Professional Issues - SESOC Forum

Chemical & Mechanical Anchor bolts for major structures

Timothy Costelloe — Fri, 03 Jun 2022 02:52:31 +0000

Kia ora e te whānau

What is the SESOC position on using chemical or mechanical anchors for major structures?

Richard Scary's draft paper says "All anchor bolts should be cast into reinforced concrete foundations, except for minor structures..."

I note that this is still a draft paper.

I have a client who, understandably due to cost and convenience, wants to use chemical or mechanical anchors to install a pipe rack.

I want to follow best practice.

is there any consensus on this issue?

Thanks for your help

Timothy Costelloe

Insitu testing of drossbach tubes

Pat Mohan — Thu, 28 Jan 2021 17:59:26 +0000

We were recently asked by a peer reviewer to considering insitu testing of drossbach tubes. I understand CSI do the testing however it is costly.

Are other engineers asking for drossbach tubes to be tested on site and if so, what quantities?

Does SESOC consider it necessary?

Are there any other methods to test without using SCI scanning?

PS document

Khaled Eid — Fri, 21 Jun 2019 00:33:27 +0000

Hi,

As the new trend all moving to communicate electronically, I want to know your ideas about how to protect the signed PS document from being edited.

The only way I think of it is that the author sends a copy directly to the council.

Retrofit of Solar Panels to Existing Buildings

Pawel Milewski — Thu, 30 May 2019 09:33:15 +0000

I am interested in other engineers opinion on the retrofit of the solar panels to existing buildings which, currently, can be done without a building consent and consequently without any engineering input.

Since the solar panels weight between 10 and 20kg/m2 and are commonly installed on the whole (or almost whole) area of the existing roof, they have the potential to double the weight of the roof and consequently seismic weight and demands on the stability system for earthquake loading.

This can be especially onerous for industrial or farm sheds which typically have very light roof, making the relative increase very significant.

Whilst such sheds will, typically be wind governed in the "across" direction they are ore more often than not governed by seismic loading "along" the building.

I personally find it concerning that such a significant additional load for the bracing system can be added to the existing building (often old and already lacking in seismic resistance required by new standards) without any scrutiny from a suitably qualified structural engineer.

Interested what others think and if/how this could be raised with the TAs

Assessment of precast concrete floors seminar notes

Nic Brooke — Tue, 21 May 2019 02:22:29 +0000

As per the recent Concrete New Zealand Learned Society newsletter (repeated below), the notes from the recent precast floor assessment seminars have been made freely available to all on the Society's website.

The notes can be accessed at this link

Floors.jpg

NZS4230 - any need for revision

Nic Brooke — Wed, 06 Mar 2019 03:32:56 +0000

The concrete industry associations are looking at whether any of the New Zealand Standards related to concrete masonry require revision.

This includes NZS 4230 Design of reinforced concrete masonry structures, which was last revised in 2004 and amended in 2006.

Could anyone who has encountered issues using this Standard or thinks aspects of it could be improved please let us know by response here.

Precast Concrete GPG available now on Worksafe's website

Nic Brooke — Tue, 23 Oct 2018 21:44:04 +0000

Worksafe have recently release their new good practice guidelines (GPG) for working with precast concrete. These have implications for structural engineers, particularly with respect to 'safety in design'.

According to Worksafe's release notice for the GPG:

The new ‘Safe Work with Precast Concrete’ good practice guidelines are now on WorkSafe’s website.

https://worksafe.govt.nz/topic-and-industry/concrete/working-with-pre-cast-concrete/

The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has revoked the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) for The Safe Handling, Transportation and Erection of Precast Concrete (2002). The ACOP will be superseded by the new good practice guidelines.

