17-19 Gladding Place

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. 66 February 2002

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. 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
Circular Bolted Flange Annulus Connection, the
design procedure for which is presented in DCB
No. 65. The results of the Finite Element Analyses
(FEA) on this connection are to be presented in
Part 3 of this article, DCB No. 67, rather than in
this issue.
Those are the principal two articles in this issue of
the DCB. Two smaller articles are presented, one
relating to the SPM fire design method and the
other to the heat straightening of steel. The SPM
article is particularly important, as it covers
Introduction and Scope
General Background
Steel framed multi-storey buildings are generally
lighter in weight than reinforced concrete framed
multi-storey buildings. The principal reason for this
lies in the self weight of the flooring systems used
in each instance.
The lighter weight of steel framed buildings makes
them potentially more susceptible to unacceptable

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 66, February 2002
levels of acceleration generated by wind-induced
vibration under serviceability limit state conditions.
These accelerations are caused by the movement
of the building due to the wind flowing around it.
As shown in Fig. 66.1, the nature of the wind flow
is complex, even in this simplified view, as is the
building’s response to it. Generally, for buildings
that are torsionally regular and torsionally stiff
relative to their translational stiffness, the flow of
wind past the building will generate both an along-
wind response and an across-wind response, with
the latter typically governing.
Fig. 66.1
Simplified 3-Dimensional Wind Flow Around a
Building (from [3])
The design of buildings for wind-induced vibration
serviceability criteria is not well covered by NZS
4203:1992 [6], with this coverage being restricted
to a simple threshold limit check given in
Commentary Clause C5.2.2.3. This check is a
function of the building’s height and mass and
takes no account of wind speed.
If the proposed building fails this check, then a
designer using either the current loadings
standard [6] or the proposed replacement standard
(to be AS/NZS 1170.2 [4]) has to attempt a full
dynamic design. However, the design procedure
presented in [4] or referenced from [6] is very
complex, is difficult to apply and gives unreliable
results.
In an attempt to try and help designers out of this
unsatisfactory situation, HERA commissioned
research into this topic which led to a full-scale
experiment being conducted at the University of
Auckland during 2001. One of the objectives of
that experiment was to test the accuracy of a
preliminary design technique developed by Cenek
et. al. [5], which appears to offer designers a
method for establishing a much more accurate
threshold limit for assessing a building’s adequacy
in this area.
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 2
The aim of the experiment was to record both wind
flow data and building along-wind and across-wind
accelerations for a given test building. The
accelerations were recorded at the top of the
building. The wind flow was also recorded at the
top of the building, sufficiently far above roof level
to be effectively free from the local effects of
turbulence generated by the building itself.
This generated data sets of wind flow and building
acceleration that could be used directly to compare
the accuracy of the full dynamic design procedure
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.
The article then highlights the types of building
covered/not covered by this simple design
procedure.
It ends by providing some guidance on what can
be done if the building fails the preliminary design
procedure.
Overview of Research Project and Principal
Conclusions
Analysis techniques for establishing along-wind
accelerations are well regarded as yielding
reasonably reliable results. The problem, however,
lies in the across-wind loading mechanism.
Experimental studies (eg. as reported in [5] and in
the references in the commentary to [4]) have
shown that across-wind motions are likely to
dictate in regard to accelerations. The mechanism
involved in the across-wind situation is complex
and depends mainly on pressure fluctuations
cause by the broad band vortex shedding process.
Expressions based on first principles for
determining the response of buildings to across-
wind forces do not currently exist. Therefore,
determination of response is difficult and must be
achieved using a semi-empirical method.
Consequently most building code methods are
conservative. Expressions based on empirical
data from wind tunnel tests are available for
buildings with simple geometric shapes and not
subject to interference effects. For example, the
No. 66, February 2002
equation for determining peak across-wind
accelerations from the draft AS/NZS 1170.2 [4] is
as follows:
1.5bgR  0.5êair [Vdes,θ ] 
2 accurate accelerations compared to the actual
πC fs
ÿmax =   Km
m0  (1 + g v IH )2  ζ
 
(66.1)
where:
ÿmax = peak across-wind acceleration at the top
of the building, in metres/second/second
all other notation is as defined in Appendix G of [4].
