, pp. 25-26
procedure for the SHJ is presented in DCB
No. 68, pp. 1-32. DCB No. 70, pp. 19-44, • For moment-resisting column baseplate
presents details of the numerical integration connections in seismic-resisting systems,
time history analyses and finite element comprehensive design and detailing
analyses undertaken on systems and joints concepts are given in DCB No. 56,
pp. 11-20. This article either references
• Three dimensional views of both joint types or incorporates the relevant details from
are given in DCB No. 65, pp. 13-15 DCB No. 50, pp. 22-26, mentioned above
• Following a number of recent requests for a Design of connections for fire endurance
design procedure for moment-resisting
connections into concrete filled CHS Connections that will undergo inelastic rotation
columns, the concepts for this have been during severe fire attack must be suitably designed
developed and are available on fax if and detailed to deliver this. The connections in
requested. They will be written up in DCB R4-100 [9] have been designed and detailed to
No. 66. achieve this, and the same will apply to the next
edition of R4-100.
The semi-rigid connections (FBJ and SHJ) will also • An interesting example of applying lateral
achieve this. thinking in baseplate design is given on
pp. 1-2 of DCB No. 14
• DCB No. 58, pp. 28-30, presents
recommendations on connection design and Design of Structural Hollow Section Members
detailing for fire endurance between beams and Connections
and concrete-filled SHS column members
The DCBs cover a range of topics in regard to
Circular bolted flange annulus connections SHS members and connections. These are as
follows;
A design and detailing procedure for externally
bolted flange joints between CHS columns of • Design concepts for moment-resisting
around 650 mm diameter or larger has been connections into concrete filled CHS
developed. The flange plate does not run into the columns are available by fax on request.
interior of the column, thus leaving this space free They will be written up in DCB No. 76
for access or for concrete filling. The guidance is
contained in three DCB Issues, namely: • DCB No. 65, pp. 16-30, presents a design
procedure for circular bolted flange annulus
• DCB No. 65, pp. 16-30, presents the design connections
procedure. It is applicable to splice joints
and to joints at the column base on a • DCB No. 63, pp. 3-4, DCB No. 61, pp. 2-3,
concrete support. It is applicable to splice DCB No. 46, pp.17-18, cover design of
joints in associated structural system bolted circular flange joints in tubular
columns and those that form part of a structures
seismic-resisting system
• DCB No. 66, pp. 12-16, presents a worked SHS columns for fire endurance
design example of a splice joint in a 2 metre
diameter column • DCB No. 38, pp. 1-2, reviews two
publications, available from HERA, that
• DCB No. 67, pp. 1-15 presents results of the provide detailed design guidance on a range
finite element analysis verification study of SHS connection types
Design of unstiffened bolted flange CHS joints, • DCB No. 39, pp. 3-4, reviews the design
where the flange plate is continuous over guidance, available from HERA, on the
the interior of the column, is covered in DCB DuraGal range of members
No. 63, pp. 3-4 and also for a different method in
DCB No. 46, pp. 17-18, with an update on pp. 2-3 • Refer also to HERA Report R4-104 [34] for
of DCB No. 61 much information on research and design of
tubular members, structures and
Miscellaneous connection topics connections
• Use of AISI 4140 steel rods as hold-down Design of Members Not Listed Elsewhere
bolts is covered on pp. 5-6 of DCB No. 39.
Tightening of these bolts is covered on This section covers articles on design of members
pp. 19-20 of DCB No. 56 that are not listed elsewhere herein.
• Obtaining high strength structural bolts, nuts Beams and columns

and washers in sizes above M36 is covered
in DCB No. 52, pp. 3-4, which references • DCB No. 53, pp. 1-6 and pp. A1-A20,
back to DCB No. 51, p. 14. This also gives presents a design procedure for openings in
guidance on sizing of nuts when these must beam webs. An errata is presented in DCB
be custom made No. 69, pp. 1-2
• Suitable bolt tightening equipment for fully • DCB No. 54, pp. 26, 27 covers rigging
tensioning MSFG bolts larger than M24 (for restraint for long, isolated columns in
which an impact wrench is not practical) is compression
covered on p. 24 of DCB No. 56
• DCB No. 52, p. 9, briefly mentions
• Details of the Riedbar Brace LOK™ Load precambering of hot rolled beams, but
rated turnbuckled system are given on this topic is now much more
pp. 2-3 of DCB No. 64 comprehensively covered in R4-107-DD [29]
• DCB No. 52, pp. 11-13, covers lateral • DCB No. 16, p. 5, overviews an excellent
restraint and load bearing capacity in the book available from HERA on design for
support regions of continuous beams aluminium alloy structures
• DCB No. 64, pp. 38-39, covers restraint of • Reference [35] is a good summary paper,
load-bearing stiffeners in simply supported written in October 2002, on design of
I-section beams stainless steel members. It cross-references
to the comprehensive seminar notes on
Preliminary design guidance of beams and stainless steel material properties, selection
columns is covered in the following: and design presented in R4-111 [18] and to
the design standard, AS/NZS 4673 [36]
• For floor systems incorporating Hi-bond
decking, use the excellent preliminary • An overview of [36] is given in DCB No. 65,
design option from the Hibond Design pp. 31-32
Wizard [31]
Innovative and Economical Steel Design
• DCB No. 37, pp. 7-9, preliminary design of
composite members using published charts The following articles on innovative steel
applications and economics/costing of steelwork
• DCB No. 33, pp. 4-5, covers rapid are covered:
assessment of φMsx, preliminary sizing of
portal frame members, preliminary design of • DCB No. 30, pp. 1-3, presents an article on
simply supported composite floor beams. the rational way of costing steelwork. The
(These are presented in earlier DCBs concepts are still current, but the detailed
referenced from this issue, especially DCB costing provisions are now contained in
No. 2, pp. 1-2. The preliminary design HERA Report R4-96 [37]
guidance for connections presented on
pp. 5-7 of DCB No. 33 is superseded by • DCB No. 44, pp. 7-8, presents an overview
R4 100 [9]) of the Structural Steelwork Estimating Guide
[37]. This is the principal source of
Crane runway girders and rails estimating guidance for all cost items
relating to structural steelwork
of crane runway girders and monorail beams • DCB No. 52, pp. 22-25, optimising the cost
to the provisions of the new standard, of multi-storey steel buildings in New
AS 1418 Part 18 [30] Zealand, presents summary guidance on
choice of deck, floor beams, gravity columns
• DCB No. 47, pp. 18-20, covers crane rails: and seismic-resisting systems for car
materials and attachment systems parking buildings, apartment / hotel buildings
and office buildings
• DCB No. 64, pp. 37-38, raises three issues
• DCB No. 46, pp. 16-18, introduces the that can cause significant unnecessary
Cold-formed Steel Structures Standard, fabrication costs. These relate to weld
AS/NZS 4600 [10], and accompanying details and to the late changing of member
design guidance sizes
• DCB No. 55, pp. 2-15, presents a detailed, • DCB No. 65, pp. 2-3, covers a new deep
fully worked design example with deck profile which has been manufactured in
commentary for a cold-formed member New Zealand since mid-2002. More details
subject to combined actions on it are given in [38]
• DCB No. 39, pp. 1-3, covers material grades • DCB No. 72, p. 15 and DCB No. 73, pp. 1-2,
for cold-formed SHS members present a case study on a column splice
cost comparison
Design of Non-Ferrous Metals
A series of innovative structural steel articles
The DCBs are written principally for structural steel have been published, covering the following:
application, so the coverage of non-ferrous metal
design is limited to the following: • DCB No. 45, pp 13-15, steel structure
supporting a new second storey of
classrooms built over existing buildings
• DCB No. 46, pp. 16-17, cost-effective • DCB No. 36, pp. 4-5, covers the Composite
V-braced CBF seismic-resisting system with Floor Preliminary Design Charts
site welded braces. This system has
recently been used in a 17 storey building in • DCB No. 38, pp. 1-4, covers the following:
Wellington
- Design of Structural Steel Hollow
• DCB No. 47, pp. 20-21, cost-effective Section Connections, First Edition
X-braced, tension only, CBF seismic- - Hollow Structural Section
resisting system with site welded strap Connections and Trusses
braces - Design of Semi-Continuous Braced
Frames
• DCB No. 54, pp. 28-30, low-rise car parking - Semi-Rigid Connections in Steel
providing increased carpark capacity Frames
- Seismic Behaviour of Steel Plate
• DCB No. 61, pp. 21-22, 14 storey apartment Shear Walls
building with timber floors (currently the - Various Winstone Wallboards
tallest residential building in the world with publications covering fire and noise
no concrete in the structure or floors) control
- Two publications giving properties of
Material Properties and Availability members to overseas design
standards
Articles on material properties and availability of
components are as follows: • DCB No. 39, pp. 3-5, covers the following:
• DCB No. 39, pp. 1-3, covers the grades of - Range of DuraGal publications
steel plate, flat, sections and SHS commonly - Building Design Using Cold Formed
available. That article supersedes earlier Steel Sections: Construction Detailing
articles on the same topic, except where and Practice
these are referenced from that issue
• DCB No. 51, pp. 6-9, overviews three useful
• HSFG bolt, nut and washer availability in publications for bridge design and coatings
sizes above M36 is covered in DCB No. 51, selection
p.14, with further guidance on nut availability
in DCB No. 52, pp. 3-4 • DCB No. 58, pp. 31-32, covers the status of
the HERA Structural Steelwork Design
• Details on the Lindapter range of fasteners Guides Vol. 2, as of October 2000
is given in DCB No. 38, p.4 and 43, pp. 5-6
• DCB No. 62, pp. 18-19, covers the SCI
• Use of AISI 4140 steel rods for hold-down publication Appraisal of Existing Building
bolts is covered in DCB No. 39, pp. 5-6 and Steelwork
DCB No. 56, pp. 19-20
• DCB No. 63, pp. 16-17, covers an SCI
• DCB No. 8, pp. 4-6, covers availability and publication on the use of steel sheet piles as
use of the Torque Control (TC) high strength permanent walls, thereby maximising the
structural bolt use of steel in basements
• DCB No. 5, p. 2, covers the designation of • DCB No. 72, pp. 16, presents a brief
steels of UK origin overview of a publication that presents
design wind speeds for the Asia-Pacific
Shear stud availability is covered seperately, under region. The information is presented in a
Composite Construction: Welded shear stud format compatible with AS/NZS 1170.2 [32]
design, supply and installation on page 20-21
herein. • DCB No. 72, p. 16, presents an overview of
the new AS/NZS 1170.3 [39] which covers
Publications design actions from snow and ice
There are a number of articles on • DCB No. 72, pp. 16-17, presents an
publications/conferences in the DCBs. Details are overview of the most recent corrigenda to
as follows (the publications are not listed in the the AISC Design of Structural Connections -
references unless they are referenced from 4th Edition.
elsewhere in this article):
Research Results rectangular and square hollow section
members
Results from HERA’s research projects and other
structural steel research projects are presented • DCB No. 64, pp. 38-39, covers the restraint
throughout the DCB. Articles presenting research of the ends of load bearing stiffeners in
results have already been listed in relation to the simply supported I-section beams
topic or topics they cover.
• DCB No. 75, pp. 1-5, covers the application
Steel Structures Standard, NZS 3404 of NZS 3404 to portal frames with limited or
no external restraint at the knees.
The following articles relate to NZS 3404:1997 [1],
or were written for the 1992 edition and are still Composite Construction
current. They are presented in chronological
The listing of DCB articles on composite
order:
construction is presented in two groups; first are
those relating to composite systems and members,
• DCB No. 16, pp. 3-4, covers α m factors for and second are those relating to the design supply
segments unrestrained at one end and not and installation of shear studs.
covered by Table 5.6.2 of [1]
Much of the material on composite design
• DCB No. 17, pp. 2-8, covers single angle and construction has been incorporated
design into or replaced by the material contained in
R4-107-DD [29], R4-112 [4] and R4-113 [17].
• DCB No. 29, pp. 4-5, provides the Those publications should be referred to as the
background to Equations C12.2.3 of [1] principal sources of guidance on this topic.
• DCB No. 34, pp. 1-7, presents an article on The DCB articles that are still current as stand-
design to NZS 3404:1997 made simple. alone advice on a particular topic are given below.
This topic is covered in more detail in a In all instances, they also form part of R4-113 or
comprehensive set of seminar notes [31] are referenced from there.
and an excellent SESOC publication [32]
Composite members and structures
• DCB No. 36, pp. 1-3, presents follow up • DCB No. 67, pp. 16-21, covers matters
questions and answers from the mid-1997
arising from the May 2002 composite
seminar series on NZS 3404
seminar series. This should be read in
conjunction with [4, 17, 29]
• DCB No. 37, p.9, summarises a reference
paper to the NZS 3404 provisions for SHS • DCB No. 53, most of issue, covers design
members. This paper is included in [26], for openings in the webs of composite
which provides much more comprehensive beams. An errata is presented on pp. 1-2 of
coverage DCB No. 69
• DCB No. 43, p. 5, gives a change to the • DCB No. 35, pp. 4-5, overviews the
significant axial force provisions that has COBENZ 97 spreadsheet program for
been introduced in Amendment No. 1 composite beam design
• DCB No. 45, pp. 7-8, presents more • DCB No. 29, p. 7, gives a reference for the
changes introduced via. Amendment No. 1 design capacity of Hilti shear connectors
• DCB No. 48, pp. 1-2, presents a partial twist Welded shear stud design, supply and
restraint scenario not covered in the 1997 installation
edition of [1] and which is introduced via.
Amendment. No. 1 • DCB No. 55, pp. 18-28, covers the concepts
involved in determining the design shear
capacity of shear studs. Use when the
• DCB No. 51, pp. 9-12, gives the background
to two significant changes introduced via. application is outside the scope of
Amendment. No. 1. These relate to bearing NZS 3404, except for
at a pin and lateral restraint of inelastically
responding members
shear capacity of shear studs with precast
hollowcore slab units. However, those
• DCB No. 55, pp. 16-18, gives the
provisions should only be used for HCUs of
background to the revised web slenderness
up to 250 mm thick and in accordance with
limits introduced via. Amendment. No. 1 for
the restrictions of [17]
• DCB No. 74, pp. 1-5, covers the welding and • Finally, to end on a more whimsical note
testing of shear studs in accordance with and show that the DCB is not (quite) all
the new Joint Stud Welding Standard, work and no play, DCB No. 70, pp. 46-47,
AS/NZS 1554.2 [8]. That standard and the presents an Engineer's view of Santa
DCB guidance covers all levels of stud Claus (which concludes he can't exist).
welding machine technology, including wet DCB No. 71, pp. 2-3, presents the rebuttal
weather capable machines (which concludes that he can).
Miscellaneous Items
References
This article on what’s in the DCB from Issue No. 1
to Issue No. 68 ends with a listing of miscellaneous 1. NZS 3404: 1997, plus Amendment No. 1:
items that are still current but have escaped 2001, Steel Structures Standard; Standards
mention earlier. They are presented in New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
chronological order.
• DCB No. 1, pp. 1-2, introduces the HERA Beam Member Moment Capacity
Limit State Design Guides Volume 1 [12] Determination to NZS 3404: 1997; HERA,
• DCB No. 21, p. 5, gives details of Gib
Fireboard, which was introduced at that time 3. Design Capacity Tables for Structural Steel,
(May 1996) Third Edition, Volume 1: Open Sections;
• DCB No. 23, pp. 5-7, covers results from the Sydney, Australia, 2000.
experimental testing of large-scale, beam to
column joints, undertaken to verify the 4. Khwaounjoo, YR; Report and User’s Manual
design model presented in R4-76 [19] (and for NZF1_Vib 1 Program (Program for the
also in DCB No. 11, pp. 2-6) Analysis of Floor Vibration); HERA,
• DCB No. 28, p. 5, references a US paper Report R4-112.
giving the design capacity of bolted moment-
resisting endplate connections with multiple 5. Murray, TM et. al.; Floor Vibration due to
bolt rows at the beam tension flange. An Human Activity; American Institute of Steel
alternative to the use of that paper is to Construction, 1997, Steel Design Guide
determine the capacity from first principles, Series 11.
using the SCI Publication No. 207/95 as is
covered in DCB No. 56, pp. 29-32 6. Allen, DE et. al.; Minimising Floor Vibration;
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
• DCB No. 31, p. 10, gives a short article on
USA, 1999, ATC Design Guide; 1.
the difference between nominal and
characteristic yield stress and the
significance of each in design
• DCB No. 32, pp. 4-5, covers calculating the of Structural Steelwork; HERA, Manukau
bending moment in a pin City, 1998, HERA Report R4-99.
• DCB No. 36, pp. 5-6, overviews an 8. AS/NZS 1554.2:2003, Structural Steel
interesting paper on the design of slender, Welding Part 2: Steel Welding (Steel Studs
monotubular steel arches to Steel); Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
• DCB No. 44, p. 7, gives a very brief report
on the 1998 Second World Conference on 9. Hyland C; Structural Steelwork Connections
Steel in Construction Guide Incorporating Amendment No. 1;
• DCB No. 46, p. 1 and p. 18, mentions some 1999/2001, HERA Report R4-100.
of the structural steel topics covered by the
1998 Australasian Structural Engineering 10. AS/NZS 4600:1996, Cold-Formed Steel
Conference Structures; Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
design aids for structural steelwork 11. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design
published by or obtainable from the and Design Loadings for Buildings;
Australian Institute of Steel Construction Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New
Zealand.
Design Guides Volume 1; HERA, Manukau 24. C/AS1: 2001, Approved Document for NZBC
City, 1994, HERA Report R4-80. Fire Safety Clauses C1, C2, C3, C4;
13. Bird, GD; MemDes V2 – Program for
Member Design to NZS 3404, Version 2; 25. Mago, N and Clifton, GC; Stage 2
BHP New Zealand Steel, Auckland, 2001. Development of the Slab Panel Design
Method; HERA, Manukau City, 2003, HERA
14. AS/NZS 4671: 2001, Steel Reinforcing Report R4-118.
Wellington. 26. Barber, DJ; HERA Fire Protection Manuals
15. Zaki, RJ et. al.; "Shear Stud Capacity in Protection of Steel; HERA, Manukau City,
Profiled Steel Decks", Report Done as Part 1996, HERA Report, R4-89.
of ME Study Requirements at the School of
Engineering, Civil Resource Engineering, 27. Barber, DJ; Calculation of the Fire
University of Auckland, September, 2003. Resistance of Composite Concrete Slabs
With Profiled Steel Sheet Under Fire
16. AS/NZS 2312:2002, Guide to the Protection Emergency Conditions; HERA, Manukau
of Structural Steel Against Atmospheric City, 1994, HERA Report R4-82.
Standards New Zealand, Wellington. 28. Noise Control Handbook; HERA/SCI-NZ,
Manukau City, 2003.
Seminar on Composite Steel Design and 29. Clifton, GC; Draft for Comment: Control of
Construction; HERA Manukau City, New Deflection and Placement of Concrete in
Zealand, 2002, HERA Report R4-113. Composite Floor Systems; HERA, Manukau
City, 2002, HERA Report R4-107-DD.
18. Clifton, GC (Editor); Notes Prepared for the
Designing Stainless Steel Structures 30. AS 1418.18; 2001, Cranes (Including Hoists
Seminar; HERA, Manukau City, 2002, and Winches) Part 18: Crane Runways and
HERA Report R4-111. Monorails; Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia.
19. Feeney MJ and Clifton G C; Seismic Design
Procedures for Steel Structures; HERA, 31. Bird, GD and Klemick, MP; HiBond Design
Manukau City, 1995, HERA Report R4-76 ; Wizard for Composite Design of the Hi-Bond
to be read with Clifton, GC; Tips on Seismic Flooring System, Version 1.2; Dimond,
Design of Steel Structures; Notes from Auckland, 2003.
Presentations to Structural Groups mid-
2000; HERA, Manukau City, 2000. 32. AS/NZS 1170.2:2002, Structural Design
Actions Part 2: Wind Actions; Standards
20. Clifton, GC; Tips on Seismic Design of Steel New Zealand, Wellington.
Structures; Notes from Presentations to
Structural Groups mid-2000; HERA 33. Mago, N; Verification of Revised MEP
Manukau City, 2000. Procedure, FEA Study; HERA, Manukau
21. Clifton, GC and Feeney, MH; Fire
Engineering Application to Multi-Storey Steel 34. Hancock, GJ. et.al.; Notes Prepared for the
Structures; The Inaugural New Zealand Tubular Structures Seminar; HERA,
Metals Industry Conference, Rotorua, 2002, Manukau City, 2001, HERA Report R4-104.
Paper No. 14; HERA, Manukau City, 2002.
35. Clifton, GC; Design of Cold-Formed
22. Clifton, GC and Robinson, J; Notes Stainless Steel Structures; The Inaugural
Prepared for a Seminar on The Behaviour New Zealand Metals Industry Conference,
and Design of Multi-Storey Steel Framed Rotorua, 2002, Paper No. 30; HERA,
Buildings for Severe Fires, Revised June Manukau City, 2002.
Report R4-105. 36. AS/NZS 4673:2001, Cold-Formed Stainless
23. Clifton, GC and Forrest, E; Notes Prepared Wellington.
for a Seminar on Design of Steel Buildings
for Fire Emergency Conditions; HERA,
Report R4-96.
38. Stickland, S; Corus Deep Composite Floor
Deck; The Inaugural New Zealand Metals
Industry Conference, Rotorua, 2002, Paper
No. 16; HERA, Manukau City, 2002.

