From the HERA Structural Engineering Introduction This issue covers the following items: () The real cost of building in steel; introducing a rational method for costing structural steelwork. Fire design advice - article no. 12. This addresses some issues relating to the design of fire rated external conorete wall panels that follow on from the publication of HERA Report R4-91. (i) Limit state Cold-Formed Stee! Structures standard is now available. (v) Current status of HERA Report 4-49; New Zealand Structural Steelwork Design Guides Volume 2, The Real Cost of Building in Steel Introduction For a successful project, it is necessary to have reliable cost estimates ‘early in the preliminary design process, particularly when different schemes are being prepared for evaluation. For accurate costing of structural steelwork at this (orany subsequent) stage, itis important that the designer undertaking the (preliminary) design has a reasonable understanding of the relative cost implications of what he or she is designing and detailing. Broadly speaking, steelwork costs can be divided into the following four components: (1) Material supply (2) Fabrication/shop detailing (3) Surface treatment (4) - Erection Only if the designer has an appreciation of the relative importance of the costs involved in each of these four components and the individual items that make up these costs, can he or she convey the necessary details on to whoever is undertaking the preliminary costings. (This is usually a quantity surveyor.) The commonly used method of costing steelwork, by many estimators, is to use an historical $/tonne HERA Steol Design & Conctrucon Buon STEEL DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN = Fesoxreraa MANUKAU CITY NEW ZEALAND TEL 0-9-262 2885 FAX 0-9-262 2856 No. 30 MARCH 1997 rate. The problem with this is that the cost of the last three components mentioned above does not correlate with’ changes in steel tonnage. tt is no surprise, then, that the S/tonne method of costing is usually misleading and inacourate. Clark Hyland, Manager of the HERA Steel Structures Analysis Service, has described the futility of using a $/tonne rate from previous jobs to try and predict the cost of a new preliminary design as trying to “predict what the weather in Auckland wil be tomorrow based on last year’s records.” (Gee his article on costing in the accompanying issue of HERA News.) ‘The remainder of this article describes details of a better costing method that has been developed and the steps being taken to promote the use of this method throughout the construction industry. This wil allow all groups involved in steel design and costing to improve their understanding of the real cost of building in steel and hence improve their service to their client. Using a Rati ‘ostin: Structur elwork What is a better approach? The answer is contained in a paper by Martin Feeney, former SSAS Manager and Ken Watson, Structural Steel Development Group, BHP Australia. This paper, entitled The Real Cost of Building in Steel:Using a Rational Approach for Costing Structural Steelwork [1], was presented at the 1997 IPENZ Conference. It fs avallable from HERA Information Centre; details are given on the attached order form. i is assumed that all Bulletin readers have an interest in the use of structural steel, therefore you should all obtain and read this paper, then start re-thinking how you present your design information for costing purposes. The rational approach [1] addresses directly the four major components of costing mentioned opposite. It allows costs for each component to be rapidly and accurately determined for each item of steelwork. This is best illustrated in the costing example presented in appendix A of [1]. This example is reproduced herein as Fig. 30.1 No, 80, March 1987po FIC § | 85m L 610UB101 Grade 300PLUS. m BS 121.00 $1029 ‘wastage 0.5m (ex 9.0m standard length) m 05 121.00 S61 . allowance for web side plate cleats (2%) ‘$21 : Fabrication item web side plate end connection (2 off) hrs: 3 40.00 $120 7 ROZP primer om 15.6 9.00 $140 Erection labour cost (3 riggers) member 1 48.00 ‘$48 Note: Cost of connections are included with the supported member: therefore cost ofthe cleats along the ‘member are included withthe secondary beams Fig. 30.1 Costing of Primary Steel Floor Beam (Append A from [1]) ‘The rates/costs associated with each unit given in Fig. 30.1 are taken from appendices B to E of [1]. These appendices list unit rates for components of material supply, fabrication (Including transport), surface treatment and