The major difficulty with this and other such
equations is the lack of reliable empirical data for
working out, for example, the cross-wind force
spectral density (Cfs) for different shaped buildings.
Consequently extrapolation is required and is likely
to cause errors. It is also well documented [3, 5]
that such methods are unreliable and that wind
tunnel testing is recommended to validate any
results.
In an attempt to determine just how accurate such
expressions are for a typical situation, an
experiment was conducted at the University of
Auckland. The experiment was an investigation
into the wind characteristics around a 12 storey
building and the wind’s influence on the
accelerations of that building. In particular, the
wind characteristics and the building accelerations
were recorded simultaneously. Various wind
parameters were established and the recorded
accelerations were compared to the methods from
AS 1170.2:1989 [7] for predicting accelerations
and with the preliminary design technique
developed by Cenek, et. al [5] for predicting
accelerations.
At the time of conducting this research, the draft
replacement to [7] was still under development,
hence the comparison made in the project has
been with the design provisions of [7], rather than
with the provisions of Appendix G of [4] which will
replace the 1989 standard during 2002. In terms
of predicting the across-wind acceleration,
however, the new provisions are simply a fine
tuning of the 1989 procedure, so it is likely that the
same general conclusions from [3] would apply if
the comparison between predicted ÿmax and
recorded ÿmax was made using the provisions of [4]
rather than those of [7].
The measured turbulence intensities were similar
to the calculated turbulence intensities using
AS 1170.2 [7].
However, there were large discrepancies between
the accelerations predicted by [7] and the
measured values. This is consistent with previous
studies (referenced from [3]). Both the along-wind
and across-wind methods gave very conservative
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin
predictions for acceleration, the across-wind
method particularly so.
The Cenek et. al. method predicted the most
measured results [3]. This was surprising,
considering the limitations of the method (ie. it
uses a correlation factor instead of directly using
turbulence intensity and other factors such as
damping and the cross-wind force spectral
density). This bodes well for its use as a less
rigorous preliminary design technique and has led
to its recommended use in that regard in the
following section.
In the light of the results from [3] and their
consistency with other investigations into the
accuracy of the code procedures from [7], it
appears that those procedures are overly rigorous
and, considering their lack of accuracy, should be
regarded as preliminary design methods only. The
Cenek et.al. method [5] has been shown [3] to be
an adequate alternative and, being much simpler
to apply, one which is more likely to be correctly
implemented. It is a preliminary technique for
estimating peak wind-induced accelerations in
buildings. Because of this, when the analyses
show results which lie close to or above the
recommended acceleration limit, wind tunnel tests
are advised to confirm the building’s suitability.
Mahoney concludes [3] that it is clear more
research is required in this field. The key to
developing a reliable analytical design technique
lies in a better understanding of the across-wind
loading mechanism.
In developing their preliminary design technique,
Cenek et. al. [5] first established the critical
parameters that influence wind-induced building
acceleration and then developed a simple yet
reliable analytical method for assessing the
maximum acceleration at the preliminary design
phase. That method is presented in the next
section.
Their parametric study showed the following:
1. Accelerations are directly proportional to the
wind speed cubed
2. Accelerations are inversely proportional to
the building's mass
3. Accelerations are inversely proportional to
the building’s natural sway frequency
4. For buildings with height to across-wind
width aspect ratios less than 5, building
shape appears to have little effect on
serviceability level accelerations.
Page 3 No. 66, February 2002
Having obtained a design assessment of maximum
acceleration, this must be compared with an
appropriate limit. Cenek et. al. advise [5] that an
appropriate acceleration limit is 10 milli-g (1 milli-g
= (1/1000) x acceleration of gravity) for a one year
return period wind. Melbourne and Palmer [8]
show that the limit is frequency dependent and
give a more detailed expression, which is a
function of building frequency, duration of wind
record consideration and chosen return period. In
the recommended design procedure that follows,
this expression is used to determine the limiting
acceleration, as that helps reduce any inaccuracy
introduced through uncertainties in the
determination of building natural frequency.