Actions Part 3: Snow and Ice Actions;
P O Box 76-134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 76 October/November 2003

The author(s) of each item or paper in this publication are noted at the The material herein has been the subject of review by a
Introduction
Shear Stud Capacity in Profiled
This issue of the DCB addresses the shear stud
capacity of welded shear studs in profiled steel Steel Decks
decks. This work was undertaken earlier in 2003
This paper has been written by Raed Zaki, HERA Assistant
by Raed Zaki, HERA Assistant Structural Structural Engineer, John Butterworth, Senior Lecturer at the
Engineer, as part of his Master of Engineering University of Auckland and Charles Clifton, HERA Structural
studies at the University of Auckland. Engineer.
You can now purchase the complete “Shear Stud 1. Introduction

Capacity in Profiled Steel Decks” which has been
published as a HERA Report, R4-122. Please The use of composite steel beams with profiled
contact HERA publication officer Pauline Hayward steel decking and in-situ concrete floors has
for purchase of this report. increased in recent years in New Zealand and
around the world. This increased interest has led
HERA is pleased to announce that Dr. Tony Gillies to a critical review of current design procedures in
is coming to New Zealand during the first half of NZS 3404 [1] arising from concerns that these
2004 to continue this research based on Raed provisions overestimate the strength of shear studs
Zaki’s “Recommendations for Further Research” in profiled steel decks. A number of New Zealand
as stated in Section 7 of this DCB issue. Tony is and overseas studies [2,3,4], have shown that
from New Zealand, now Associate Professor at many building codes over-estimate the predicted
Lakehead University in Canada, and he has ultimate shear stud capacity, in comparison with
undertaken composite construction research on the observed shear stud capacity. This has led to
previous sabbatical visits to the University of updating of standards; for example, the current
Auckland and is familiar with our design and Canadian Standard [5] has the design equations
construction practices. for shear studs in secondary beams reduced from
earlier editions.
Charles Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer, and
Raed Zaki will be touring New Zealand in the This paper presents an overview of research
second half of 2004 conducting seminars on recently undertaken [6] into the adequacy of
Charles’ “Semi Rigid Joint” research and the current New Zealand design provisions for
conclusion of this “Shear Stud Capacity” research. composite beams supporting profiled steel decks.
Following a detailed comparison of the overall New
Zealand composite design procedure [1] with that
from the United Kingdom [7], Europe [8], and
In This Issue Page Canada [5], recommendations for changes to the
Shear Stud Capacity in Profiled 1 design provisions and to the equations for
Steel Decks determining the capacity of headed, welded shear
studs have been made. The latter were based
References 14 initially on a review of the international standards
mentioned above and an experimental testing
programme was then undertaken.
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 76, October/November 2003
That programme has led to further recommended failure, in which the stud pulls out of the concrete
changes to the shear stud capacity equations. along with a cone of surrounding concrete), then it
will fail either through concrete crushing/stud
The end result has been minor changes to the fracture or through longitudinal splitting. The first
composite beam design provisions and a revision case is governed by the dowel strength of the stud
to the equations for determining shear stud in uncracked concrete and is described in
capacity. The overall effect will be more accurate section 2.2. The second case is covered in
determination of the number of shear studs section 2.3.
needed in a composite beam. Further areas of
required research have also been identified and 2.2 Dowel strength of shear studs in
research work on these is planned for 2004. uncracked concrete
This paper firstly reviews, in section 2, the Ollgaard et. al. [10] pioneered research on the
concepts involved in composite action. This dowel strength of shear stud connectors and
includes the strength of shear connectors in solid identified the important parameters that control the
slabs and in profiled slabs, covering the various dowel strength. Using statistical analysis, they
failure modes identified in the literature. derived an equation to determine the mean dowel
strength of shear stud connectors in push off
While one of the main drivers behind this research specimens, in which the concrete slab had not
was concern over the design capacity of shear failed prematurely through splitting, shear or
studs as predicted by [1], it is important to note that embedment. This equation for the dowel strength
the calculated shear strength of a welded stud is as dictated by concrete crushing, Dmax, is given by:
only one of the factors that determine the shear
stud numbers and positions required in a Dmax = 1.83Ash fc0.3 Ec0.44 (76.1)
composite beam. The first stage of the research
therefore involved a comparative calculation study
where the units are in N and mm, Ash is the cross-
of the design requirements for a range of steel
sectional area of the stud shank and Ec is the
beams designed to New Zealand, British,
Young's modulus of elasticity of the concrete,
European and Canadian practice. Section 3
which is given by equation 76.2a.
presents details of this work. The setup for the
experimental testing undertaken is described in
section 4. Section 5 presents an overview of the Ec = 0.043ρ1.5 fc′ (76.2a)
results and section 6 discusses the findings from
these tests. However, New Zealand Standard [11] gives
another expression for Ec
The conclusions from the full programme of work
( )
are given in section 7. 1 .5
 ρ 
E c = 3320 fc′ + 6900   (76.2b)
2. Concepts of Composite Construction  2300 
2.1 Strength of shear stud connectors where Ec and f′c are in N/mm, and ρ is the density
of the concrete in kg/m3. There is not much
Since the stud is embedded in concrete, the shear difference between these two expressions,
stud capacity is dependent on the properties of the
concrete slab in addition to the properties of the In adapting equation 76.1 to design use, the
steel stud. If the concrete in the bearing zone splits exponents were changed to make the equation
or crushes, it will cause the base of the stud to dimensionally correct and simpler, although this
move forward, while the head of the stud remains led to a loss of accuracy. The altered equation is
in the original position. This will lead to a larger slip
at the steel beam/concrete slab interface than that 2
πdsc
caused only by the deformation of the stud. This Dmax = 0.50Asc fc′Ec = fc′Ec (76.3)
failure may also lead to rotation of the stud, which 8
will generate flexural rotation actions and an
additional axial tensile force in the stud. The Certain types of stud welding procedure produce
magnitude of this axial tensile force increases as very small or no weld collars, and it would be
the rotation of the stud increases [9]. The strength unsafe to use equation 76.3 directly to determine
of the concrete that resists stud pullout is called their strengths. It was therefore suggested that the
the embedment strength of the shear stud, while shear strength given by equation 76.3 should be
the strength of the concrete that resists local used in conjunction with a reduction factor when
splitting is known as Vsplit. the mean height of the weld collar is less than
dsh/5 [12]. The reduction factor Rco is given by
If the shear stud doesn’t fail in a push-through test
by pulling out of the concrete (i.e. by embedment
Rco =
2 5hco
+ (76.4) qr = 0.5α dc Asc fc′Ec ≤ 0.8fu Asc (76.7)
3 3dsc
This more correctly represents the dowel strength
where hco is the mean height of the weld collar and of a stud in solid concrete, with the left-hand side
dsc is the shank diameter of the stud. of the inequality representing concrete crushing
and the right hand side shear failure of the steel
Equation 76.3 was adopted by the 1992 and 1997 stud at the top of the weld collar.
editions of NZS 3404 [1] for calculating the nominal
shear capacity of headed studs, along with a steel For ribbed slabs, it has been noted [13] that the
profile reduction factor αdc, as determined by [13]. shear stud shear capacity is reduced, with the
That factor related to the reduction in stud strength reduction dependent on the orientation of the ribs.
in a ribbed slab. Including α dc, as specified in This reduction factor has been established
section 13.3.2 of the standard, this gives: experimentally, through for example equation 76.8
for ribs perpendicular to the steel beam, [14],
which has been adopted by [1].
qr = 0.5α dc Asc fc′Ec ≤ fu Ascα dc (76.5)
0.85  hsc  b 
where qr is the nominal shear capacity and Asc is αdc =  − 1  r  (76.8)
the cross-section area of the stud shank, which is nrc  hrc   hrc 
equivalent to Ash in equation 76.3. αdc is the
decking reduction factor, fu is the minimum tensile where nrc is the number of studs in a rib, hsc is the
strength of the stud, which is equal to 415 MPa for total height of the stud, hrc is the height of the rib
studs manufactured to AS 1443 grades 1010 to and br is the mean width of the rib. However, the
1020 or ASTM A108 grades C1010 to C1020. A reduction factor given in draft Eurocode 4 [15] is
strength reduction factor (φsc) is used to obtain the more conservative, using 0.7 as a reduction factor
design capacity of headed studs. In the 1997 instead of 0.85, in the format equation, i.e.:
edition of [1] this was equal to 0.8 for studs
situated in positive moment regions and 0.6 for 0.7  hsc  b 
studs situated in negative moment regions. αdc =  − 1 r  (76.9)
nrc  hrc  hrc 
The expression fuAsc in the second half of equation
76.5 represents shear stud failure. As described Equations 76.8 and 76.9 are presented as
below, such steel failure is principally an ultimate representing the reduced dowel capacity of the
shear failure and as such is over-estimated by the shear studs. They are experimentally determined
use of fuAsc. This was, fortuitously, rectified through on the premise that the concrete does not undergo
the incorporation of the partial strength reduction longitudinal splitting at the base. However, review
factor of 0.8, introduced into the 1992 edition of of the pictures from the Canadian push-off tests [3]
NZS 3404. However, in the case of shear stud indicate that splitting was the likely limiting mode of
failure, that 0.8 should be part of the equation failure for their tests. It is therefore considered
itself. likely by the authors that the Canadian reduction
equations represent a splitting-induced loss of
The 2001 Amendment to NZS 3404 [1] did this for shear stud capacity due to the profiled nature of
Clauses 13.3.2.1 and 13.3.2.2, stating changes to the concrete slab. The equation for primary beam
be made on equation 76.5 by multiplying the application which is not presented herein is also
reduction factor (φsc) by (1/0.8) and (qr) by (0.8) as based on a test configuration that is not
shown in equation 76.6. This brought the factor representative of that used in practice.
(0.8) directly into the equation for determining
shear stud nominal capacity, which provides better Given that splitting strength can govern the shear
agreement with experimental results regarding the stud capacity, the background to this is now given.
shear stud capacity and makes the embedment
equations; 2.3 Splitting strength of concrete
qr = 0.4α dc Asc fc′Ec ≤ 0.8fu Ascαdc (76.6) a. Primary Beam
Splitting of the concrete happens when the very

However, the 0.8 factor was brought into both high concentrated dowel compression stress
sides of the equation for qr by Amendment No. 1 to formed in front of the base of the shear stud is
NZSD 3404. Lin et. al. [2] argued that this should dispersed laterally into the surrounding concrete.
not have been done for the expression relating to When the transverse tensile stresses generated by
concrete crushing strength and, at the time of a this transfer exceed the splitting tensile strength of
2002 seminar series on composite construction, the concrete, fcb, longitudinal cracks will form in the
proposed that the 0.8 factor be included only in the concrete prism in the bearing zone along the line
expression for shear stud failure, giving:
of the shear connectors. The splitting tensile b. Secondary beam
strength of the concrete fcb is obtained from
cylinder split tests, as given by the following Splitting failure in the secondary beam
equation: configurations, ribs transverse to the beam, has
been represented by some researchers as
concrete pullout failure. Hawkins and Mitchell [16]
fcb = 0.5 fc' (76.10)
proposed the following equation:
A detailed background to the shear splitting

provisions is given in section 11.3 of [12]. The Vc = 0.45 fc' Ac (76.17)
relevant equation for the nominal concrete splitting
resistance, Vsplit, of a haunch of concrete of width where:
bce is given by them as: Vc = shear capacity due to concrete pull-out
failure (N)
0.6bceheq fcb 0.6dscha fcbπ '
fc = concrete compressive strength (MPa)
Vsplit = + 2
(76.11)
kd  ha   ha  Ac = area of concrete pull out failure surface
 1 −    (mm2)
 hc   hc 
Jayaas and Hosain [3] conducted further research,
where: based on this equation, for 38 mm and 76 mm
bce = concrete effective haunch width deep ribbed decks, where they found out that
instead of a fixed value of 0.45, separate
ha = 1.8dsc, effective stud bearing height coefficients should be used for the 38 and 76 mm
(76.12) decks.
fc' = characteristic concrete cylinder However, in our push-off tests on the secondary
compression strength (MPa) beams, the governing failure mode for the
dsc = diameter of welded, headed shear stud secondary beam studs was a splitting failure
(mm). mode, in all tests shown by the classic longitudinal
Vsplit = nominal splitting capacity (N) splitting crack developing in the concrete slab. This
2
has been approached through the use of equation
1  d sc  76.11, obtaining Vsplit experimentally and then back
kd = 1 −  , lateral force parameter
π  bce  calculating to obtain the effective haunch width, for
the secondary beam, bce,sb.
(76.13)
hc = effective haunch height for splitting 3. Comparative Calculations Prior to