erection, respectively The rates/costs given therein [1] have been derived from consultation with industry. They are indicative; one of the tasks underway at present is to refine them and extend the range of ‘components. covered, with ongoing industry discussions. All readers of that paper should look carefully at the items covered in those four appendices and the relative values of the rates/costs given therein. These are the important factors that go into the four major cost components mentioned in the introduction to this article, Steelwork costing using this data is well suited to computer-based application and can be readily set up on a spreadsheet. HERA Stee! Design & Construction Built The benefit arising from putting more intelligent effort into the costing {8 the much increased confidence that can be placed in the results. For example, the result of looking up surface areas and rates for corrosion protection is more reliable than trying to obtain an accurate adjustment to a $itonne rate, if a change requires part of a structure to be painted when it was originally priced as unpainted. More generally, the structural designer and cost consultant can gain a better understanding of how economies can be achieved in steel construction. The rational method does not require any more effort by a structural designer, but it uses much more of the information that is assumed or generated (and wes previously wasted) during preliminary design (eg. whether the connections are rigid (moment-resisting) or simple). What it 2 No, 90, March 1997does illustrate, very clearly, is the type of information that the structural designer must provide in order that an accurate preliminary cost can be determined. In a nutshell, this involves: (Types of connections proposed (je. simple or rigid). (i) Preliminary member sizes and quantities. i) of any major fabrication items required on members, such as reinforced openings in beams, and which members these are to be applied to. (wv) Surface treatment required for corrosion or fire protection. () Requirements for shear studs (note these are either included in the steelwork of floor system cost, but not in both). Advising cost consultants of the steel member sizes only is equivalent to expecting them to cost a reinforced conerete frame without giving them the reinforcing contents! Costing Comparison_of Floor Beam Layouts Readers should briefly look at the costing comparison of the two floor beam layouts given in Issue No. 28 of the Bulletin. This compares the total estimated cost of two floor beam layouts, using the rational costing method (although summary details only are shown). The important points to note from this comparison are that: () The least weight option is not the least.cost option. (©) The S/tonne rate is totally inadequate as a costing tool. (© Transportation and erection costs need to be considered in building steelwork cost comparisons. Activities Planned The publication of [1] and this article marks simply the first stage of implementing and promoting an improved understanding of costing steelwork. Very briefly, the future activities planned involve: (1) Continuing feedback from the industry to refine the cost data presented in [1] and to expand the scope of items covered (ongoing). (2) Publication of a detailed example, covering costing of a complete medium-rise steel office building. (8) Preparation of simplified guidance on what information structural designers need to produce for quantity surveyors, to enable reliable costings to be made and publication HERA Stool Design & Construction Buietin of indicative rates (per metre length, per square metre of surface area or per component) for the various items involved. (4 Ongoing liaison with structural designers and cost consultants to both give information and receive feedback on improving the costing of _ structural steelwork Fire Design Advice : Article Number 12 Update on Various Issues Relating to Design of Fire Rated External Concrete Wall Panels for Fire Resistance introduction In November 1996, a seminar series was held on design of steel buildings for fire emergency conditions. A very comprehensive and stand- alone set of seminar notes was prepared and published as HERA Report R4-91[2]. (One topic covered in these seminar notes was the design of fire rated external concrete wall panels for fire resistance. Since then, there have been a number of issues to arise in relation to this topic. The purpose of this Fire Design Article is to address these issues. Itstaris with an issue of wider scope than just the design of fre rated