Recommended Preliminary Design Procedure
Determination of design maximum acceleration
at top of building
The design maximum acceleration at the top of the
building, amax, is given by
 0.41 V (H) 3 
 1000 
amax = 
 fo mo 
   (milli - g)
   9.81 
(66.2)
where:
V (H) = mean 10 minute interval wind speed at
the top of the building for the chosen
return period, R (m/s)
fo = fundamental frequency (Hz) in the
across-wind direction (see Fig. 66.1)
mo = average building mass per unit height
over the top one third of the building
(kg/m height)
This acceleration so determined is the across-wind
acceleration, being the governing acceleration for
buildings covered by this procedure.
Equation 66.2 is equation (3) from Cenek et.al.’s
paper [5], with the number 0.46 in the numerator
reduced to 0.41. Users of this procedure should
obtain a copy of [5], from which they will see the
simplifications made to obtain the above equation.
Those simplifications, and the reason for reducing
0.46 to 0.41, are as follows:
(i) Typical fundamental frequencies of 0.2 to
0.4 Hz were used in deriving equation 66.2,
however Mahoney [3] shows that the
correlation is adequate for the 12 storey test
building, with a frequency of 1.9 Hz in one
orthogonal direction and 1.8 Hz in the other.
This covers the range of fundamental
frequencies of interest in design.
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin
(ii) Structural damping under serviceability
conditions is taken as 0.01 (ie. 1% of
critical). This is appropriate for any clad
steel frame building under the levels of
movement expected.
(iii) The simplified equation from [5] for amax
uses the mean hourly wind speed at the top
of the building, for which the number in the
numerator is 0.46. However, NZS 4203 [6]
does not give provisions for determining the
mean hourly wind speed for a 1 year return
period (R = 1 year), which is the return
period on which the limiting acceleration is
based. The draft AS/NZS 1170.2 [4] does
allow the wind speed for a dynamic
evaluation to be explicitly determined,
however it uses an adjustment to the 3
second gust speed rather than a mean
hourly wind speed directly. The relationship
between the two is given in equation 66.3
herein. The adjustment for the different
recording durations can be made from [5] in
the peak factor, g, in equation (1) from [5].
Making this adjustment introduces an
additional 0.9 factor, reducing 0.46 to 0.41.
Determination of V (H)
Because the acceleration is proportional to the
wind speed cubed, it is important to determine this
as accurately as possible.
This can be done using the provisions of the new
draft AS/NZS 1170.2 [4], as follows:
Step 1: Determine the design 3 second wind
speed, Vdes, θ
This is determined at the top of the building in
accordance with Clauses 2.2 and 2.3 of [4]. The
critical equation for a given direction of
consideration is Equation 2.2 from [4], which is:
Vsit, β = VR Md (Mz, cat Ms Mt ) (Eq. 2.2 from [4])
where:
VR = regional 3 second gust wind speed, m/s,
for the annual probability of exceedence
of 1/R, given in section 3 of [4]
Md = as given by Table 3.2 of [4] or taken as
1.0
Mz, cat = as given by Table 4.1(A) of [4], calculated
at the top of the building (z = H) for
the design Terrain Category
Ms, Mt = shielding and topographic multipliers,
given by section 4 of [4].
The determination of Mz, cat , Ms, Mt is very similar
to that of the corresponding expressions from
NZS 4203 [6] Part 5.
Page 4 No. 66, February 2002
The wind directional multiplier, Md, embodies the
same directionality concept as currently given in
[6], however applied as a multiplier (≤ 1.0) on the
peak basic regional wind speed, VR.
An expression is given in Table 3.1 of [4] relating
VR to the return period, for any value of R. This
allows VR to be explicitly calculated for R = 1.
VR is a function of the wind region. Fig. 3.1 (b)
gives these regions for New Zealand. There are
only 3, termed Regions A6, A7 and W. The latter
covers the Cook Strait / Wellington region. For a
one year return period, VR = 26m/s for regions A6
and A7 and VR = 34 m/s for region W.
The appropriate directional, topographical and lee
effects from [4] must be included in determining
Vsit, β.
Having obtained, Vsit, β, the largest value within a
90o quadrant (±45o) to the direction under
consideration gives Vdes,θ . The direction under
consideration (θ = 0) is the along-wind direction
(see Fig. 66.1) in the context of this procedure.