= min (4.5ha, to) Experimental Testing
The following dimensional constraints are required 3.1 Comparative calculations

for equation 76.11 to be valid:
Refer to Chapter 3 of [6] for full details on the
comparative calculations done.
bc ≥ 3dsc (76.14)
3.2 Comparative results
hc ≥ 3ha = 5.4dsc (76.15)
According to Lin et. al. [2] the New Zealand
hsc ≥ hc (76.16) Standard clearly overestimated the shear stud
capacity, as shown in Figure 76.1, where the
where:
difference between the New Zealand Standard [1],
bc = actual width of insitu concrete into which
the Canadian Standard [5], (added by the author)
the shear stud is embedded (mm)
and test results from [2] are clearly demonstrated
hsc = height of shear stud after installation
for 30 MPa concrete.
(mm)
The Canadians recognised the unconservative
In addition, especially for individual concrete ribs nature of their shear stud capacity equation for
containing studs, hsc ≥ 4.5ha = 8.1dsc is highly secondary beam configurations, which prompted
desirable, as this places the head of the stud, Jayas and Hosain [3] to undertake research into
which acts as the anchor for preventing vertical slip the shear stud capacity in secondary beams using
of the stud within the concrete, outside of the ribbed slabs. In [3] they proposed the changes to
region of high compression bearing stress where the shear stud capacity equation for secondary
splitting initiates. This has benefits in increasing beams from that given for primary beams
the post-splitting shear capacity, as given by [12]. (equation 76.21) to the new equation 76.18 and
76.19. This was followed by a full size test, details standards that use partial material strength
of which are published in [4]. These changes were reduction factors to match design shear stud
implemented in the Canadian Code [5], in Clause capacity to design internal action.
17.7.2.3. As can be seen from figure 76.1, these
equations predicted much lower shear stud They also showed that, despite NZS
capacities than the NZS 3404 [1] provisions. 3404:1997 having the highest design shear
stud capacity of any of the standards, the
The lower the design shear capacity of a stud, the number of shear studs per beam required
more studs may be required for a composite beam. from a NZS 3404 design was not less than
However, the design shear capacity of a stud is required by any of the other three standards.
only one factor that determines the number of
studs required on a given beam. Other factors that 3.3 Initial recommendation
significantly influence these results are:
At the conclusion to the comparative studies, the
• The lower limit on partial composite action recommendations on all these considerations
(PCA) allowed by the standard. proposed were as follows:
• The use of global strength reduction factors
(φ factors) to convert nominal capacity to (1) For shear stud nominal shear capacity in
design capacity as compared with the use of secondary beams, use the new Canadian
partial strength reduction factors. equations – equations 76.18, 76.19 with
• For secondary beams in ribbed steel decks, interpolation as required and equation
the spacing of the ribs. 76.20. Use φsc = 1.0 as for New Zealand
practice.
qr = 0.35φsc Ac fc' ≤ Qu 76 mm decking (76.18) (2) For shear stud nominal shear capacity in
primary beams, use equation 76.7 and
determine the potential for rib splitting from
qr = 0.61φscAc fc' ≤ Qu 38 mm decking (76.19)
experimental testing.
where:
qr = shear stud capacity 150
128 kN (Eq 76.6 )
φsc = factor that depends on the concrete type.
Shear force/stud (kN)
120
(Clause 17.7.1 of [5]). For normal weight 104 kN 123 kN from [1]
concrete, positive moment action it is 0.8 90
73.2kN from [5]
Ac = area of concrete pullout surface (cone) 60 83 kN (80% of max)
Qu = Ultimate shear capacity, which is the 58 kN (splitting)
following equation [5] 30
Qu = 0.5φscAsc fc' Ec (76.20) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Mean slip (mm)
While the primary beam equation is:

Fig. 76.1
qu = 0.5φsc Asc fc' Ec ≤ φscAscfu (76.21) Shear Force-slip History for fc' = 30 Mpa (Taken
from Figure 5.13-Unit 120/N30/19R/12F/02 of [2]
with Addition by Author).
The results of the comparative calculations are
presented in [6]. These show the difference
(3) For limits on PCA, change to the Eurocode
between the various standards for deck and
provision.
strength reduction factors, shear stud capacity,
number of studs required for the given beam and (4) Do not make changes to the calculation of
shear connection ratio used. component capacities and the matching of
shear stud design capacity to component
These comparisons show that research to improve nominal capacity.
the New Zealand composite design provisions
should not just be limited to shear stud capacity The next stage of this project involved an
but should address the following: experimental testing programme to determine
shear stud nominal and design shear capacity
1. The minimum value of PCA required when used in a 55 mm deep trapezoidal deck
concrete slab in a primary and in a secondary
2. Whether factors should be added to the beam configuration.
calculation of Nccc and Ntsc to be consistent
with the approach used by the other
4. Shear Stud Test Set-up As a conventional profiled steel decking was
adopted in this study, the total thickness of the slab
4.1 Shear stud testing rig was much less than that previously tested, so
studs with a length complying with [1] Clause
The test rig with mounted unit is shown in figure 13.3.2.2.1 (d) - ie. hsc ≥ hr + 40 mm were required.
76.2. The frame had three components; the base In this case hsc ≥ 95 mm was required.
frame, “head” frame and “foot” frame. The base
frame was bolted to the strong floor of the test hall. (1) There was no concrete haunch over the
A 1000 kN jack was horizontally bolted to the steel beam, which in previous testing had a
“head” frame. Centre lines of the push force and width the same as the steel beam top
the reaction force were regulated by steel flange.
bearings, which were positioned collinear with the
steel-slab interface and the horizontal stiffener in (2) Especially for the secondary beam, stud
the “head” and “foot” frames. spacing was controlled by the decking
profile.
Test units were laid on packers with the slab
positioned on top and the steel section positioned (3) Because of the reduced slab thickness, the
underneath, representing the real situation. section of the corbel became more critical,
Thickness of the packers was carefully adjusted to so the corbel required redesign.
make the steel-slab interface collinear with the
centre line of the bearings (line of thrust). The steel (4) Nominal mesh reinforcement complying with
corbel of the test units was positioned close to the [1] was used, representing the minimum
jack and the “foot” frame restrained the concrete reinforcement across the shear studs that
corbel. would exist in practice.
Slide rollers were placed between the packer and 4.2.2 List of shear stud test units
the lower surface of the steel beam, in order for the
slab to slide freely during testing. All test units used in this study are listed in
Table 76.1. Key results are presented in section 5,
4.2 Shear stud test units with full details in [6].
4.2.1 General “S” is for the secondary beams and “P” is for the
primary beams. All the secondary beam slabs
The push specimens are referred to here as shear were 1105 mm by 1000 mm with 120 mm depth
stud test units. The test unit is comprised of three while the primary beam slabs were all 1240 mm by
main components – steel beam, composite slab 1000 mm with 120 mm depth.
and studs. A typical shear stud test unit is shown in
figures 76.3, 76.4 and 76.5, for both secondary For the secondary beams, Units S1, S2 and S3 are
and primary beams, with each test unit having identical in the number of studs and concrete
small changes from that shown. strength, while S4 has the same number of studs
but different concrete strength. S5 has double the
The design of shear stud test units adopted in this number of studs at the “staggered” position, while
research closely emulated the design used S6 has the same number of studs as the first 4
previously [17], although there were some with a concrete strength of 25 MPa but the studs
changes, these being: positioned in the “unfavourable” position.
2410
"foot" frame bearing bearing "head" frame

load cell
1000 kN jack
horizontal stiffer
295
610UB101 loading plate 610UB101

80 mm packers
310UC158-HD bolts to strong floor
Fig. 76.2
Test Rig with Mounted Test Unit [17]
For the primary beams P2, P3 and P5 are identical Table 76.1
while P1 is the same but with different concrete Shear Stud Test Units
strength, and finally, P4 has double the number of
studs at double the spacing compared to P2, P3 Summary Details of Test Units
and P5.
No. Code Slab No of Comments
fc'
These differences were intended to generate a Dimension Studs
good representation of shear stud capacity and 1 S1 1105x1000 25 3 Favourable
test the influence of key parameters, but not x 120
change too many variables to give meaningful
results. The shear connection devices used in this 2 S2 1105x1000 25 3 Favourable
study were headed studs with a shank diameter of x 120
19mm and a before-weld length of 106 mm, clean 3 S3 1105x1000 25 3 Favourable
beam and 110 mm through deck. These give an x 120
installed length of 99-102 mm in each instance.
4 S4 1105x1000 30 3 Favourable
4.3 Loading procedure x 120
The test protocol was based on the Eurocode 4 [8] 5 S5 1105x1000 25 6 Double
recommendation: x 120 Staggered
6 S6 1105x1000 25 3 Unfavourable
(1) Load the test unit to 40% of the expected
x 120
nominal capacity (failure load) of the stud
group. 7 P1 1240x1000 30 4 Single Row
x 120
(2) Cycle the load 25 times between 5% and
40% of the expected nominal capacity. 8 P2 1240x1000 25 4 Single Row
x 120
(3) Continue monotonic loading from 40%, such 9 P3 1240x1000 25 4 Single Row
that 100% of the expected normal capacity x 120
is reached in under 15 minutes.
10 P4 1240x1000 25 4 Double Row
(4) Measure longitudinal interface slip x 120 at Double the
continuously during loading, at least until the Spacing
load has dropped to 20% below maximum. 11 P5 1240x1000 25 4 Single Row
x 120
(5) Measure transverse separation between the
steel beam and the composite slab close to
the group of shear studs.
Fig. 76.3 Fig. 76.4

Unit 2 Ready for Concrete Casting Unit P2 Ready for Concrete Casting
The following general observations were recorded
during testing of the units. For the secondary
beams, the first cracks formed transverse to the
beam especially at the first and third trough. The
crack adjacent to the third trough typically was the
first crack to form but did not affect the results. The
longitudinal crack, which is also shown in figure
76.8, typically formed at or near the peak shear
stud strength achieved. Delamination of the slab
also occurred, figure 76.9, as well as an interesting
phenomenon named the “Biting Phenomenon” of
the decking into the steel beam, see figure 76.10.
Another interesting aspect of testing was the
“wedging” of the concrete between the shear stud
and the decking, see figure 76.11. These
Fig. 76.5 observations were common for all secondary beam
Test Unit S1 Ready for Testing. test units.
5. Shear Stud Test Results As for the primary beam, longitudinal cracks
parallel to the beam occurred with “curving” of the
Reporting of the final shear force-slip history slab due to the splitting of the concrete pushing
adopted the format shown in figure 76.6, while against the stud. Figure 76.12 demonstrates the
figure 76.7 is from the test results of unit S4. curving while figure 76.13 shows the typical
longitudinal cracks. Refer to [6], Chapter 6 for
detailed observations of the test units.
Q max (kN)
Shear (q r)n (NZS 3404) (φ=1.0)

force/stud
(kN) Revised q r
80 % of max
Starting from end of first 25 cycles
Mean slip (mm)
Fig. 76.6
Typical Shear Force-Slip History Diagram
Fig. 76.8
120
106 kN (max) and L1 Secondary Beam Cracks
110
100.21 kN from[1]
100
86.6 kN
90
L2 84.4 kN (80% of max)
80 L3
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mean Slip (mm)
Fig. 76.7
Unit S4 Test Results
Fig. 76.9
Delamination of the Slab
6. Shear Stud Test Results-Discussion
6.1 Failure mode
The main modes of failure described in the

literature are concrete pull out failure (stud
embedment failure), concrete crushing failure,
shear stud fracture, and concrete splitting failure.
Of these, the major cause of failure in this series of
tests was concrete splitting failure, with a case of
concrete crushing and splitting (Unit P4) and two
cases of a new mode of failure, which we are
calling “Rolling Fracture”. This principally affected
unit S2, which had “Rib Rolling Fracture” and unit
P3, which failed due to a construction defect in the
Fig. 76.10 corbel. The following section talks about the
“Biting” Phenomenon reason why splitting and not cone pullout failure
was the main cause of failure, even though the
concrete cone shape was present in nearly all the
units tested when the units were disassembled at
the end of testing.
6.2 Why cone pull out failure was not the

main failure mode.
Our initial recommendations and calculations used

to develop the test specimens were based on the
Canadian study by [3,4] for the secondary beam,
which in turn based their equations on the reported
“embedment failure”. For the primary beams, initial
recommendations were based upon the
longitudinal splitting concept from [12].
Fig. 76.11
“Wedging” of the Concrete However, embedment failure was not the observed
failure mode for any of the specimens tested.
Therefore a new set of recommendations has to be
made, to better represent the failure mode that
occurred in this series of tests. Embedment failure
is the form of failure that always has a concrete
cone shape surrounding the shear studs where the
concrete around the cone gets separated from the
slab causing a drop in strength. It is not
Fig. 76.12 accompanied by a longitudinal splitting crack. In
Curving of the Slab in the Primary Beam the tests conducted, although the cone shape was
present in all the secondary beam units after
dissecting the unit, it was not the observed failure
mode that limited the stud shear strength. As
previously reported, that was longitudinal splitting
in all cases except for units S2 and P3 which failed
prematurely and unit P4 which failed by combined
crushing and splitting.
Further support for this can be seen from a study

of the parameters that govern embedment
strength. According to [12], the embedment
strength is dependent on the ratio of the stud
height to the stud diameter (see figure 76.14) while
the strength can be derived from the following
equation.
Fig. 76.13 Demb = K h (Dmax )beam (76.22)

Primary Beam Cracks
Where, Demb is the shear strength that allows factor in terms of stud design capacity. These
variation in shear embedment strength, Kh can be results show that revision to [1] Equation 13.3.2.1
derived from line A-B-C in figure 76.14 and is needed.
(Dmax)beam can be derived from equation 76.23.
130
Equation 76.23 represents the strength of a shear 120 D emb = 1 12.5 kN
stud in a solid concrete slab. It is also the original

110
(D max) beam = 102.3kN
100
equation that [1] Equation 13.3.2.1 is derived from, 90
as it incorporates both the concrete crushing and 80 S1
shear stud fracture resistance into one equation. It 70 S3
is determined from a curve fit of test data on push- 60 S5
50 S6
off tests in solid slabs, with allowance made for the
40
test rig setup on the capacity. Details are given in 30
section (2.4.6.3) of [12]: 20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Mean slip (mm)
Fig. 76.15
Comparison Between the Test Results and the
Embedment, Solid Concrete Failure Modes for the
Secondary Beams
130
120
Demb= 114.5kN
110
(Dmax)beam= 104.1kN
Fig. 76.14 100
Shear Embedment Strength Relationship to Find