concrete wall panels, namely the identification and correction of several errors and amendments. in..the version of Report Ri4-912] presented to seminar attendees. Errors and Amendments it riginal Ve of HERA Report R4-91 These errorsiamendments were picked up and corrected in the master copy of HERA Report R4~ 81 [2] in December 1996. Those who had already received copies of the report were notified of the changes in two memos [2a]. The people affected by this are all those who received their report before mid-December. Coples of these memos are available from HERA Information Centre; see the attached order form for details. Brief details of the changes made to the pre-mid- December version of [2] are as follows: Session 2: + addition of new section 2.3.6 and associated changes to oross-referencing + correction of calculated ratio of AVA, in section 2.3.3.2 ‘No. 30, March 1987Session 4: + removal of the aluminium rivet as a seam fastener option in Table 4.1 for concrete wall buildings under roofs of fully developed fire conditions (¢ will melt at the temperatures expected) | * correction of the expression for the required slotied hole distance given in Fig, 4.15(b) of [2] between the left hand end of the slotted hole (ie. the end closest to the Portal. frame..column). and. the, bolt. tothe .. eaves channel restraint. This expression... should read: [Ger= AB) Lea ~ Ae] ‘The original expression had the square root missing from the expression in brackets ( ), which gives an impossible answer! The design example in appendix 84, 4.4, uses the correct expression. on page + correction of some minor typographical errors in appendix B4 Session 5: * increase in the value of calculated structural fire severity for the three LBTF tests (test nos. 3-5 in Table 3-1 of [2}) to account for the use of light-weight concrete in the floor slabs and in the separating walls. The original. values: where calculated:.assuming- normal weight conorete; however; subsequent to the seminar notes. being prepared, HERA has obtained from the UK products of the concrete and steel supporting cleat Portal frame column HERA Stoo! Design & Constucton Bulotin used in these tests, which show that light- ‘weight concrete was used. Copies of R4-91 received after mid-December 1996, include these changes. +hannel_Restraint ortin Multiple Vertical Panels In order to provide dependable support for vertical spanning concrete side wall panels under severe fire or under severe earthquake conditions (each acting: independently; not concurrently), the: concept of the eaves channel restraint has been developed in Report R4-91 [2]. The concept is developed in section 4.5.1.3 of [2] and shown in Figs. 4.13 to 4.15 therein. Fig. 4.13 is reproduced herein as Fig. 30.2, in order to illustrate the points discussed below. In deriving the design provisions for the eaves channel restraint, as given therein [2], it is assumed that each vertical spanning wall unit wil have a width equal to the frame spacing. itis also assumed when deriving the seismic design moment for the channel member, in section 45.1.3.2(3) of (2), that the wall panel is only connected to the channel at the two points, one of which is shown in Fig. 80.2 above (Fig. 4.13 of (2). This means that the maximum” seismic- induced moment in the channel is that given by equation 4.4 of [2]. Since [2] was published, however, the HERA Structural Engineer has ‘been asked. what the difference would be: each channel supported more than one vertical spanning.wall panel Ie. the. panel width was less than the frame spacing. “= channel with toes down (web parallel to ground) pair of castin inserts with 600mm | od threaded through each ‘— stiffener in channel to provide lateral restraint to inside flange Fig. 30.2 Part Plan of Wall Showing Eaves Channel Restraint Concept (Fig. 4.13 from (2) 4 No. 90, March 1997‘The changes required to accommodate this are minor, and involve: (1) The maximum seismic design moment (Mz) will be determined from the seismic design loads at each point of panel attachment. This is determined from normal statics and is likely to dictate the required channel design moment capacity. The channel must Maxchannat 2 Me» (2) The length between the cleat and the first insert in from the column (Loca in Fig. 30.2) must be between 1.2m and 1.5m, rather than obtained by using the definition given in section 4.5.1.3.2 (2.1) of [2]. The length must be sufficiently long so that the deformed shape under fully developed fire conditions, as shown in Fig. 4.14 of [2], can be dependably achieved. Hence the lower limit of 