This revocation will come into force on 15 November 2018, as outlined in the notice in the New Zealand Gazette. https://gazette.govt.nz/notice/id/2018-au5244

At the moment the GPG is on our website as a PDF. The HTML version is expected to be on our website within the next week or two and I will let you know as soon as it is available. We suggest that you wait and share the HTML version with your networks, as the HTML version may be more convenient for people to use and search online. We will also be rewording the content on the web page so that the new guidelines are at the top of the page and easy for people to find.

IPENZ/EngNZ CPEng review system

Marc Rupp — Thu, 18 Oct 2018 05:57:41 +0000

I read with interest the reflections of Barry Davidson in the September 2018 issue of the SESOC journal and am in total agreement. Part of my current work is assisting a BCA in assessing structural engineering elements of more complex projects and these vary from residential to large commercial buildings. The standard of engineering that is presented as acceptable by the "professionals" in our industry is extremely varied and there are those engineers that consistently submit woefully inadequate designs that have at times been dangerous, expecting that the BCA will effectively peer review the design for them. I believe, as noted by Mr Davidson, that this is undertaken to provide the client with a low fee at the project outset and then to apportion the majority of the blame on to the BCA for the escalating cost and time frame, when the consent continuously goes back and forth until the design is adequate, safe and meets with the NZ BC. Some of the submissions have been returned as we cannot read the calculations. This is totally unacceptable in this day and age and as a representative of a professional body and I believe demonstrates that the IPENZ/EngNZ CPEng review system is inadequate at best.

Reading Mr Davidson's reflections reminded me that from whence I hail, in Scotland, the system was changed more than 10 years ago to an independent certification body and the BCA was effectively the document controller. Random audits were undertaken of all engineers consent submissions, since this I believe is where we would be better measured, and those not meeting the required design and or QA standards would be provided with the requisite punishment, either a warning with further training recommended and their consent submissons more closely monitored, or for more serious cases being removed from the engineering body register so they could no longer submit consents. The process cost the client more from the engineering perspective, as the engineers have additional process and fees to pay to be part of the independent registration/audit body, but on the positive side the BCA fees are reduced and the time frame for consents is more manageable as this is now down to the engineer providing the documentation, not waiting for the BCA to review and approve the documents. Perhaps some learning from the Scottish system could be undertaken so as not to reinvent the wheel. I strongly believe that the system in NZ needs to change to raise the level of professionalism and confidence in our industry.

Marc Rupp

Director and Principal - Rupp: Consulting Limited

CPEng, CMEngNZ, MIStructE, CEng (UK), Int(PE)

Structural Design Standards – have your say

Jason Ingham — Wed, 27 Jun 2018 07:56:46 +0000

SESOC was recently contacted by Standards New Zealand regarding possible participation in a revision of AS 4678 Earth-retaining structures. This request has prompted a number of questions, such as:

What thoughts do SESOC members have about joint AS/NZS standards compared to exclusive NZ standards? Do members find it useful to have harmonised trans-Tasman standards?
What role do you think SESOC should have in the development of New Zealand’s structural design standards? Currently there is very little collaboration between Standards New Zealand and SESOC on this topic, and SESOC is simply sent a request to have a representative on the committee.
What thoughts do have on the recent practice of multiple amendments to standards instead of the issuing of entirely new standards, such as Amendment 3 to NZS 3101 for example?
Would members find it useful to have forward knowledge of when Standards committees were being formed and when new standards were scheduled to be released?
Internationally it is usual for a standard to be revised every 4-6 years. How often do you think our New Zealand structural design standards should be revised?
Currently there is no formal continuity between one standards committee and the next, and therefore no succession planning. Would you prefer to see standing committees for Standards, or at least some formal succession planning?
Currently there is no direct link between knowledge gaps identified by standards committees, and research being undertaken. Do you think that more formally targeted research planning to directly support standards development would be helpful?
People who participate on standards currently receive no remuneration, and in many cases have to pay their own travel and accommodation costs. Do you think that this arrangement is appropriate? Do you think that SESOC should contribute members’ funds to aid in standards development?

I look forward to hearing what SESOC members have to say on these topics.