90
Kh [12] 80
P2
70
P4
60 P5
0.4
 1.1  0.65 0.35  E c 
(Dmax )beam
50
= 4.3 −  Ascfu fc  
 40
 n  Es  30
(76.23) 20
10
where n is the total number of studs in the test 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
sample. Using the values from experimental tests Mean Slip (mm)
including the actual measured material properties,
the Shear Embedment Strength is calculated and
is shown in figures. 76.15 and 76.16 for the
secondary and the primary beams, respectively. Fig. 76.16
Comparison Between the Test Results and the
The values of the shear embedment strength Embedment, Solid Concrete Failure Modes for the
(Demb) mean that, if no other form of failure occurs Primary Beams
before Demb is reached, then embedment failure will
limit the available strength. However, with these
studs, slab crushing and shear stud fracture would 6.3 Proposed revision of NZS 3404Cl 13.3.2.1
occur before embedment failure. In fact (Dmax)beam ,
which incorporates both the concrete crushing and As mentioned in Section 2.2, equation 13.3.2.1
shear stud fracture, clearly was also greater than in [1] has been amended in 2001 from the old
the test results, demonstrating that the failure format of:
mode was not the concrete crushing or fracture of
the studs at the maximum stud strength. qr = 0.5α dc Asc ( fc′Ec ) ≤ fu Ascαdc (76.24)
Therefore, according to the results in Chapter 6 in
[6] and the comparison shown in figures 76.15 and into:
76.16 neither shear embedment, concrete crushing
or stud fracturing initiated the failure, but
longitudinal splitting did. It should be noted that qr = 0.4α dc Asc ( fc′Ec ) ≤ 0.8fu Ascαdc (76.25)
stud fracture was observed in units S6 and P4,
however this did not occur until well after the peak where the first part is for concrete crushing, while
load was reached and so was not the limiting the second is for shear stud fracture. According to
equation 76.24, from which this simplified equation
is derived, the present equation 76.25
underestimates the true value of the concrete That equation is used to back-calculate and find
crushing. It is recommended that the equation the effective width, bce, for the interior secondary
76.26, initially proposed by [2] as his equation and primary beam configurations.
76.14, and referenced in [18], be used:
For the secondary beam, in an effective width of
qr = 0.5α dc Asc ( fc′Ec ) ≤ 0.8fu Ascαdc (76.26) 440mm, for the present test conditions of the slab
height being greater or equal to 120mm, stud
height greater or equal to 4x the stud diameter and
This equation gives a value that is consistent with stud diameter of 16 to 22mm.
the test results and with the original equation put
forth by [12], equation 76.23. Given that this is for This effective width happens to be close to four
a solid slab, αdc = 1.0 and this term can be omitted times the stud height used in the tests. Lin et. al.[2]
giving equation 76.27 as the proposed recorded that the concrete cone shape slope angle
replacement to [1] Equation 13.3.2.1: was around 24o to 29o, while the slope angle for
this test with the effective width of 440 mm was
qr = 0.5Asc ( fc′Ec ) ≤ 0.8fuAsc (76.27) 24.4o. This indicated that there may be a
relationship between effective rib width and stud
Comparing equations 76.25, and 76.27 with 76.23 height. Therefore, a recommendation future testing
we get the following results, using the actual is to find if such a relationship between the stud
material properties of the test: height and effective rib width exists and its
influence on the shear stud capacity.
Ec = 24.8 GPa Asc = 283.4 mm2
Taking the effective width to be 440mm to
fu = 448.5 MPa fc' = 24.3 MPa calculate the longitudinal splitting capacity, for the
Eq. 76.25 qr = min(88, 101.7) kN studs in the favourable position, another factor is
Eq. 76.27 qr = min(110, 101.7) kN recommended to be added to this equation to
Eq. 76.23 (Dmax)beam = 102 kN make it consistent with the test results. This factor
is the stud-positioning factor (α sp) taken as:
It is clear that equation 76.27 shows closer results
to equation 76.23 than equation 76.25. Therefore, Favourable = 1.0
it is recommended that the present equation Unfavourable = 0.94
13.3.2.1 in [1] should be amended to equation Double staggered = 0.84
76.27, for welded studs in a solid concrete slab.
This factor is the position of the stud in the
6.4 Making allowance for concrete splitting secondary beam, whether it is in the favourable,
in interior beams unfavourable or double staggered position.
The experimental tests showed that concrete Therefore, the recommended splitting equation to
longitudinal splitting failure governed all tests be used for shear stud capacity estimation in the
involving a single row of studs, either in a straight secondary beam configuration is:
line or staggered. The equation for calculating the
splitting strength, Vsh, of a stud within a concrete  
rib of effective width, bce, is given by [12]. Equation  
76.11, which can be transformed into equation  bce π  (76.29)
Vsplit = 0.54αspdsc fc'  + 
76.28:  1   2
 1 − sc   1.8dsc  1.8 
d
 
 π  bce   1 −   
  hc   hc 
 
 
 bce π  The following values and limits are required with
Vsplit = 0.54 d sc fc'  + 
 1  d   
2
 
this equation:
   1 − sc  1 − 1 .8 d sc   1. 8
 
 bce  
  π 
  hc   h c  
bce = 440 mm
(76.28) to ≥ 120 mm
hsc ≥ 95 mm
In this equation, bce is the effective width, dsc is the dsc from 16 mm to 22 mm
stud diameter, and hc the effective haunch height hsc/dsc ≥ 4.32
for splitting, taken as the minimum of (5.4dsc,to),
where to is the slab height. The profile used is a 55 mm trapezoidal deck. In
equation 76.29 bce = effective width to use for
In this instance, the actual splitting shear strength interior secondary beam (ie. runs over decking).
has been determined by experimental testing, For the primary beam, splitting was clearly the
using the process described on page 28, equation main cause of failure for all single rows of studs.
55.26 of [19]. Therefore the recommended equation 76.28 is
also used for the primary beam, back-calculating
again to find the effective rib width. This also gives
bce = 440 mm for the present test conditions of the
slab height being greater or equal to 120 mm, stud
height of greater or equal to 4 stud diameters, stud
diameter of 16 to 22 mm, and the deck fastened
onto the beam flange within 10 mm at the flange
edge. Figure 76.17 demonstrates that edge
distance. That equation is applicable to a single
row of studs.
It was noted in unit P1, which had 30 MPa

concrete instead of 25 MPa, that the strength was
98 kN which was 1kN more than the equivalent
specimen using 25 MPa concrete. The unit S4,
which was the secondary beam with 30 MPa
strength, was 106 kN which was approximately the Fig. 76.18
same as the predicted value from equation 76.29. Crushing and Splitting Failure in Unit P4
This difference in strength could be due to the
different 30 MPa concrete batches used that were 6.5 Extending concrete splitting provision to
hand mixed, and might have had different spandrel beams
compressive strengths from the cylinder test
values. It is an aspect for which future testing is 6.5.1 Secondary beam
recommended.
For the spandrel secondary beam, it is
recommended to use equation 76.28 but taking the
effective width as:
bce = bf + bo (76.30)
This is likely to be conservative but to an unknown

extent. Because the decking is not continuous over
≤1 0 m m the beam, its role in confining the concrete within
the splitting zone of the stud will be limited and is
ignored in this recommendation. Also, using the
post-splitting reinforcement shown below is
recommended:
Fig. 76.17
Edge Distance of Decking on Primary Beam
DH 12 @ 300 mm
Unit P4, with the double row of studs at double
DH12
spacing, clearly had a combination of crushing and
splitting failure, as seen in figure 76.18. The
splitting crack is clearly seen, but is deflected by
the stud, also the crushing of the concrete was
50
also present. This is also consistent with the
parameters controlling splitting, which show that a
double stud row is not as susceptible to splitting as
is a single stud row. bf bo
Fig. 76.19
Therefore, for unit P4 which had double the studs Secondary Spandrel Beam
at double the spacing, equation 76.27 is to be used
to better represent the failure mode and it also The DH12 @ 300 mm was calculated using
gives the best estimate for the shear stud capacity. the post splitting provisions of [12]. Finally,
Equation 76.27 for crushing was 110 kN while our [1] Cl. 13.4.1.3 (3) states that if the decking runs
test result was 104 kN, therefore equation 76.27 is across the spandrel by greater or equal to 550 mm
slightly overestimating the value. This could be then the spandrel beam is to be treated as an
from the minimal splitting cracks that did occur but internal secondary beam. That is consistent with
were deflected by the stud. the experimental tests.
6.5.2 Primary beam depth at the crack was 50mm, making the centre
of the reinforcement to the top of the slab height 56
Similarly with the primary spandrel beam, except mm. Basing the calculations on that we get the
taking the effective width as follows: following:
bce,interior bf Total area of mesh and reinforcement = 618 mm2
bce = + + bo (76.31)
2 2
Elastic neutral axis = 34.75 mm from the top of the
Also, use of the post-splitting reinforcement as slab.
shown below is recommended:
Resulting Elastic Concrete Moment before
DH 12 @ 300 mm cracking is thus 2.23 kNm
DH12
While the post-splitting moment, calculated
in accordance with figure 76.22, using
the conventional reinforced concrete theory, is
2.916 kNm
This indicate that the concrete will develop a crack,

which actually happened, but when the result of
bce,interior/2 bf/2 bo this unit is compared to unit S1 which had the
< 220 mm
following characteristics, the transverse crack that
caused the failure L4 occurred at a shear
Fig. 76.20 force/stud of 92 kN. The mesh depth at the crack
Primary Spandrel Beam was 40 mm making the centre of the reinforcement
to the top of the slab height 46mm. Basing the
The DH12 @ 300 mm was calculated using the calculations on that we get the following:
post splitting equation from [9].
Total area of mesh and reinforcement = 618 mm2
6.6 Suppression of “Rib Rolling Fracture”
Elastic neutral axis = 33.8 mm from the top of the
Unit S2 had what is called “Rib Rolling Fracture” slab.
which is when the mesh depth is greater than the
intended designed depth, setting the mesh Resulting Elastic Concrete Moment before
reinforcement below the tension zone in the slab, cracking then becomes 2.11 kNm
causing the slab to tilt resulting in premature failure
of the unit. It is called the “Rib Rolling Fracture”
While the moment capacity after cracking is
because the action of the forces in the slab cause
6.36 kNm.
the slab to “roll” caused by the “rolling” moment
forces acting in the slab. This is demonstrated in
Now this clearly shows that for unit S1 the crack
figure 76.21.
will also appear, but will require a larger moment to
To explain this failure mathematically, the concrete cause it. The calculation of the Ultimate Moment
elastic moment and the crack moment were Capacity was also conducted for further proof.
calculated for both unit S1 and S2 to give a Yield stress fy was found to be 350 MPa.
comparison between the two failure modes.
T = Asfy = 618 x 0.350 = 216.3 kN
First, for unit S2 it had the following characteristics:
the transverse crack that caused the failure L5 T
a= = 13.04 mm
occurred at a shear force/stud of 58 kN. The mesh 0.85fc' b
Neutral Axis Unit S2: M=216.3(65-56-(13.04/2)) = 0.536 kNm

≤ 35 mm Unit S1: M=216.3(65-46-(13.04/2)) = 2.916 kNm
.
> 35 mm
Mesh
This shows that for unit S2 there is not sufficient

moment generated to withstand the forces acting
Actuator Actuator on the slab, while for unit S1 there was sufficient
Direction Direction
moment to withstand the force and generate good
a. Mesh Depth at 35 mm; Unit S1 b. Mesh Depth at 50 mm; Unit S2 strength. Figure 76.22 shows the ultimate moment
actions.
This mode of failure can be prevented by ensuring

Fig. 76.21
that the mesh depth is not greater than 35 mm
Rolling Fracture
from the top of the slab cover the line of the shear to the nominal component capacity in order to
studs. determine the number of shear studs required.
Crack Table 76.2 Strength Reduction Factor Comparison

Mesh
Canada UK Eurocode New
T Zealand
jd
a C Shear Stud 0.8 1/1.25 1/1.25 1.0
Concrete 0.6 1/1.5 1/1.5 1.25/1.5
= 0.83
Compression Steel 0.9 1/1.1 1/1.1 1.25/1.1
Block = 1.13
Actuator Direction
7. Recommendations for Further Research
Fig. 76.22
Forces Actions After Cracking These are as follows:
6.7 Recommended changes to the composite (i) To determine the influence of rib end
beam design procedure support conditions on suppressing the rib
rolling failure shown in the secondary beam
6.7.1 Minimum shear connection ratio (ie. tests, by adding stiffening ribs to the test
partial composite action) specimens to represent continuity of slab
beyond an internal secondary beam.
From a comparison of all the provisions it is
appropriate to amend the Partial Composite Action (ii) To determine the influence of shear stud
(PCA) limit to that given by Eurocode 4 [8] Clause height/diameter ratio on the load-deflection
6.1.2(2), to give a more realistic minimum PCA characteristics and design capacity reached
ratio. The New Zealand provisions state that the (i.e. provide experimental data to replace the
PCA is taken as a minimum of 50 %, while the dotted line AB in figure 76.14).
Eurocode stipulates a minimum value of PSC br
taken as 40 % up to 10 meters, increasing to 100% (iii) To determine the influence of mesh height
at 25 meters. on spandrel secondary beam capacity.
6.7.2 Correlation factor for component (iv) To determine the splitting capacity of
capacity equations spandrel beams and so allow the design
recommendations of section 6.5 to be
This is being presented for completeness although updated.
it is not intended to make changes to the design
procedure.
References
Table 76.2 shows the influence on shear stud
number determination if this is determined by 1. New Zealand Standard (NZS 3404:1997),
matching design capacity of shear stud to design Steel Structures Standard, Standards New
capacity of the critical component action, as is Zealand, Wellington. And Amendment No. 1,
done with the three international procedures 2001.
studies. Where the compression generated within
the concrete slab governs, adopting this approach 2. Lin, Y., Butterworth, J., and Ingham. J.
would result in a reduction of 0.83x the exact (2001). “Capacity of Shear Studs Embedded
number of shear studs required by current New in Lightweight polystyrene Concrete
Zealand practice. Where the tension generated Diaphragms”, School of Engineering, Civil
within the steel beam governs, adopting this and Resource Engineering, University of
approach would increase the number of shear Auckland, Report No. 607, December 2001.
studs required by current New Zealand practice.
3. Jayas, B. S. and Hosain, M. U. (1988).
The net result across all application would be a “Behaviour of headed stud in composite
benefit in terms of reducing the number of shear beams: push-out tests”, Canadian Journal of
studs required, however the complexity of Civil Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2, (pp. 240-
changing design process outweighs this benefit. It 253).
is therefore preferable to leave the currant
practice of matching design shear stud
capacity, incorporating a partial strength
reduction factor = 1.0 in positive moment regions,
4. Jayas, B. S. and Hosain, M. U. (1989). 15. Johnson, R. P. and Anderson, D. (1993).
“Behaviour of headed stud in composite Designers’ Handbook to Eurocode 4 part
beams: full-size tests”, Canadian Journal of 1.1:Design of Composite Steel and Concrete
Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 2, (pp. 712- Structures. Thomas Telford, London.
724).
16. Hawkins, N.M. and Mitchell, D., (1984).
5. Canadian Standard (CSA S16-01: 2001). “Seismic Response of Composite Shear
Limit States Design of Steel Structures, Connections”, Journal of Structural
Canadian Standard Association, Ontario, Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. 9 (pp.
Canada. 2120-2136).
6. Zaki, R.J. (2003) “Shear Stud Capacity in 17. Butterworth, J. (2000). “Push-off tests on
Profiled Steel Decks”, HERA Report R4-122, shear studs used with a deep ribbed deck”,
December, 2003. Auckland UniServices Limited, University of
Auckland, Report No. 8258.00, (pp. 25).
7. British Standard (BS 5950 (1990)).
Structural use of steelwork in building, Part 18. Clifton, C. (2002). Notes prepared for
3: Design in composite construction, Section “Composite Steel Design and Construction
3.1: Code of practice for design of simple Seminar”, HERA Report R4-113, 2002.
and continuous composite beams, British
Standards Institution, London. 19. Hyland, C., Clifton, C., Butterworth, J,. and
Stickland, S., (2001). “Composite Down-
8. Eurocode 4: ENV 1994-1-1:1994, (1994). Stand Steel Beam Behaviour with a Profiled
Design of Composite Steel and Concrete Deep-Deck Slab”, Proceeding of
Structures Parts 1-1 General Rules and Australasian Structural Engineering
Rules for Buildings, BSI Standards, London, Conference, 2001.
pp. 143-148.
9. Hyland, C., Clifton, C., Butterworth, J,. and

Stickland, S., (2000). “Shear studs in
composite construction: concepts in
capacity”, Steel Design and Construction
Bulletin, HERA, No.55, (pp. 18-28).
10. Ollgaard, J. G., Slutter, R. G., and Fisher,

J.W. (1971). “Shear strength of stud
connections in lightweight and normal-
density concrete”, Engineering Journal,
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Vol. 8, (pp. 55-640.
11. New Zealand Standard (NZS 3101: Part

1:1995). Concrete Structures Standard –
Part1 – The Design of Concrete Structures,
Standards New Zealand, Wellington, pp.
209-212.
12. Oehlers, D. J. and Bradford, M. A. (1995).

Composite Steel and Concrete Structural
Members, Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford,
U.K.
13. Slutter, R. G. and Driscoll, G. C. (1965).

“Flexural strengths of steel – concrete
composite beams”, Proc. ASCE, J. structural
Div., Vol. 91, No. ST2, April 1965, pp. 55-64.
14. Grant, J., Fisher, J.W. and Slutter, R.G.,

(1977). “Composite beams with formed
metal deck”, Engineering Journal of the
American Institute of Steel Construction,
Vol. 14, 1st quarter, (pp. 24-42).
P O Box 76-134
Manukau City,
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885

Fax: +64-9-262 2856
No. 77 March 2005

The author(s) of each item or paper in this publication are noted at the The effort and input of these reviewers is greatly
beginning of the article. The material herein has been the subject of appreciated, as is the contribution of Raed Zaki, Technical
review by a number of people. Editor of this issue.