1.2 metres. The upper limit is to avoid the cantilever length, and hence the seismic design moment at that point, becoming 100 large, however this is less cfiical when more than one panel. is supported laterally off the channel. be sized so that (8) The requirement of section 4.5.1.3.2(4) of [2] must be met, for the wall panel to channel connection at the end of the channel length that will be expected to deform in severe fire (é. the connection shown in Fig. 30.2 on the previous page). This willavoid-that connection-faling-under fully developed. fire-conditions.. (4). All_other requirements are as per section 4.5.1.3.2 of [2]. Use of Deformable Column to Panel Ties The connection between the vertical spanning wall panel and the column must hold the two components together during a severe earthquake or severe wind, while dependably accommodating substantial relative movement between the column and the panel, at the of the conneetion, during a severe fire. In Australia, BHP Research have developed a deformable column to panel tie for the severe fire application. This tie also has the capability of providing resistance against ambient temperature separation of the panel and column under design ultimate limit state wind conditions (up to a point), but wil certainly not hold the two dependably in contact. under design ultimate limit state earthquake - induced loading. level ‘The deformable tie is also not an easy component to fabricate on a job by job basis, being required to be shaped to a specific and unusual shape (a5 shown in Fig. 30.3) HERA Steal Design & Construsion Bulletin 5 cow. sat 2am 2016 Bote aaa RIL Assy Fig. 30.3 Proprietary Deformable Column To Panel Tie ‘These twin problems of inadequate earthquake performance and the expense of job-specific fabrication are desoribed in section 4.5.1.3.1 of [2] and are the reasons why a different approach was developed therein for New Zealand application. That approach involves the use of the eaves channel restraint, as described in section 4.5.1.3 of [2] (and modified above for a different panel arrangement to that anticipated when writing the provisions in [2)) ‘The behaviour of these vertical spanning concrete wall panels in fire and the design actions required to be resisted are well described in BHP SSDG Technical Note Issue No. 1 [3]. Because much of that material is relevant to New Zealand application .and.to make.the,maximum possible use of.existing published. data, that Technical. Note [3] has been Included in HERA Report R4-91[2] as appendix ‘A4,-with the. section: relating to use of the deformable column to panel tie replaced by use of the eaves channel restraint. ‘Another option for designers has opened up, with news, in the December 1996 Issue of Construct in Steel, that the deformable column to panel ties are now available in Australia as proprietary items, from ‘two manufacturers. These are: (1) TILTLOK Fireties (see Fig. 30.3), manufactured by Speedibott Pty Ltd Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (2) Fire Ties™, manufactured by Fire Ties Pty Ltd Kunda Park, Queensland, Australia Phone: +61-7-476 8811 Fax: +61-7-445 6969 In the New Zealand application, these fasteners ‘would be used to cater for the ultimate limit state fire condition, while standard seismic detailing, eg. as recommended by the Cement and Concrete Association, at phone 0-4-499 8820 or fax 0-4-499'7760, would be used for ultimate limit state earthquake performance. Note that the latter No. 90, March 1997must cater for rotation of the connection due to the lateral deflection of the building. A cast-in This combination of unrated columns. and rated insert bolted through a plate which is welded onto boundary walls is common in Australia, but the the column flange would be suitable; simply HERA Structural Engineer has been unable to ‘welding the flange tips to a steel plate cast into the find any example there that could demonstrate ‘wall panel is not, as it has very limited rotation unsatisfactory performance. If any reader knows of Ueformation, The new C & CA “Red Book’, due a real fire example that might show this, please out in the fist half of 1997, wil contain a suitable contact Charles Clifton at HERA by mid-March. tall Current Status of HERA The HERA Structural Engineer would ieconmenal Structural Steelwork Design this dual fastener approach as a practical option to i the eaves channel restraint detailed in [2], Guides Volume 2 depending on the cost and availabilty of the Introduction proprietary. deformable column to panel fire ties. He requests. feedback from-anyone