SESOC Forum - Recent Posts

RE: Regarding the probably flexural strength of C5

Nan Li — Wed, 06 May 2026 08:35:03 +0000

@brooke yes Nick, figure 5.16. which means there will be a chance to lead to 20% + or - in %NBS?. while you are here Nick I might ask one more thing regarding C2 table.C2A.1. is the column sway Vb formula correct? is it suppose to be Hi ( story Hight of the soft story) instead of Heff? Thank you

RE: Regarding the probably flexural strength of C5

Nic Brooke — Wed, 06 May 2026 07:56:08 +0000

Are you referring to the drop of the "actual relationship" line compared to the "assumed relationship" in Figure 5.16 of C5-2025?

That decrease is generally not considered in assessments, though might be in some instances where non-linear analysis is used.

Regarding the probably flexural strength of C5

Nan Li — Wed, 06 May 2026 06:05:18 +0000

in 5.5.5.2.1. the Mprob is corresponding to the moment when the extreme concrete fibre reaches strain = 0.003. Also, as per section C5.5.3.4.1 the bilinear approximation rules and C5.5.5.3.4.3, the curvature cap rules. the moment at curvature cap can be 20% approx less than the moment at 0.003 due to losing the lever arm of steel and concrete as the result of the spalling concrete cover. I am just wondering how this 20% moment difference is considered in the C5 framework. Thank you

RE: Brick Veneer Deflection Limit

Nic Brooke — Mon, 30 Mar 2026 02:30:26 +0000

AS/NZS 1170.0 Table C1 provides guidance (informative) on deflection limits for various situations.

Brick Veneer Deflection Limit

Jason Li — Fri, 27 Mar 2026 20:34:51 +0000

Brick veneer is widely used in New Zealand residential houses, typically with a thickness of 70 mm or 90 mm. What is the allowable deflection limit for brick veneer under vertical load or face load? Design Note TB1 (Two Storey Clay Brick Veneer Construction) published by the Clay Brick and Paver Manufacturers’ Association states a beam deflection limit of L/300. Given that brick veneer is a brittle material, is this limit acceptable?

RE: SESOC Interim Design Guidance Design of Conventional Structural Systems - Update

Jonathan Haagh — Mon, 22 Sep 2025 03:05:52 +0000

Please include the interpretation of NZS1170 in relation to accidental eccentricity, which was covered in the 2024 SESOC newsletter:

For nominally ductile and brittle structures the 0.1b accidental eccentricity provisions of Clause 5.3.2 are to be applied to the actions along the 100% orthogonal axis only and are to be applied in conjunction with the 30% perpendicular action applied through the nominal centre of mass for that direction (i.e. with zero eccentricity from that perpendicular action).

RE: SESOC Interim Design Guidance Design of Conventional Structural Systems - Update

Daniel Moroder — Sun, 21 Sep 2025 23:34:39 +0000

A section on mass timber (or generally timber design beyond NZS 3604) could be added. This section would require coordination with the proposed joint standard AS/NZS 1720.1.

Sliding Stairs & Continuous Handrails

Karen Pettigrew — Mon, 15 Sep 2025 04:56:22 +0000

We are wondering how people are handling the requirement for sliding stairs, as has been around for a while now, and the NZBC requirement for continuous handrails, given the sliding can occur in all directions. Thoughts would be appreciated!

NZGS Interim Guidance on Retaining wall design - load factor changes

Jared Greig — Sun, 17 Aug 2025 22:01:39 +0000

I was interested to read the new interim guidance on retaining wall design which modifies the dead and live load factors to be used for the static case in Module 6.

I remember when Module 6 came out many of the engineers in the office were surprised to see such a low load factor for Q for the static case. Whilst I am not a Geotech, I understood that the static case in the guidance was intended to represent a "drained soil case" where the footing was exerting pressure on the founding soil for a long period of time. In this context, the use of a live load coefficient of 0.4 was in line with the use of a long term live load factor, ψl. So it made sense to me in that way.

I guess I'm just thinking that the original guidance would not have contained such an obvious flaw without some kind of rationale to justify it. Wondering what others think about this one.

RE: Feature suggestions - TS 1170.5 web app

David Morrison — Mon, 23 Jun 2025 21:50:54 +0000

In addition to the excel export, would it be possible to have a PDF report print out that shows the graphs and perhaps a table with some values as well?