Due to a combination of over-commitment and Bolted Joint Coatings for Faying
1
inadequate planning from the HERA Senior Surfaces
Structural Engineer, Charles Clifton, the production Advanced Analyses of Slab Panel
of the DCB’s for the 2003/2004 year ceased at Floor Systems Under Severe Fire 3
Issue No 76 in October/November 2003. This is Attack
the next issue and, as the publication date above Large Scale Test of Highly Reinforced
shows, it is running somewhat behind schedule, Panel Zone and Design 18
given that it should have been the December Recommendations
2003/January 2004 issue. References 23
It is planned to produce Issue No’s 77 to 79 over

the first half of 2005, thus completing what should
Bolted Joints: Coatings for
have been the 2003/2004 production run. For Faying Surfaces
2005/2006, the planned format will change to two
issues per year. This means that there will have This paper has been written by Willie Mandeno, Opus
been a one year gap in the production of the International Consultants Ltd and reviewed by Charles Clifton,
HERA Senior Structural Engineer.
DCB’s.
In a high strength friction type joint designed to the
This issue of the DCB addresses two diverse
tension friction mode (8.8/TF) to NZS 3404 [1],
design issues – slip factors for tension friction type
loads are transferred not by bearing and shear on
(/TF mode) bolted joints and the effectiveness of
the bolts, but by friction between the plies after
heavily reinforced panel zones under seismic
each bolt has been pre-tensioned to its installed
loading. The paper on panel zones also makes
bolt tension. When designing these joints it is
design and fabrication recommendations based on
necessary to know the friction coefficient or slip
large scale testing and advanced finite element
factor (µs) that the contact or faying surfaces will
analysis of beam to column connections with rigid
develop. This article discusses the effect that
and bolted moment-resisting connections.
coatings used to protect members from corrosion
have on this slip factor.
In between are details of the analyses on inelastic
response of composite floor systems to severe fire
The slip factor for clean “as-rolled” surfaces when
attack that have been undertaken as part of the
designing to NZS 3404 [1] (or AS 4100 [2]) is taken
work on the development of the Slab Panel
as 0.35. When a coating or other applied finish is
Method of design of floor systems for dependable
used including a machined surface, the slip factor
inelastic response to fully developed fires.
“shall be based upon test evidence”. Appendix K of
NZS 3404 sets out the method for the testing of
This issue is available in .pdf format to allow the
coatings to be applied to the faying surface. This is
figures to be viewed in colour. This is of particular
Appendix J in [2]. Table C9.3.3.2 in NZS 3404.2 [1]
interest to readers of the slab panel article, to view
gives some typical slip factors, but the commentary
the many graphs presented herein in colour.
notes that the given “values of slip coefficient are
indicative only, and actual values will vary within a
generic type according to the formulation of the
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 77, March 2005
surface coating used.” It also states that “it is zinc silicate (IZS) paint to AS/NZS 3750.15 [8],
unrealistic to assign one value for a generic where its clause 2.6.5 states “When determined by
coating system, and major reliance has to be the method for evaluation of slip factor described in
placed on results from the test method specified in AS 4100/NZS 3404.1, the slip factor for the dry
Appendix K” and “Evidence conforming with the coating on the test panels when prepared in
test method of Appendix K should be obtained accordance with Appendix E and cured for 7 days,
from the manufacturer of a corrosion protection shall be not less than 0.35”. This is not included as
system”. an option in the Standard for organic zinc rich
paints AS/NZS 3750.9 [9]. However, since the
In the USA a similar test method, given in the move to replace IZS in multi-coat systems with
Research Council on Structural Connections epoxy zinc-rich organic primers, several
(RCSC) Specification [3], is used to qualify manufacturers have tested their products and are
coatings by determining their slip-coefficient as able to certify that some of these organic primers
either Class A (0.33) or Class B (0.50). also meet this slip factor requirement.
Galvanizing that has been grit blasted to expose
the Fe/Zn alloy layer is designated Class C (0.35). Designers and Inspectors should be aware that the
In the UK, slip factors for design are given in BS value of this certified of slip factor is dependent on
5950-1 [5] or are determined from testing as full cure (testing of IZS is done after seven days
specified in BS 4604 [6]. cure), also on the level of surface preparation (e.g.
surface profile and type of abrasive used) and the
The slip factor can be highly variable, as shown in coating thickness (which may be limited to a
the following table of values that have been maximum of 50 microns) as used in the certifying
published for various surfaces [4 & 7]. test. This may require masking of faying surfaces
to prevent these areas being overbuilt and they
Table 77.1 Slip Factors should also protected from overspray and other
Surface Treatment Slip Factors contaminants, until HSFG bolting of the joint is
Millscale 0.32 – 0.60 ready to be carried out.
Rusted steel 0.43 – 0.55
Abrasive blasted 0.53 – 0.78 Thermal Metal Spray
Red lead paint 0.05 – 0.07
High values of slip factor can be obtained for zinc
Galvanizing (new) 0.08 – 0.20
and aluminium coatings applied by the arc spray
Galv. (weathered) 0.15 – 0.26
process. Optimum performance has been found on
Galv. (abraded) 0.28 – 0.54
coatings between 50 and 100 microns thick. (The
Organic Zinc primer 0.20 – 0.54 lowest value reported for thermal spray aluminium
Zinc silicate primer 0.38 – 0.65 (TSA) was at 250 microns). Aluminium, being
Thermal Zn spray 0.42 – 0.82 harder than zinc, gives a higher factor for TSA than
Thermal spray Al 0.40 – 0.79 TSZ (typically 0.5 vs. 0.4) but both may be reduced
by use of a sealing coat; so faying surfaces of
These can be compared with slip factors given in HSFG joints should be masked prior to sealing
the Standards. The main reference on this subject or any post painting.
by Kulak, Fisher and Struik [7], i.e.;
Galvanizing
Table 77.2 Slip Factors Comparison.
[7]
Kulak et al
NZS3404.2
[1]
BS5950-1
[5]
a Galvanizing will also reduce the joint slip factor to
Average Std Dev
Millscale 0.35 0.30 below that of uncoated steel, but this may be
“Untreated” 0.20 restored to 0.31 by wire brushing or sweep blasting
“Wire-brushed” 0.30 according to work published by the Galvanizers
Abrasive blasted 0.53 0.50 0.52 0.04 Association of Australia (GAA) [10]. Care is
Red oxide alkyd 0.11 required with both these post treatments to
Galvanizing 0.18 0.20
Galv. (weathered) 0.20 0.06
roughen rather than polish the surface when
Galv. (wire- brushing, and to avoid damage to edges when
0.37 0.01
brushed) abrasive blasting. A recommended procedure for
Galv. (abraded) 0.30 – 0.40 0.44 0.02 sweep blasting is specified in Appendix I of
Organic Zinc primer 0.47 0.07 AS/NZS 4680 [11].
Zinc silicate primer 0.61 0.03
Thermal Zn spray 0.40 – 0.50 0.42 0.04
Thermal spray Al 0.50 0.74 0.08 Higher values can be achieved and the writer
a
Note on Table 77.2: Standard Deviation challenged the adoption of 0.4 in the design of
satellite earth stations built in Japan for NZPO.
Zinc-rich primers Subsequent testing of bolted joints from weathered
galvanizing used in the space-frame measured an
Specification of a minimum slip factor is an average slip factor of 0.45 (TM-K-1743) [12]
optional requirement for purchasers of inorganic
compared with a factor of 0.2 recommended by the Background
GAA.
HERA is nearing the conclusion of a multi-year
Values for Design research project aimed at utilising the dependable
strength of inelastically responding composite floor
As noted in Part 2 of NZS 3404 [1] (which should systems in fire, through the development of
be studied for further information on design appropriate design procedures and detailing
aspects), care is required in selecting a slip factor requirements.
value for design of HSFG joints where coatings are
used. Oil and alkyd based paints will significantly This three-part paper presents results from
reduce the joint strength, so faying surfaces should advanced finite element analysis for three
be masked off before painting, and crevices sealed significant steps towards the completion of this
after erection if necessary to prevent rust staining. project. These parts are:
The HERA Senior Structural Engineer has direct - Part 1: The influence of slab panel edge
experience of the importance of removing oil sagging in fire on the performance of reinforced
based contaminates from the faying surfaces. concrete slab panels.
During the experimental testing programme for - Part 2: Finite element modelling of three
development of the Sliding Hinge Joint (SHJ), as Standard Fire tests on beams (to test the
reported in [13], one of the test specimens was validity of the FEA modelling of composite
assembled with a residue of fabricating oil on the beams by using experimental tests on beams
contact surfaces. The effect on slip factor of this oil with known support conditions and subject to
was significant, becoming apparent even on initial closely prescribed heating conditions)
assembly of the joint, to the extent that the test - Part 3: Modelling of a complete floor system,
specimen was disassembled and cleaned before where the slab panel comprises a reinforced
proceeding with the test. concrete slab supported on unprotected
secondary beams and this slab panel is
The slip factor used for joints coated with zinc rich supported on protected (or very strong
paints should be based on the manufacturers unprotected ) supporting beams.
certified minimum value, which may be between
0.33 and 0.5, depending on the test procedure and The purposes behind each part and how they
class of coating. The selected brand of paint must contribute to the overall project is as follows:
then be specified and also applied within the
allowable thickness range. (i) Part 1 uses the finite element model validated
from the experimental tests of [14] for reinforced
If non-certified coatings or post-paint treatments concrete slab panels with vertically rigid
are proposed, and slip factor values higher than pin/roller edge supports (i.e. supports allowing
their minima reported in the literature are required edge rotation and horizontal movement but no
in the design, then these should first be proven by vertical movement) and extends this to
testing samples with the actual treatment to be determine the panel behaviour when test
used. supports deform vertically in a realistic manner.
These tests are all reinforced concrete flat slabs
Footnote with varying lengths and widths.
When calculating the allowable shear in a slip For panels with a ratio of length to width of 2,
resistant joint, the slip factor also needs to be the influence of horizontal edge stiffness
multiplied by various reduction factors to allow for (restraining the edge against horizontal
the type of hole (e.g. if hole is slotted), the number movement) was also determined.
of effective interfaces and installed bolt tension.
These details are given in Clause 9.3.3.1 of [1]. (ii) The experimental testing reported in [14] and
the modelling of these tests all involved
reinforced concrete slabs; in only one example
Advanced Analysis of Slab Panel was there unprotected supporting beams (these
Floor Systems under Severe being Speedfloor joists). However, the
Fire Attack application of the design method given in DCB
No 71 encompasses slabs supported on
The following three-part paper has been written by Nandor
unprotected composite steel secondary beams.
Mago, HERA Finite Element Analyst and Charles Clifton, HERA It was considered necessary that the FEA
Senior Structural Engineer. Note that this article is available in model for unprotected composite and non-
.pdf format from HERA to allow the outputs to be viewed in composite beams subject to significant
colour.
deformation in fire, which is an integral part of
slab panel application to actual floor systems,
needed validation through comparison with
experimental tests. This was done through involves peak enforced sagging of span/25 (longer
modelling three UK Standard Fire tests on steel span). This represents what the research team
beams supporting concrete slabs; two with the expects to be the greatest deformation in an
slabs composite and one non-composite. That unprotected edge support beam.
work is reported on in Part 2.
(iii) Part 3 then models a slab panel comprising a The three sizes of slab panel studied have
reinforced concrete slab supported on involved first the size tested in HERA Report R4-
unprotected secondary beams and with the slab 118 [15]; secondly a double of that size and finally
panel supported by beams that undergo a rectangular panel. These sizes are 4.15x3.15m,
negligible deformation in severe fire. This 8.3x6.3m and 8.3x4.15m, respectively. These
incorporates and builds on the work of both individual slabs are not constrained in the slab
parts 1 and 2 and that described in DCB No. 74. plane, as they would be in practice, as part of a
multi-story building. Therefore, the influence of
The final stage in the numerical part of the project slab in-plane stiffness is investigated on the
is to extend the floor slab analyses of Part 3 to slab rectangular slab panel 8.3x4.15m in section 1.4 of
panels supported on deforming beams. This will be this paper.
given in DCB Nos 78 or 79.
Objectives
Part 1: Influence of Slab Panel Edge Sagging
in Fire - Stage 2 of the SPM The main objective of the Part 1 work has been to
determine the behaviour of three different sized
1.1 General slabs due to 180 minutes of ISO 834 [24] fire
loading. This covers monitoring the history of slab
Background central sagging, the stress and strain at selected
positions and pattern of concrete slab cracking.
As described in DCB No 71, the Slab Panel This is reported on for three sets of boundary
Method of floor system design for severe fire is a conditions along the slab edges. As noted in
method for taking account of the inelastic reserve section 1.1, one set is without any sagging, the
of strength available from a two-way acting floor second with LLONGER SPAN/75 displacement at 180
system in severe fire. The area of two-way acting minutes of Standard Fire and the third with
floor system is called a slab panel. The method in LLONGER SPAN/25 displacement at 180 minutes of
DCB No 71 is based on the slab panel being Standard Fire. All analyses initially involved the
supported on edge supports that undergo panels held in place vertically at each corner, with
negligible vertical deformation in fire, compared the edges between corners subject to the enforced
with that expected within the slab panel itself. displacement. This was extended to the 8.30m x
4.15m panel being held in place at the midpoint of
The SPM concepts and details have been the long side as well as at the corners.
validated through experimental testing of six slab
panels supported with rigid vertical supports (and The initial results of that FEA showed large
without any in-plane translation or rotation inwards horizontal movements of the long face,
restraint) and subjected to Standard Fire test. which was free to move horizontally while being
These tests are described in [14]. The tests have restrained to a prescribed pattern of vertical
also been used to validate FEA models; results are deflection. This led to the edges being restrained
given in DCB No 74 and in HERA Report R4-118 horizontally by edge springs of three different
[15]. stiffness levels. The results of this edge stiffness
modelling are given in section 1.4.
This next stage of modelling determines the
influence of flexible edge supports on the panel 1. 2 Finite Element Analysis
response, in order to incorporate this deformation
into the design procedure. General
This influence has been determined numerically The slab dimensions are 4.15m x 3.15m (the same
through subjecting three different sized slab panels as the D147 tested slab from [14]), 8.3m x 6.3m
to the Standard Fire heating conditions, with the and 8.3m x 4.15m. The concrete compressive
slab panels supported on edge supports subjected strength is 30MPa (type siliceous). The amount of
to an enforced displacement. One set has involved reinforcement is calculated for the ultimate limit
vertically rigid supports (i.e. no enforced state of 1.2G+1.6Q (Q is 3 kPa). SI units are N and
displacement). The second set has involved m, thus are in stresses in Pa. The mesh is
imposing a gradually increasing displaced shape designed so that each element contains one rebar.
over time with enforced maximum sagging of Applying enforced vertical displacements, starting
span/75. This is slightly in excess of that expected in the fire step, simulates the flexible boundary
for slab panel supports under the current design conditions along the slab edges. The magnitude of
method. The third set of boundary conditions these is changing according to the ISO 834 [24]
(amplitude) curve. This represents the severest of fire loading and following the amplitude shape of
case in regard to imposing the maximum rate of the ISO 834 Standard Fire curve.
deflection early in the test.
The concrete cover is 25mm for the hot rolled
The pattern of enforced displacements along the reinforcement (500MPa yield strength). The peak
edges are derived from the equation of the elastic temperature at the bottom face of the concrete is
deflected shape for the simply supported beam 0.95*1110=1054.5°C – derived from the SPM
loaded with uniformly distributed line loading, procedure, DCB No 71.
which generates a parabolic displaced shape,
which is a reasonably representation of the Reduced integration 4-node shell elements are
observed deformed shape of a uniformly loaded used (S4R). One quarter of the slab is modelled.
beam subjected to severe fire. See Figure 77.2 for an example.
The peak deformation along the supporting edges In all instances the history of plastic strain, nominal
(at 180 minutes of fire) is derived from the strain (for rebar) is presented at the centre of the
following approach: slab and/or for the element (close to the corner)
which experiences a maximum deformation (i.e.
The second moment of area of a “non-existing” PEEQ) in the shorter span direction at 180 minutes
(i.e. not modelled) 180UB16 supporting beam is of fire loading. In some cases the history of axial
used in the manual calculation. Relating to the forces in the reinforcing bars is also reported.
slab, the approximate resultant reaction force
along each supporting edge is determined from 4.15m x 3.15m reinforced concrete flat slab
first principles for the uniformly distributed load (i.e.
uniform pressure on the slab). This is for a In this case the slab is 100mm thick. The ABAQUS
rectangular slab with pinned boundary conditions composite shell contains four layers, with each
along all edges. This means that the uniformly layer having two integration points (Gauss rule).
distributed loading on the “non-existing” longer There are φ6mm bars at 200mm spacing in both
span beam can be derived. With the known directions. The rebar in the shorter span direction
magnitude of this UDL, the peak displacement of is closer to the bottom face of the slab, as would
all other nodes along the longer span can be generally be the case in practice. The case with
calculated from the equation of the elastic rigid supports is investigated in depth. This has
deflected shape. Next, the UDL is used to back- confirmed that employing fully integrated S4
calculate the total load on the slab. With the known elements does not influence the shape of the slab
value of this fictitious load, the resultant reaction centre deflection curve. On the other hand the
force and magnitude of UDL along the shorter mesh sensitivity issue (shell element dimension
span can be calculated. This yields the shorter versus rebar spacing) is present, since a double
span deflected shape through the same process. density meshed slab results in an inaccurate
The derived nodal displacements are applied on deflection curve, which is linear with 60mm peak at
the slab longer and shorter edges as enforced 180 minutes of fire at the slab centre (not shown).
displacement, reaching their peak at 180 minutes
Figure 77.1 History of vertical deflection

of the nodes at the centre of the slab
and at the centre nodes along the
longer and shorter span. This chart
includes the sagging due to the self-
weight and payload, too. The slab
centre sagging is 2.3mm due to these
loads.
Supported edge Slab corner
Figure 77 .2 Plastic strain in the shorter