who.contacts......... New-Zealand. Structural Steelwork- Design Guides ‘one of the Australian manufacturers of these ties Volume 2 (DGV2) was originally published in 1989 to put into a future issue of the Bulletin. and has had four amendments, the last of which was in 1991. ft is published ‘as HERA Report collapsed ‘ondition_Approach_to zollapse i 4-915}. Fite Rating the Supporting Steel Column o While it remains the HERA Structural Engineer's When a fire rated extemal concrete wall is intention that DGV2 be revised, this is not going to supported off a steel portal frame, does the portal happen’ before 1998, due to higher “priotty frame column supporting the wall need a fire Geptareis on resources and limits of rating, in order to dependably maintain the wall in an upright position and so prevent fire spread by ‘One of the reasons that the priority on revising radiation across the boundary? DGV2 has decreased is that significant parts of it i i i have been superseded, while other parts remain Se gage RE EAAeeeatl effectively current. This is because the original presented in section 4.5.2 of HERA Report i Aaol2) purposes behind DGV2 were three-fold, namely: The HERA Structural Engineer knows of two fire (1) To provide guidance on structural form and engineers who are still currently not function, ie. the assemblage of members recommending its use, while others are. satisfied into cost-effective buildings, and with it. This is leading, in tun, to some Territorial Authorities not accepting: -as- an alternatives. (2)... To provide. specific guidance. on design. for method: of compliancete: the -NZBC \[4};-While-e-~-- fire, corrosion, .. earthquake, ..and._an others are accepting. introduction to’ design of cold-formed sections, and The HERA Structural Engineer is endeavouring to resolve this currently unsatistactory situation. He ° (3). To provide a technical specification for the ‘stands by the method, as published in section fabrication and erection of structural 4.5.2 of 2] and has seen no evidence to date that stecwork it will deliver unsatisfactory performance. The problem Is that there is a strong component of In general, the guidance relating to (1) remains ‘engineering gutfeeling” to acouple of steps in current, while that relating to (2) and (9) is the method and the current fie engineering superseded by the Building Control System prediction tools available are inadequate for him to (BCS) and related documents. rigorously show that the method is “satisfactory” 25 against “unsatisfactory’, by means of arational The purpose of this ticle is to cover briefly the FED assessment. current status of DGV2 {5], on a section by section basis. This coverage includes which aspects of each section are current, which have been superseded and by what. ‘The only other way to demonstrate this is by looking at its performance in practice; namely to find an actual severe fire example where the inward collapse of a fire rated external concrete wall, supported by unprotected columns, resulted in subsequent fire spread across the boundary and then to apply the collapsed wall condition method and show that it would have allowed the column to be unprotected. F one such example can be found, then the method would have delivered an ‘unsatisfactory outcome in that instance and the HERA Structural Engineer will withdraw or modify its use. Following the referencing convention of ‘thi Bulletin, reports and papers are given a specific reference thus [ ], whereas Standards are not. Articles in previous issues of the Bulletin are also rot given a specific reference number. HERA Stee! Design & Construction Bulletin 6 No. 80, March 1987Current Status of DGV2 Section 11 - General Seismic Design Requirements This section of [5] presented an overview of the New Zealand seismic design philosophy and design requirements. It has been superseded by HERA Report R4-76[6], Seismic Design of Stee! Structures. Section 12 - Fire and Corrosion Protection of Structural Steel ‘Section 12:1 omfire-is now superseded by HERA~ ~ id R4-91[2]. There is also a in section 2.3.4 of HERA Report 4-80 (Design Guides Volume 1) [8], however the coverage in the first two reports, especially R4-91, is much more thorough. For an overview of both Report R4-89 and Report R4-91, refer to the Bulletin, Issue No. 28, December 1996. Section 12.2 on corrosion is still largely relevant, however the references in it are getting out of date. For example, this section predates the release of the joint Standard, ASINZS 2312:1994. For more up-to-date guidance on corrosion, refer to Bulletin Issue