16 span reinforcing bars (φ6mm) at 180 min of
fire - the shell elements numbering is
shown. The elements’ ID at the centre and
at the position of peak permanent
deformation is 87 and 16, respectively.
Note: The position of elements 16 and 87 are shown on

87
the figure.
Supported edge
Figure 77.3 History of nominal strain in
the reinforcing bars (φ6mm) in the shorter
(Sh) and longer (L) span direction at the
“centre” of the 4.15x3.15 slab.
Note: The minimum plastic strain available at

ambient temperature for grade 500L mesh is 0.02,
-3
or 20x10 . After 180 minutes of fire, the minimum
-3
plastic strain available is over 300x10 .
Figure 77.4 History of plastic strain in the

reinforcing bars (φ6mm) in the shorter (Sh) and
longer (L) span direction at the “centre” of the
4.15x3.15 slab.
Figure 77.5 History of nominal strain in the

reinforcing bars (φ6mm) in the shorter (Sh)
and longer (L) span direction for element 16 -
4.15x3.15 slab.
Note: see figure 77.2 for location of element no. 16.

reinforcing bars (φ6mm) in the shorter (Sh) and
longer (L) span direction for element 16 -
4.15x3.15 slab.
Next the cracking pattern for the worst case (L/25 sagging) is given at almost the top and bottom face of the
concrete slab. The pictures at 180 minutes of fire loading are shown. The direction of the vector normal to
the crack plane is assumed to be parallel to the direction of the maximum principal plastic strain (red in
colour or dark colour in black & white print).
Figure 77.7 Cracking pattern 5.3mm from

at the BOTTOM face of the slab under
support deformation, L per 25.
Note: Fraction = -0.894 means 0.894 x (50mm i.e.

half of slab thickness) = 44.7mm from the mid-surface
of the slab, downwards. Plus means opposite to the
shell normal direction, that is upward.
the TOP face of the slab – L per 25.
Note: the direction of the crack is perpendicular to the

red arrow (or dark colour in black and white print).
8.15m x 6.30m reinforced concrete flat slab
The slab is 150mm thick, being the thickness required in conjunction with the specified reinforcement to
generate a complying solution from the SPM application. The ABAQUS composite shell contains six layers,
with each layer having five integration points (Gauss rule). There are φ12mm bars at 250mm spacing in both
directions. There were substantial difficulties obtaining a solution for flexibly supported cases. The non-linear
analysis of the L/75 case got stuck at 114 minutes despite of several modification of the *CONTROLS input
data, while the L/25 case experienced extremely slow convergence rate (in ABAQUS/Standard implicit
code), so the analysis was terminated at 1.79 minutes of fire loading (after circa three days of implicit solver
work). This is despite of the concrete material data being identical in all three-size slabs (similarly slow
convergence is experienced with two integration points per layer). Thus the results are reported only for two
cases. NB. ABAQUS/Explicit was not available at the time of this work.
Figure 77.9 History of vertical deflection of

the nodes at the centre of the slab and at
the centre nodes along the longer and
shorter span. This chart includes the
sagging due to the self-weight and
payload, too. The slab centre sagging is
15mm due to these loads.
Supported edge
Slab corner
Figure 77.10 Plastic strain in the

shorter span reinforcing bars
59 (φ12mm) at 180 min of fire - the shell
elements numbering is shown. The
elements’ ID at the centre and at the
position of peak permanent
deformation is 220 and 59,
respectively.
220
Supported edge
Figure 77.11 History of nominal strain in

the reinforcing bars (φ12mm) in the
shorter (Sh) and longer (L) span direction
at the “centre” of the 8.3x6.3 slab.
Note: this is at element number 220.
and longer (L) span direction at the “centre” of
the 8.3x6.3 slab.
Figure 77.13 History of nominal strain in the reinforcing

bars (φ12mm) in the shorter (Sh) and longer (L) span
direction for element 59 - 8.3x6.3 slab.
Figure 77.14 History of plastic strain in the reinforcing

bars (φ12mm) in the shorter (Sh) and longer (L) span
direction for element 59 - 8.3x6.3 slab.
Figure 77.15 Cracking pattern 1.2mm from the

BOTTOM face of the slab – RIGID SUPPORTS.
Note: the direction of the crack is perpendicular to the red

arrow (or dark colour in black and white print).

TOP face of the slab – RIGID SUPPORTS.
8.15m x 4.15m reinforced concrete flat slab
The slab is 100mm thick. The ABAQUS composite shell contains four layers, with each layer having three
integration points (Gauss rule). There are φ10mm bars at 200mm and φ10mm bars at 250mm spacing in the
shorter and longer span direction, respectively. In this instance, there is a central supporting column in the
long span, as shown in the quarter slab view of Figure 77.18.
Figure 77.17 History of vertical deflection of the
nodes at the centre of the slab and at the centre
nodes along the longer and shorter span. This
figure also includes the sagging due to the self-
weight and payload, being 15.4mm.
Midspan support column Supported edge Corner support column
Figure 77.18 Plastic strain in the shorter

span reinforcing bars (φ10mm) at 180 min
of fire - the shell elements numbering is
34 shown. The elements’ ID at the centre
and at the position of peak permanent
deformation is 189 and 34, respectively.
One quarter of the slab in shown.
189
Supported edge

the 8.3x4.15 slab.

the 8.3x4.15 slab.
Figure 77.21 History of forces in the

reinforcing bars (φ10mm) in the shorter
(Sh) and longer (L) span direction at the
“centre” of the 8.3x4.15 slab.
and longer (L) span direction for element 34 -
8.3x4.15 slab.

reinforcing bars (φ10mm) in the shorter
(Sh) and longer (L) span direction for
element 34 - 8.3x4.15 slab.
Figure 77.24 History of forces in the reinforcing

bars (φ10mm) in the shorter (Sh) and longer
(L) span direction for element 34 - 8.3x4.15
slab.

BOTTOM face of the slab – L per 25.
Note: the direction of the crack is perpendicular to the red

arrow (or dark colour in black and white print).

the TOP face of the slab – L per 25.
1.3 Conclusions
For all the slab panels studied, there is more plastic strain in the reinforcing bars in the longer span direction
than in the shorter span direction at the centre region of the slab. This is shown in Figures 77.4, 77.12 and
77.20. The opposite of this is true in the region where the shorter span bars experience the maximum
permanent deformation, as shown in Figures 77.6, 77.14 and 77.23. This applies throughout the duration of
fire loading.
It is also concluded that the flexible supports do not significantly influence the strain in the reinforcing bars.
This can be seen from all relevant figures.
With the larger size slabs the peak strains occur over a larger area, but the magnitude of peak strain is
similar for each size of panel analysed.
As expected, the slab central deflections are larger with flexible edge supports. The relationships between
the central sagging and enforced peak support deflection are given in Table 77.3. The result show the slab
central deflection increases with increasing support deflection, but that only around 50-55% of the support
longer span deflection is added to the slab centre deflection.
The cracking patterns are similar for each size of slabs and the flexible supports have only a minor influence.
Finally, the plastic strain in the reinforcement is at all times well within the strain limit for AS/NZS 4671 grade
500L mesh, which is 2% minimum at room temperature, increasing to over 30% at peak elevated
temperature.
The cases described above are for free-standing slabs. With increasing spans and especially an increasing
length/width ratio, the slab’s lateral in-plane displacements along its perimeter are becoming significant in
fire. Thus the influence of this stiffness is included in the cases analysed in section 1.4 below.
Table 77.3 Deflection data (mm) at 180 minutes of fire loading (includes the sagging due to self-weight and
payload, too).
4.15m x 3.15m Slab centre Longer span mid node Shorter span mid node
RIGID SUPPORT 344 0 0
LLONGER SPAN / 75 374 55 14
LLONGER SPAN / 25 423 166 57
8.30m x 6.30m
8.30m x 4.15m
LLONGER SPAN / 75 729 111 7
LLONGER SPAN / 25 784 332 22
1.4 Influence of the horizontal stiffness restraint against edge movement
This influence was determined for the 8.3m x 4.15m slab. It involved analysing a fourth support set and
another three subsets of boundary conditions. In these analyses the mid-nodes along the longer span edges
are vertically supported throughout the analysis (as if a column would be there) and L/25=4.15m/25=0.166m
enforced sagging is applied at the centre of all 4.15m span edges.
In addition, three other options with elastic springs aligned in the plane of the slab (i.e. horizontal) are
analysed. Three spring stiffnesses are chosen for this study. First, the stiffness of these springs is set at
K1=1e6 N/m per meter length, secondly it is 10 x K1, and thirdly it is K1 / 10. All other input data remained
identical to the already described 8.3m x 4.15m slab (no additional reinforcement is added in the region
above the newly added supports to cover for the negative bending moment). No moment restraint is
provided at the slab edges.
Figure77.27 Quarter of 8.3m x Corner

support
4.15m slab restrained by elastic column
springs in its plane. The left view
port shows some node
numbering. The peak vertical Node 83 Node 63
displacement still occurs at the (support)
centre of the slab (node 220),
while the maximum in-plane
horizontal movement is recorded
at node 83. Node 83 is the centre
node of the 8.3m span, which is
Slab centre (Node 220)
vertically supported. Node 210
The three values for stiffness of the horizontal edge springs are chosen to cover the range of horizontal edge
restraint conditions expected in practice, as given by HERA Report R4-90-DD-Rev. 2 [16]. The most realistic
value for a slab panel supported on a typical multi-storey gravity supporting system on the perimeter of the
building is 1e6N/m per meter length; the other two values (10x and 0.1x the realistic value) mean the
horizontal support stiffness variation expected in practice is covered.
Figure 77.28 Central sagging (node 220) for the

four options. Note: K1 per 10 means K1/10 in
the charts.
Note: see node location in Figure 77.27.
Figure 77.29 Horizontal movement of the centre node

(node 83) along the 8.3m edge. The minus sign means
displacements towards the slab centre.
Figure 77.30 Horizontal movement of node 63 –

centre node of the 4.15m span along the 8.3m
edge. The minus sign means displacements
toward the slab centre.
Figure 77.31 Horizontal movement of node 210 –

centre node of the 4.15m span along the 4.15m edge.
The plus sign means displacements outward from the
slab centre.
The charts above clearly show that the slab deformation is largely dependent on the boundary conditions
and stiffness present along its perimeter. The history of linear (and not temperature dependent) spring forces
at nodes 83 and 210 is shown below.
Figure 77.32 History of in-plane stiffness for

the 1meter segment at the centre along the
8.30m edge. Positive sign means tension in
the spring.
Note: this is at node 83-see the position of this node in

Figure 77.27.
Figure 77.33 History of in-plane stiffness for the
1meter segment at the centre along the 4.15m
edge. Negative sign means compression in the
spring.
Note: this is at node 210-see the position of this node in

Figure 77.27.
For illustration purposes the in-plane displacements of all nodes along the longer and shorter span for the
free in-plane edges case are shown below.
Figure 77.34 Horizontal movement of all

nodes along the 8.3m edge (only the right half
is shown, since there is symmetry). The
minus sign means displacements towards the
slab centre.
Figure 77.35 Horizontal movement of all nodes

along the 4.15m long edge. The plus sign means
displacements outward the slab centre.
In general, the longer span edge tends to move inward (toward the slab centre) over the duration of the fire,
while the shorter span edges tend to move outward (away from the slab centre) in fire. The magnitude of in-
plane stiffness against horizontal movement of the slab panel edges has a significant influence on the central
sagging of the slab panel. This can be seen from Figure 77.28. At 120 minutes in fire, for example (taking a
time at which there are results for all runs), the central downwards deflection is 700mm for the panel with
zero restraint, as compared with under 475mm for the panel with a typical value of horizontal restraint (i.e.
1kN/mm restraint stiffness). When the restraint is only 0.1 kN/mm, the central deflection at 120 minutes is
close to the unrestrained case; this would be the minimum stiffness feasible in practice. When the restraint is
10 kN/mm, which would apply for a very stiff perimeter frame (eg a perimeter seismic resting system), the
central deflection is under 400mm.
When the slab panel is an internal panel - i.e. the long side span over the supports to a panel on the other
side, the restraint stiffness will be greater than 10 kN/mm and the central deflection will be significantly
reduced.
The calculated deflection at “failure”, as defined by the SPM for this slab, is 240 mm (at 129 minutes) which
compares most closely with the curve for K1*10 from Figure 77.28. It is an underestimation of the analysed
deflection at that point by around 75mm. Part of the reason for this lies in the SPM calculated deflection from
the DCB No 71 model being determined for rigid supports, where as these panels analysed have deforming
supports. This is being accommodated in the Stage 2 development of the SPM, in which support deformation
is being incorporated. The expected allowance is 0.55 times the beam span/25 which, in this example, would
add 95mm to the SPM calculated deflection. This is still less than the mid panel deflection associated with
the stiffness K1 and indicates that, even allowing for deforming supports, the SPM is likely to slightly under
predict the mid panel deflection for panels with an aspect ratio of 2 or more.
Part 2: FEA of three Warrington (UK) Fire 2.2 WRCSI 41711 (data sheet number 89) test
Research Station (WRCSI) Fire Tests
An unprotected, non-composite, steel member
2.1 Overview with segmented concrete on the top of the beam
flange is analysed (Figure 77.38). In the fire test,
At the conclusion of the reinforced concrete slab not only was the slab non-composite, it was cast
modelling described in Part 1, the next stage was in segment with a soft, fire resisting infill between
intended to be the analysis of a slab panel with each segments to minimise the contribution of the
unprotected secondary beams spanning onto slab to the fire resistance of the beam. For this
effectively rigid supports. For this stage, the reason, in the FEA the temperature loading is not
realistic slab panel model given in the design applied on the concrete slab, i.e. was kept at
example of DCB No. 71 was used, except that an ambient temperature.
effective flat slab was substituted for the
trapezoidal slab in that example. The principal The fire lasted for 35 minutes, while deflection
purpose of these planned analyses was to data is given until 20 minutes in [17].
hopefully validate one key assumption of the WRCSI 41711 Amplitude curves
SPM, being that the contribution of the 1.2
unprotected secondary beams to the slab panel

moment resistance in the x-direction can be
1
incorporated as described in Section A4.1.5 and 0.8
Figure 71.30 of DCB No. 71.

% of peak temperature
Upper flange
0.6 Lower flange
Web Centre-line
However, the first analyses undertaken generated
much lower central slab panel deflections than 0.4
predicted by the SPM procedure or considered

0.2
likely based on the Cardington fire tests of
composite floor systems [17]. In these analyses, 0
there were a considerable number of input 0 5 10 15 20

Time (min)
25 30 35 40
variables requiring assumptions that could

influence the results. These required comparisons Figure 77.36 Universal steel beam normalized
with experimental testing to determine which amplitude curves as recorded in the fire test.
choices were valid. For this reason, prior to
undertaking further analyses of slab panels with 200
unprotected secondary beams, analyses of 180
unprotected composite and non-composite steel 160
beam in Standard Fire tests conducted at the 140
Warrington Fire Research Station in the UK [17, 120 Test
18] were undertaken. The purpose of these 100

fine mesh
CoarseMesh-El-topping
analyses was to determine the accuracy of the Concrete Segment with E=210GPa=const
Solid modelled slab
modelling of unprotected steel beams supporting 80 Shell modelled slab
a concrete slab in severe fire. 60
40
For this additional stage in the work, one simply 20
supported floor beam without composite action 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
and to two simply supported beams with
composite action were analysed. It was intended Figure 77.37 Mid-span deflection (mm) due to fire
to undertake just one of each beam type, however only, versus fire time (minutes).
the match of FEA deflection to experimental
deflection in the first composite beam (see section Several FEA options were tested, with almost all
2.3) was not very good, leading to the necessity matching very well the experimental data. The
for a second composite beam analysis. In order to conclusion is that this non-composite model gives
verify the accuracy of the concrete and steel a good match with the test. The ABAQUS *TIE is
temperature dependent material data, a new used to connect the beam flange top face to the
complete Excel template was prepared. This is slab bottom face surface. As Figure 77.37 shows,
available to the reader to use at your own risk the solid and shell element modelled slab (without
basis from Nandor Mago, temperature loading) provides identical stiffness
nandor.mago@hera.org.nz. (Steel & Concrete for the UB, up to the end of the recorded
THERMAL PROPERTIES NM check.xls file). deflections.
The results of these analyses are described in

sections 2.2 to 2.4
sensitive to assumptions on input data relating to
concrete slab temperatures for which no
information was given. For example, the two
Centre bottom straight lines in Figure 77.39 are from FEA
options in which only the peak temperatures at the
bottom face of the concrete is changed. This
Support
change resulted in a very different deflection
response, as shown by comparing the upper and
lower curves.
WRCSI 27827 composite slab
300
250
Figure 77.38 Deformed shape after 20.56 minutes Test

WRCSI-27827.inp
of fire loading, half of the beam. Note the 200

Si-epsC1-lower range
WRCSI-27827-StrainH
segmental modelling of the slab. WRCSI-27827-StrainH-30MPa
Deflection [mm]
Concrete 500C
Concrete 578C
150 Ca-MinEpsC1
Concrete 540C
2.3 WRCSI 27827 (data sheet number 16) test Ca conc -Min eps C1
Ca conc - Min eps C1 cont
100
Last
Last cont
In this case, there is full composite action 50

S8R-11SecPt
designed between the steel beam and the

concrete slab. This requires the slab temperature 0
0 5 10 Fire Time [min] 15 20 25
time condition to be input. However, the data for

this test given in [18] is not complete. It does not Figure 77.39 Mid span deflection (due to fire only)
specify the type of concrete (siliceous or curves versus time.
calcareous) used, neither the temperatures in the
concrete slab. Moreover, the reinforcing steel Therefore, another fire test with composite action ,
basic tensile properties are not given. Thus, the for which more experimental data is available,
best practicable assumptions have been built into was analysed.
the models, including the temperature profile
through the slab thickness. In order to match as 2.4 WRCSI 27825 (data sheet number 15) test
closely as possible the fire test mid span
deflection curve, numerous FEA runs have been Two options were prepared for this test, details of
made. which are shown in Figures 77.40 and 77.41.
Concrete options with both types of concrete and Firstly, 21 temperature points were specified
with both ends of the εc1 range (strain at peak through the 130mm flat concrete slab thickness.
compressive stress) have been investigated. The This is with five equal thickness layers. Each layer
concrete slab with S4R and S8R (4-node and 8- had 5 section points and the Simpson’s rule is
node reduced integration shell) elements, in used for numerical integration. S8R and S4R
addition with finer and coarser mesh density, have elements were used to mesh the geometry of the
been analysed. S8R elements with more section concrete slab and steel beam, respectively. This
points (and temperature points) through the approach is very accurate but CPU time
130mm thick slab tend to yield to better FEA consuming (22 hours were required to apply the
approximation. It was a bit surprising to find out first 9 minutes of fire loading).
that in most of the investigated options the used
*CONCRETE DAMAGED PLASTICITY Secondly, the adequacy of a coarser
constitutive model required days of CPU time approximation of the concrete (shell modelled)
rather than hours (implicit code). All this on the slab behaviour was investigated. This meant 9
HERA fairly powerful hardware dedicated to FEA temperature points in total. There were four
(HP x4000 workstation, with two 2.4GHz CPUS layers, each having 2 section points (for the
and 4GB HP RAM) and despite the reasonably Gauss rule). The recorded mid-span deflections of
simple idealisation strategy employed. Options the beam are almost identical up to 9 minutes of
with 9 and 21 temperature points through the fire loading. In addition, these FEA results match
concrete slab thickness were investigated. The well the fire test data. The second, coarser mesh
finer meshed beam option yields to the target approach matches the test data almost exactly up
stress due to gravity loads given in the reference. to 27 minutes, as shown in Figure 77.41.
The influence of steel strain hardening has been Following this it predicts lower deflections than the
also investigated. The full details of each option fire test data. This can be due to several reasons,
analysed are in the input files, which can be e.g. the slab temperature might be higher; more
obtained if desired. section points are required to capture the step by
step increasingly non-linear response of the
The results are shown in Figure 77.39 and are not beam.
a good match. Furthermore, the results are
Finally, the influence of stiffer boundary conditions especially true, if we account for the continuous
at the supports has been investigated, as part of reinforced concrete slab over the supports on the
the wider component contribution analysis. So far top of the beam. Consequently, the FEA predicted
the boundary conditions reflected the fire test deflections may be lower and not always in line
setup – the beams were vertically simply with the predictions of the coarser SPM method. It
supported by steel rods at its both ends, allowing is also important to emphasise that several
free axial expansion. Next, the axial movement of options have to be investigated before an analysis
the bottom flange and web edge (Figure 77.40) can dependably be said to predict the deflections
was restrained. These, stiffer boundary conditions of a composite steel/reinforced concrete slab.
reflect more accurately the case when the beam
ends are bolted or welded to another beam’s web. Part 3: FEA of Telecom Tower’s floor and on
As was expected, these more realistic boundary the accuracy of the SPM
conditions generate mean much less deflection,
as is shown as the bottom curve in Figure 77.41. Having validated the FEA modelling of
Extremely slow convergence was recorded, thus unprotected steel composite beams, the modelling
this analysis was terminated at around 8min of fire of a realistic slab panel incorporating unprotected
loading. beams was returned to. This is the Telecom
Tower floor as featured in DCB No 71, but with an
effective flat slab modelled for convenience
instead of the trapezoidal slab. The composite
steel/concrete structure’s response in natural fire
conditions was simulated by ABAQUS/Standard
(implicit) finite element code. This means
different temperature profile and heating/cooling
curves for the protected and unprotected steel
members and reinforced concrete slab are
applied. There are considerable problems
associated with the concrete analysis in implicit
code(s), which is based on the ABAQUS Concrete
Damaged Plasticity temperature dependent
constitutive model. The main obstacle is the
Figure 77.40 Stiffer pinned boundary condition extremely slow convergence (it is much faster in
applied on the web and bottom flange. ABAQUS/Explicit with the combination of time and
WRCSI 27827 composite slab
mass scaling).
200
From an ABAQUS/Standard simulation, the slab

150
peak deflections and the column vertical reaction
forces have been checked. These indicate good
100 agreement with the predictions of SPM, especially
Deflection [mm]
with the assumed load carrying mechanism of the

50
slab in fire, as described in section 3.1 and the
mid-panel deflections, as described in section 3.2.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 3.1 Comparison of Column Reaction Forces
-50 The design example given in DCB 71 is

Test 21 TempPt
Fire Time [min]
9 TempPt(GaussInt=2) 9 TempPt(GaussInt=2)StifferBC
considered, however with the simplification that
the supports along gridline 3 are considered as
Figure 77.41 Mid-span deflection of the bottom edge supports- i.e. making them the same as
flange in three FEA options and in the fire test. those along gridline 5. This allows symmetry to be
used. Now, taking benefit of the existing
2.5 Conclusions symmetry, it is sufficient to analyse only one
quarter of the building. The bottom left quarter is
The results from sections 2.2 and 2.4 confirmed chosen in this case, i.e. between axes 4 and 5
the adequacy of the modelling of the unprotected and between axes A and the mid-plane between
steel beams in fire, for both composite and non- B and C.
composite action. They also highlighted the
importance of having valid and accurate input First, the column reaction forces are calculated for
data. G+Q loading from the generally assumed slab
tributary areas (Figure 77.42). As this figure
Furthermore, stiffer (i.e. almost in-situ) boundary shows, it is assumed in design that the slab
conditions at the beam supports significantly gravity and payload is firstly transferred onto the
reduce the beam central deflection. This is secondary beams, with their reaction forces acting
as concentric forces on the (simply supported) peak values correspond to G+Q loading in
primary beams along axis 5. The primary edge Newtons.
beam (clamped at both ends) along axis A is
loaded similarly to the secondary beams. The The total column vertical reaction forces are
primary beams reaction forces are appropriately 253.3kN from the ABAQUS study (G+Q) The
summed together with the 7m high columns’ author’s hand calculation, which does not include
weight. Next, the hand calculated column reaction any change in axial forces due to fire, induced
forces (from the above-described “standard” actions, is 244 kN. During the fire, large
simplified structural approach) are compared with deformations take place and some of the initially
the ABAQUS/Standard results. vertical forces will develop some horizontal
components. At 44 minutes in the fire the SPM
The ABAQUS model is a realistic representation method predicts failure (i.e. the design load
of the equivalent 100mm thick concrete flat slab, carrying capacity is reached). At this time, the
that is “rigidly” linked to the primary and secondary beams load carrying capacity is
secondary beam top flanges (shear studs in reduced to the point where the slab panel is
reality). Figure 77.43 shows the finite element transferring loads through two-way yield-line
model of the quarter slab analysed. action into the supports. This load transfer
mechanism is shown in Figure 77.45. At this
stage, the total column vertical reaction forces are
233kN (ABAQUS); meaning that 8% of the initially
vertical forces become horizontal. The history of
individual column reaction forces is shown in
Figure 77.46.
Figure 77.42 Generally assumed simplified load

distribution for G+Q.
Figure 77.45 Assumed load transferring

mechanism for teq=44min according to the SPM.
The height of the triangle shaped tributary area is
3.88m.
Table 77.4 Comparison of column reaction forces.

G+Q Fire - 44min
Hand calc.(HC) ABAQUS (ABQ) ((ABQ-HC)/ABQ)*100 SPM ABAQUS ((ABQ-SPM)/ABQ)*100
64.8 43.5 -49.0% 55.0 71.8 -4.5%
159.9 180.2 11.3% 148.8 130.0 23.0%
Figure 77.43 Wire frame of the analysed quarter 18.9 29.6 36.1% 32.6 31.2 -14.5%
finite element model. 243.6 253.3 3.8% 236.4 233.0 -1.6%
The second step of manual calculations involves

calculating the primary beam reaction forces for
the SPM assumed load-carrying mechanism
(Figure 77.45). Next, the column reaction forces
are calculated for this 44 minutes Standard Fire
loading case. The comparison of column reaction
forces for the G+Q and 44 minutes of fire loading
case is given in Table 77.4. The results indicate
that, in this case, the SPM load transfer is more
realistic for the column reaction forces than the
simple distribution of forces assumed in the
Figure 77.44 History of column reaction forces up ambient temperature hand calculation.
to step-2 (G+Q). Column-1 is the corner one on
grid A-5, column-2 is at the intersection of axis B- Finally, the model deflected shape obtained in the
5, and the half column is that on grid A-4. The implicit code at 62 minutes of Standard Fire
loading is given in Figure 77.47. The depicted This natural fire curve is one of a suite of curves,
shape is a result of 6 days computer work in the all the teq = 44 minutes, that could be generated
implicit code. This analysis was subsequently for this enclosure. Each of these would generate a
extended to 100 minutes of Standard Fire using different response from the floor system. This
ABAQUS/Explicit. natural fire result is chosen to represent one
realistic natural fire scenario.
Also shown on that figure is the calculated

deflection from the SPM procedure at the SPM-
determined failure time of 44 minutes.
The calculated deflection is in reasonable

agreement with that given by analyses;
incorporating the support deformation into the
SPM procedure, as is being done in the final
stage of this project, would in this instance have
added another 45mm to the deflection, giving a
Figure 77.46 History of column vertical reaction close match to the maximum deflection reached
forces up to 62.5min of Standard Fire (including under the natural fire condition.
G+Q). The curves from the top to the bottom DCB No 71 Flat Slab Central Sagging Comparisons
correspond to the columns from left to the right in

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Figure 77.47. -100
-200
Vertical Deflection [mm]
-300
-400
-500
-600
-700
-800
-900
Time [minutes]
SPM design limit NatFire-teq44min ISO 100min (6+4+9.5sec)
Figure 77.48 Slab panel central deflection vs. time

Figure 77.47 Wire frame of the actually deformed and SPM determined value.
quarter of a structure at 62 minutes of Standard
Fire. Large Scale Simulated Seismic
3.2 Comparison of Slab Central Deflection Testing of Beam-Column Sub-
assemblage With Highly
Figure 77.48 shows the central deflection of the
slab panel under two fire loading conditions. The Reinforced Panel Zone
first is 100 minutes of the ISO fire [24]. The
second is under a natural fire curve with a time This paper has been written by Charles Clifton, HERA Senior
Structural Engineer and Andrew Short, Welding Centre
equivalent of 44 minutes. This second case Engineer.
represents a natural fire with a structural fire
severity corresponding to the SPM calculated fire Introduction
resistance of the floor system, i.e. teq=44 minutes.
The natural fire curve has been generated from This paper first describes, in general terms, the
the following enclosure parameters: results of three large scale tests on beam-column
joints with a highly reinforced panel zone.
Fire load energy density = 800 MJ/m2 floor area
Inside height of enclosure = 3.7 m It then presents some changes to the panel zone
Area of openings = 21 m2 design recommendations from DCB No. 57 that
Weighted mean height of openings = 2.1 m2 have been made in light of these tests and the
Floor area of enclosure = 100 m2 finite element analyses of bolted moment-resisting
Thermal inertia of enclosure = 1700 J/m2Cs0.5 endplate (MEP) connections reported in HERA
Reports R4-117 [25] and R4-120 [26].
As described in [16], these physical dimensions
are representative of the “area of fire” in the
Telecom Tower building applying to the area of
floor modelled.
Experimental Testing of Highly Reinforced These tests have produced valuable new
Panel Zones information on the required strength of fillet and
butt welds in welded joints of moment-resisting
The HERA Welding Centre of HERA have frames and the influence of weld defects. They
completed a multi-year research programme into show that the current SP defect limits from NZS
the performance of welded joints in earthquakes. 3404 [1] and AS/NZS 1554.1 [21] are adequate
Details are given in [20]. for both weld types to prevent weld failure in
earthquakes. They also show that double sided,
This has involved 38 dynamic beam-column tests balanced fillet welds between the beam and
of the type shown in Figure 77.49. The loading column deliver excellent performance and that the
regime for these tests has followed the typical current requirement to size the flange welds of
pattern shown in Figure 77.50. these connections on the basis of the flange
overstrength capacity will be able to be relaxed,
probably to the nominal capacity. That is a topic
for the next amendment or revision to NZS 3404.
Figure 77.51 Condition of panel zone of typical

test specimen after testing.
Figure 77.49 Beam-column test set-up showing With regard to the joint panel zone, all the typical
typical member sizes. Note in this case the beam tests showed minor cracking of the painted
is a 410UB54 and the column a 460UB74. surface within the panel zone region, as illustrated
4∆
in Figure 77.51. This level of inelastic demand is
3∆ associated with a panel zone plastic shear strain
2∆
of up to 1% and is in accordance with the
expectations of NZS 3404. In these typical beams,
σ y = 1∆
the actual panel zone peak shear was always
Deformation
close to, but just under the actual panel zone

0 10 20 30
-1∆ shear capacity calculated to NZS 3404 Clause
Step 1
-2∆
12.9.5.3.2 and Equation 12.9.5.3 (5) for the
Step 2 unreinforced panel zone. In all the typical beam
-3∆
Step 3 sizes tested, the ratio of V*/φVp was ≤ 1 with an
-4∆
Number of Cycles Step 3
unreinforced panel zone, thus no doubler plates
a. Typical loading regime were required (for the test, the ratio of
7 4 .1 3∆ V*,max/Vp,actual was close to 1).
4 9 .4 2∆ However, three tests were very different. As a

result of international review of the earlier tests,
Deformation control parameter
2 4 .7 1∆ we were asked to determine if the very good initial