No. 20, April 1996. Section 13 - Members Design of Composite This-section-is stil mostly-relevant,-however:thes notation. used. therein. was- consistent,...with. NZS 3404:1989 and does not-reflect the. notation»: “changes: made"in: NZS 3404:1992. While” it is-a nuisance to have to read across the change of notation, these changes are obvious and straight- forward to follow. Structural designers ate especially reminded of the need to ensure adequate in-service vibration performance of the floor system. Design requirements for this are contained in appendix B13, While those provisions will ensure good performance for floors within their scope of application, a new method [10], jointly developed by DE Allen and T M Murray, has a wider scope of application Section 14 - Design of Portal Frames and Industrial Structures ‘The material in this section comprises general guidance on form, function and layout of industrial buildings, plus specific guidance on design in NZS 3404:1992 and specific guidance on eg, deflection limits. The general guidance is stil relevant, except for the guidance on fire; refer to HERA Report R4-91[2] for this. HERA Steal Design & Consttton Buln ‘The specific design guidance is not now relevant, with the change of standard to NZS 3404:1992, ‘The updated design guidance is given in the following Bulletins: Issue No. 1, July 1994 - wind pressure coefficients Issue No. 2, August 1994 - preliminary design sizing of portal frame members Issue No. 15, October 1995 - design to NZS 3404 made simple Issue No. 16, November 1995 - design of fly braces and determination of brace forces: Specific guidance on deflection limits is given in NZS - 4203:Part.2. Table. C2.4.1.... Additional deftection guidance relating to composite beams, ponding of roof beams and crane runway girders is given in Fig. 2.1 of HERA Report R4-80[9). Section 15 - Design of Multi-Storey Steel Structures This section comprises general guidance on form, function and layout of multi-storey buildings (sections 15.1, 15.2) plus specific seismic design guidance (section 15.3), gravity frame design quidance (section 15.4) and very brief wind effect design guidance (section 15.5). ‘The general guidance in sections 15.1 and 15.2 is, stil relevant, apart from guidance for fe, which is. now given in [2, 7] The seismic design guidance in section 15.3 is show superseded. by-HERA Report R4-76[6]. “The gravity.. system. design. guidance. in section 15:4 |s stil: mostly relevant;-however this has.also~~- been updated, in Bulletin Issue No. 2, August 1994. The wind effects design guidance in section 15.5, is stil relevant, but should be applied within the context of NZS 4203:1992. Section 16 - Design of Cold Formed Steel Sections Section 16 gives a general overview of cold- formed steel section design and behaviour and is sill relevant. The relevant design standards mentioned therein are now all superseded, however; the current standard is the joint standard ASINZS' 4600:1996, brief details of which are given in an earlier article in this Bulletin, Section 17 - General Specification for the Fabrication and Erection of Structural Steel This section has been effectively superseded by Sections 14 and 15 of NZS 3404:1992, although No. 80, March 1887it contains some additional and still relevant material to that presented in NZS 3404. ‘The standards and related documents contained in section 17 of [5] have now almost all been superseded, NZS 3404 gives the current documents. Section 18 - Summary of Economical Design and Construction Practices This section presents a summary of economical design and-construction practices for:the:prin types of steel framed construction-covered-by.the. -+=:-earlier sections. of DGV2: [5], plus some: specific;... detailed costing data. The guidance on cost-ettective practices, layouts: etc. is stil relevant, while the detailed cost data is now out of date, As discussed in the first article of this issue, costing of structural steelwork should be undertaken in accordance with the activity-based costing method presented in [1]. Availability of DGV2[5) The sections which are still partially or fully relevant may be obtained at a reduced cost; see the details, on the enclosed order form. The publication should not be used without reference to this article. ~ASINZS 4600 is. Available. _.-The Joint. Australian/New. Zealand. .Cold-Formed... Stee! Structures Standard, AS/NZS 4600:1996, is| now available. It replaces the permissible stress AS 1538:1988 and is written for application under ‘our Building Control System. It is also the first joint Australian/New Zealand Structural Standard. This new Standard allows designers to use cold- formed carbon or low-alloy steel sheet, strip, plate or bar not more than 25mm. in thickness for structural purposes in buildings, compared to the 3mm maximum thickness allowed in the 1988 edition. New Zealand and Australia are both moving towards the use of lighter gauges for high strength steel, therefore the connections section in the new Standard includes research results and attesting regime not previously embodied in the Standard. Other significant changes in the new Standard are; ductility requirements relating to the design for’ earthquake, stiffened and’ _unstiffened elements with stress gradients, partial edge and intermediate stiffeners, design of members subject to tension, design of beams and columns HERA Stee! Design & Construction Bulletin with’ one flange through-fastened to deck or sheeting, and the use of a reduction factor for the design of purlins. For purlins with screw-fastened sheeting, this last change aliows a significant increase in design capacity above that available from the 1988 edition. For more details on the Standard and the New Zealand committee members who contributed to its development, see the article in the accompanying (March 1997) Issue of HERA News. To order a copy, see the: details on the accompanying order form. References. 1. Feeney, MJ and Watson, K; The Real Cost of Building in Steel : Using a Rational Approach for Costing Structural Steelwor 1997_ IPENZ Conference, — Wellingtor IPENZ, Wellington, pp 99-104. 2, Clifton, G C and Forrest, E; Notes Prepared for a Seminar on the Design of Steel Buildings For Fire Emergency Conditions; HERA, Manukau City, 1996, HERA Report R491, 2a Two Memos to Attendees of HERA Seminars on the Design of Steel Buildings for Fite Emergency Conditions: Making Amendments to HERA Report 4-91; HERA, Manukau City, 1996. 3. Bennetts IR and O'Meagher, A J; Support of External Walls (of Single’ Storey Stee! Framed Buildings) in. Fire; Technical- Note Issue No. 1, BHP Structural Steel Development Group,-Melbourne, Australia, 1995. 4, New Zealand Building Code:1992; Building Industry Authority, Wellington. 5. HERA; New Zealand Structural Steelwork Design Guides Volume 2; HERA, Manukau City, 1989/1991, HERA Report Ra-49. 6. Feeney, M J and Clifton, @ C; Seismic Design Procedures for Steel Structures; HERA, Manukau City, New Zealand, 1995, HERA Report R4-76. 7. Barber, D J; HERA Fire Protection Manuals Sections 7 and 8, Third Edition; HERA, Manukau City, 1996, HERA Report R4-89. 8. Clifton, GC; New Zealand Structural Stooivork Limit State Design Guides Vol. 1; HERA, Manukau City, New Zealand, 1994, HERA Report R4-80, 9. Allen, D E and Murray, TM; Design Criterion {or Vibrations Due to'Walking; Engineering Journal/American Institute’ of Steel Construction, Fourth Quarter, 1993, pp 117-129, No.0, March 1987ORDER FORM FOR REFERENCE ITEMS SDCB No.80, March 1997 Name: Company: Postal Address: z= Telephone: Fax: HERA Membership Number: Order No: Please specify method of payment by ticking appropriate box : Payment enclosed Please send invoice Visa Mastercard (Please make cheques payable to "HERA") Credit Card Number Name on card: Expiry Date: Signature: ‘The quoted prices are for items available ex stock and have been discounted for HERA members. Allprices include GST at 12.5%. Please Note: Single copies only are supplied for "No Charge" items, REF [ITEM UNIT PRICE |aTy |TOTAL PRICE 4_|Paper: The Real Cost of Building in Steel... No Charge| HERA Report R4-91: Notes Prepared for a Seminar on the Design $43.00 lof Stool Buildings for Fire Emergency Conditions 2a|Two Memos to Attendees al HERA Fire Seminars No Charge| 3_|BHP Technical Note: Support of External Walls. in Fire. No Charge| ~~ 4 |New Zealand Building Code:1992_- Avaliable from Standards New Zealand, Private Bag 2439, Wellington 5_|HERA Report R4-49 NZ Structural Steel Design Guides, Vol 2 $ 43.00 (24-49 is partially superseded, see explanatory item on pages 6 to 8 of this issue of the SDC Bulletin) 6 [HERA Repont 4-76: Seismic Design Procedures for Steel Structures | _ $ 195.00 - 7 |HERA Repon R4-89: HERA Fire Protection Manuals Sections 7 & 8 $29.00 | 6 [Hera Report R4-80: Structural Stee! Limit State Design Guides, Voli _| $195.00 |_| © |Paper: Design Criterion for Vibrations Due to Walking No Charge| a [ASINZS 4600:1996 Cold-Formed Steel Structures $107.49 - Subtotal HERA Ordinary Members ONLY - Deduct 10% discount TOTAL Post to: HERA Information Centre, P.O. Box 76-134, Manukau City; or Fax to: 0-9-262 2856