LVDT [mm]
results for beam flange to column flange weld

0 performance, all of which were for welds to beam
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
flanges of between 12mm and 20mm thickness,
1∆
- 2 4 .7
would still apply for thicker beam flanges. This
required the test set-up to be modified in order to
- 4 9 .4 2∆
accommodate the thickest beam flange possible
3∆
onto the available column size (which had to
- 7 4 .1 T im e [s ] remain at a 460UB74 because of test wall and
b. Displacement achieved at actuator for T27. actuator position constraints).
Figure 77.50 Typical Loading regimes for these The calculations showed that, provided the
dynamic tests. column panel zone could cope with the expected
increase on slab panel deformation demand, a lower weld on the top stiffener and the upper weld
200mm deep custom welded beam with 32mm on the bottom stiffener) were formed as
thick flanges would be the thickest beam flanges incomplete penetration butt welds, to allow the
that could be realistically tested to flexural doubler plates to be fitted within the panel zone
destruction, within the limits of the actuator space as recommended in DCB No 57 and NZS
capacity (strength and stroke). 3404 Commentary Clause 12.9.5.3.2. This is
different to the DCB No 57 provisions, which
Figure 77.52 shows the first of the three tests of recommend, welding only on the outside face of
this configuration, prior to testing. the stiffener and the column web. That creates an
unbalanced force transfer, which is not
recommended. The doubler plates were fillet
welded to the tension/compression stiffeners and
to the root radius metal of the column beam to
flange joint in accordance with the DCB No 57
recommendations.
2670
2555
1418.5
1238.5
117
A
B B
44
Ø
Column
428
457
100
460UB74
90 A
12
B-B A A
Figure 77.52 Test No 25 set-up prior to loading. 32PP

A - A Scale x3
(View from end of beam plastic hinge zone back

to the beam-column joint). 32DP
This is clearly a most unusual joint and one which

would test the column tension/compression Figure 77.53 Detail of the panel zone
stiffness and panel zone doubler plate reinforcing reinforcement.
to the limit.
Doubler plate
The NZS 3404 provisions were used to determine Column web
the stiffeners and doubler plates required.
The stiffeners were 32mm thick (i.e. same as the

incoming beam flanges. The doubler plates
required were 10mm thick on both sides of the
web. These were, in fact just outside the Tension/compre
ssion stiffener
recommendations of NZS 3404 Commentary
Clause C12.9.5.3.2 (1) which states that the
doubler plate thickness should not exceed the
column web thickness. In this instance,
twc =9.7mm and tp=10mm, with two doubler plates
required. Figure 77.54 Macro through the welds of the
panel zone.
Any designer presenting such a joint would be
strongly advised to increase the column size! Not Note: the macro is through the bottom half of section BB in
Figure 77.53.
that this combination would ever meet the frame
stiffness requirements from NZS 4203 [22] or
NZS 1170.5 [23]. The ratio of V*≤φVpz in these three tests was
similar to that fro the typical beam-column tests,
Figure 77.53 shows a cross section drawing however in these cases more contribution to φVpz
through the joint while Figure 77.54 show a macro come from the doubler plates than from the
of the panel zone. column web. The results of the tests were awaited
with not a small amount of anxiety; given the
The weld details used were different in one very extent of panel zone reinforcement.
important respect from these recommended in the
panel zone design provisions of DCB No. 57. The As shown in Figures 77.55 and 77.56, the panel
tension/compression stiffeners were welded to the zone performance was visually identical to that of
column web on both sides, using the design the unreinforced panel zones. The panel zone
provisions from NZS 3404 Clause 12.9.5.3.1 (3) to effect on the overall moment-rotation performance
size the welds. The welds between the inside face was also the same for both unreinforced and
of each stiffener and the column web (i.e. the reinforced panel zones. Note also the absence of
local buckling in the beam flanges. This was due these slenderness limits are not met. Advanced
to the very low beam flange slenderness ratio Finite Element Analyses (FEA) of the Moment
(b/t = 3.1). End Plate (MEP) connection given in DCB No 57
Figure 57.18, and the revised joint detail
The results how that, for panel zones with very developed for the 2003 edition of the Structural
heavy doubler plate reinforcement, provided that Steelwork Connections Guide [27], have shown
the tension/compression stiffeners are welded to that these slenderness limits are potentially
the column web on both sides (with an incomplete unconservative for thin doubler plates [25,26].
penetration butt weld on the inside face to make They also indicate that, where plug welds
room for the doubler plate to be fitted in place) the between the doubler plate and column web are
doubler plates additional strength as given by required, instead of four small plug welds placed
NZS 3404 Equation 12.9.5.3 (5) is effective in “symmetrically about the centroid of the panel
practice. zone”, as is specified in Clause 12.9.5.3.3 of [1],
one large, central plug weld should be used. The
reason for this is that any plug weld must be
sufficiently strong to withstand differential strain
demands between the doubler plate and column
web, when one of these commences to yield
before the other. If this isn’t the case, the plug
weld will fail and its buckling restraint will be lost.
The required changes to address these
slenderness and plug weld strength issues
conclude this paper.
Fitting and welding the doubler plates into the

joint
Figure 77.55 Panel Zone on completion of test 25. The doubler plates are fitted between the already
welded tension/compression stiffeners.
The change from DCB No.57 is that both faces of

a tension/compression stiffener against which a
doubler plate is to be fitted must be welded to the
column web, instead of only the outside face as
recommended in DCB No. 57. This will involves a
fillet weld between the outside face of the
tension/compression stiffener and the column web
and an incomplete penetration butt weld between
the inside face of the tension/compression
stiffener and the column web. The revised weld
details are shown in Figure 77.57 and in section
BB of Figure 77.53.
Figure 77.56 Panel Zone on completion of test 26.
The design throat thickness required for the welds
Note: the fracture in the beam bottom flange plastic hinge on both sides of the stiffener are obtained from
zone. the sizing of weld 1 as given in section 4.2, page
23, of DCB No. 57. For the incomplete penetration
Revisions to Panel Zone Design
butt weld, the weld depth for most welding
Recommendations processes must be 3mm greater than the design
General throat thickness, in accordance with AS/NZS
1554.1 [21] Table E2.
The construction of the panel zones for the three
tests described above showed up shortcomings in Slenderness limits and plug weld details
the panel zone design provisions for DCB No. 57.
These shortcomings are in regards to the welding When the slenderness provisions of NZS 3404
of the tension/compression stiffeners to the Equation 12.9.5.3(6) were developed, it was
column web when a doubler plate is to be fitted to assumed that the doubler plate will sit against the
these stiffeners. The recommended changes are column web and thus have restraint against
given under Fitting and welding the doubler plates buckling into the column web. However, as is
into the joint, below: clearly seen in Figure 77.54, this cannot be
assumed.
NZS 3404 Clause 12.9.5.3.3 gives slenderness The doubler plate must therefore be checked for
limits for panel zone elements and what to do if buckling independently of the column web.
Tension/compression stiffeners
PLAN
bf
Doubler plate tw,dp,cw, side
tw,s,cf tw,s,cw Top weld fillet, bottom
or incomplete penetration butt
A Doubler plate (in

Tension/compression front of web)
stiffeners
d
ELEVATION Plug weld if
required
tw,s,cw
tw,s,cf
or
tw,s,cw tw,s,cw
SECTION A-A
Stiffener Stiffener
Column web
tw,dp,s, t and b
Doubler plate
Plug weld if required
Figure 77.57 Welded moment (WM) connection showing stiffeners and doubler plate.
Notes:
1. This connection shows one doubler plate, fitted on the facing side of the column panel zone.
2. Weld details between the beam and column are not shown; obtain these from HERA Report R4-100 [27].
dp,max  fyp 
Furthermore, to ensure that the panel zone will ≤ 82 (77.1)
yield in shear prior to buckling, the overall t p  250 
 
modified slenderness ratio should be limited to 82,
rather than 125 as is currently allowed by where:
NZS 3404 for doubler plates fitted between dp,max = the maximum clear dimension of the
tension/compression stiffeners. doubler plate (i.e. clear length or clear
depth)
The resulting design provisions, which replace tp = thickness of doubler plate
NZS 3404 Clause 12.9.5.3.3, are as follows: fyp = yield stress of doubler plate
Check doubler plate slenderness using:
If equation 77.1 is not satisfied, then the doubler
plate must be plug welded to the column web with
References
a single plug weld placed at the centroid of the
1. NZS 3404.1&2:1997 (and 2001 amendment);
doubler plate, as shown in Figure 77.57. This plug
“Steel Structures Standard”, Standards New
weld must have a solid diameter given by
Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. 1997/2001.
equation 77.2.
2. AS 4100-1998 “Steel Structures” (and 1999
fyp t p Supplement), Standards Australia, Australia,
dwp ≥ 5.1 (77.2)
fuw 1998 and 1999.
3. “Specification for Structural Joints Using ASTM
where:
A325 or A490 Bolts”, RCSC,USA, 2000.
dwp = diameter of the plug weld
4. Everett, ‘Plastic Design of Bolted Joints’,
fuw = nominal tensile strength of plug weld
Kerslake & Partners, Auckland (1973)
metal
5. BS 5950-1:2000 “Structural use of steelwork in
building. Code of practice for design. Rolled
Equation 77.2 is derived from the design capacity
and welded sections”, British Standards
of the plug weld being equal to or greater than the
Institute. 2000
design bearing action of the doubler plate against
6. BS 4604-1:1970 “Specification for the use of
the plug weld. The design capacity is determined
high strength friction grip bolts in structural
as for the shear strength of a bolt shank, while the
steelwork”, British Standards Institute. 1970
design bearing action is determined using 1.25 fyp
7. Kulak et al, “Guide to Design Criteria for Bolted
for bearing compression stress on one side of the
& Riveted Joints” (2 ed.), AISC (2001). Note:
bolt and 0.9 fyp for bearing tension stress on the
This is available as a free download from
opposite side.
http://www.boltcouncil.org/2nd%20Edition%20
Guide.pdf
For a Grade 250 doubler plate and Grade 480
8. AS/NZS 3750.15:1998; “Paints for steel
weld metal, the diameter of plug weld required
structures, Part 15: Inorganic zinc silicate
from equation 77.2, rounded up to the nearest
paint”, Standards New Zealand, Wellington,
5mm, is given by Table 77.5.
New Zealand. 1998.
9. AS/NZS 3750.9:1994 “Part 9: Organic zinc-rich
Table 77.5 Diameter of single plug weld to Grade
primer”, Standards New Zealand, Wellington,
250 doubler plate
New Zealand. 1994.
Doubler plate Doubler plate fy Plus weld 10.“After-Fabrication Hot Dip Galvanizing” (15th
thickness (mm) (MPa) diameter (mm) ed), GAA, Melbourne. 1999.
5 280 15 11.AS/NZS 4680:1999 “Hot-dip galvanized (zinc)
6 280 20 coatings on fabricated ferrous articles”,
8 260 25 Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New
10 260 30 Zealand. 1999.
12 260 35 12.“Test Report for the slip test of hot dip
16 250 45 galvanised joint with HSFG bolts (TM-K-1743)”
MELCO & Shiga Bolt Co, Japan (1985,
The overall panel one slenderness check, which Unpublished Report).
replaces NZS 3404 Equation 12.9.5.3(6), is given 13.Clifton, GC; “Semi-Rigid Joints for Moment-
by: Resisting Steel Framed Seismic-Resisting
 dc − 2t fc  fyp *  Systems”, University of Auckland, Department
  ≤ 82 (77.3) of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
 t wc + k1t p  250  Auckland, New Zealand. A thesis submitted in
  
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the
where: degree of Doctor of Philosophy. July 2004.
dc, tfc = column depth and flange thickness 14. Lim, L and Wade, C; “Experimental Fire Tests
twc = column web thickness of Two-Way Concrete Slabs”; University of
fyp* = as determined by the following NZS 3404 Canterbury School of Engineering,
Equation 12.9.5.X.X Christchurch, 2002, Fire Engineering Research
k1 = 0.25 if the doubler plate is not plug Report 02/12.
welded to the column web 15.Mago, N. & Clifton, GC; “Stage 2 development
= 1.0 if the doubler plate is plug welded to of the Slab Panel Design Procedure”, HERA
the column with a single, central plug Report R4-118, 2004.
weld of diameter satisfying equation 77.2 16.Clifton, GC et. al.; Draft for Development:
Revision 2: Design Procedure for the Inelastic
Floor System/Frame Response of Multi-Storey
Steel Framed Buildings in Fully Developed
Natural Fires; HERA, Manukau City, 2000,
HERA Report R4-90-DD-Rev 2.
17. Kirby, BR; The Behaviour of a Multi-Storey
Steel Framed Building Subject to Fire Attack -
Experimental Data; British Steel Swinden
Corner Fire Test and Large Compartment Fire
Test, 1996.
18. D.E. Wainman, B.R. Kirby; “Compendium of
UK Standard Fire Test Data, Unprotected
Structural Steel – 1”; Department of
Environment Building Research Establishment
Fire Research Station, 1988,
ISBN0900206470.
19. D.E. Wainman, B.R. Kirby; “Compendium of
UK Standard Fire Test Data, Unprotected
Structural Steel – 2”; Department of
Environment Building Research Establishment
Fire Research Station, 1988,
ISBN0900206489.
20. Short, A. et. al.; “Earthquake performance of
Welded Moment Resisting Connections”, New
Zealand Welding Centre Report R8-28, HERA,
2004.
21.AS/NZS 1554.1:2004; “Welding of steel
structures”, Standards New Zealand,
Wellington, New Zealand. 2003.
22.NZS 4203:1992; “General structural design
and design loadings for buildings”, Standards
New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. 1992.
23. NZS 1170.5:2004; “Structural design actions -
earthquake actions - New Zealand
commentary”, Standards New Zealand,
Wellington, New Zealand. 2004.
24. ISO 834.1:1999, Fire Resistance Tests –
Elements of Building Construction Part 1
General Requirements; ISO, Geneva,
Switzerland.
25.Mago, N; “Finite Element Analysis of Moment
End Plate Connections”, HERA Report R4-
117, HERA, Manukau City, 2003.
26. Mago, N; “Verification of Revised MEP
Procedure”, HERA Report R4-120, HERA,
Manukau City, 2003.
27. Hyland, C; Structural Steelwork Connections
Guide Incorporating Amendment No. 1; HERA,
Report R4-100.

DCB 60 To DCB 78

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

DCB 60 To DCB 78

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DCB 60 To DCB 78

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

17-19 Gladding Place

No. 60 February 2001

(2) Tensile membrane enhancement Bailey presents these enhancement factors

Note: This view is taken along the line EF.

4.4 Connections (1) This especially relates to the floor slab,

4.5 Overall structural stability 6.1 Floor to floor compartmentation

7. Controlling The Onset of Structural

The slab panel design method anticipates

There are, however, two ways of minimising this

7.1 Sprinkler protection

7.2 Shielding of the beams by non-fire-rated

Shielding does not suppress full fire development;

Slab Dimensions Slab mesh reinforcement and concrete strength

Lx 8.9 m fyr20,mesh 485 MPa

fyr20,isb 430 MPa

Ambient temperature design shear 92.6 kN

(3) Determination of m'x along side 1

e1mx = 0.58 ; e2my = 0.09 ∗ wuL2

Either a spray or board system should be ∗

 90 − 60  in this instance, as the bolts and

12. Clifton, GC et. al.; Draft for Development:

26. NZS 3402:1989, Steel Bars for the

Notes to Fig. 60.7

1. The beam positions shown are the centrelines.

Notes to Fig. 60.8

1. The beam and joist positions shown are the centrelines.

Side 2, Slab panel 1 Side 4, Lx

Notes to Fig. 60.9

Notes to Fig. 60.10

1. The reinforcing bars shown are deformed high tensile reinforcement.

Interior support bar

Primary interior beam

Note: See Fig. 60.7 for location of this section

Primary edge beam

Note: See Fig. 60.7 for location of this section

Note: See Fig. 60.8 for location of this section

Notes to Fig. 60.15

_____ = slab positive yieldline moment

-------- = slab negative yieldline moment in the x-direction (where

Side 1 = length AD, etc.

F = fixed edge support (side 1 or 3, where applicable)

S = pinned edge support (sides 2 and 4, always)

(a) WP Connection (from [6])

(b) FE Connection (from [6])

Notes to Fig. 60.17

2. Tributary areas for shear capacity checks are also shown.

Notes to Fig. 60.18

Notes to Fig. 60.19

2. Tributary areas for shear capacity checks are also shown.

Slab panel Fire Emergency Design Procedure

A2 Definitions of Critical Components, Variables and Notation

A2.1 Definition of slab panel

A2.2 Determining the size of the slab panel

A lower limit on Ly is Ly = Lx (ie. a square panel).

An upper limit of Ly = 30 m is recommended.

A2.3 Notation used

A2.3.1 Normal font notation

θ = value at elevated temperature