Step 2: Calculate V (H) for the 10 minute record
interval
Vdes,θ
V (H) = (m/s) (66.3)
(1 + gvIH )
where:
gv = gust factor = 3.7 (from [4])
IH = turbulence intensity, from Table 6.1 of [4],
calculated for z = H and for the Terrain
Category appropriate to the direction
giving Vdes,θ .
Determination of fo
Building designers are familiar with calculating the
fundamental period, To, for earthquake design.
The fundamental frequency, fo = 1/To.
However, it is not appropriate to simply use the
inverse of the period calculated for earthquake
considerations in wind serviceability design. This
is because the two design applications are for
different limit states.
For earthquake design, the building is on the
threshold of general yielding under ultimate limit
state conditions. The period is calculated based
on the contribution of the designated seismic-
resisting systems only. Any contribution to building
stiffness from the gravity load-carrying system and
from non-structural components is neglected. The
period is calculated using either the Rayleigh
method (NZS 4203 [6] Equation 4.5.1) or empirical
formulae that are developed for seismic design
(DCB No. 40 page 4).
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin
For serviceability wind-induced vibration design,
the building is responding at well below yield
level. Contributions to building stiffness will
come from the lateral load-resisting system, the
gravity-resisting system and, to a minor but
noticeable extent, from non-structural components.
For a given building, the frequency will therefore be
higher (period lower) for the wind case than for the
seismic case and this should be included in the
determination of fo.
The most accurate source of fo for this procedure is
that obtained from a modal analysis of the building,
with this analysis taking into account the
contribution to building stiffness from all
dependable sources. For example, simple
connections in the gravity load-carrying system
with bolts tightened beyond snug tight will behave
in a rigid manner under the very small movements
involved. However, designer judgement will be
required to determine the magnitude of these
contributions, along with a level of computer
modelling not normally undertaken at preliminary
design stage. Thus, in most instances, designers
will need to make recourse to empirical equations
for fo.
One useful empirical source of fo is from tests on
complete structures, such as those reported [9] by
Ellis, who gives the optimum formula for
fundamental frequency for 163 rectangular-in-plan
buildings as:
fo = 46/H (Hz) (66.4)
where:
H = height to roof (metres)
Fig. 66.2 shows this equation plotted against the
experimental data. The buildings in the sample
comprise a range of lateral load-resisting systems,
one of the reasons for the considerable scatter in
data about the curve given by equation 66.4,
especially in the 20 m to 75 m building height.
Equation 66.4 does not allow differentiation
between the form of lateral load-resisting
system and the associated stiffness. This
is accommodated by the calculation of To for
seismic-resisting systems, however such
calculations underestimate the frequency of the
building as appropriate to the wind serviceability
limit state, because they ignore the additional
contributions to building stiffness that will apply in
that situation. These factors can all be
accommodated, at least roughly, by use of the
following approximate provisions for calculating fo:
fo ≈ lesser of (i) 46/H (66.4)
(ii) C1 (1/To) (66.5)
(definitions on next page)
Page 5 No. 66, February 2002

Fig. 66.2
Frequency Versus Height From Measurements of
163 Rectangular in Plan Buildings (from [9])
where:
H = building height (metres)
C1 = 1.5 for buildings with moment-resisting
frame lateral load resisting systems in the
across-wind direction (for which fo is
being calculated)
= 1.3 for buildings with eccentrically-braced
frames in the across-wind direction
= 1.2 for buildings with concentrically-
braced frames or shear walls in the
across-wind direction
To = the fundamental period as determined for
the bare frame lateral load-resisting
system only, either through NZS 4203
Clause 4.5.1 or the following:
For perimeter moment-resisting frame lateral load-
resisting systems with deep columns:
To ≈ 0.11 H 0.75 (66.6.1)
For internal moment-resisting frame lateral load-
resisting systems and for perimeter frame systems
with shallow (UC) columns:
To ≈ 0.14 H 0.75 (66.6.2)
For eccentrically braced frame lateral load-resisting
systems with links in the shear mode, use:
To ≈ 0.07 H 0.75 (66.6.3)
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin
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
66.4 and 66.5 will ensure this. The incorporation
of fo into the calculation of alimit (equation 66.7) and
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.
Designer judgement will be needed when the
lateral load-resisting systems in the across-wind
direction are of mixed form.
Determination of mo
mo is the average building mass per unit height
over the top third of the building.
It is calculated using 1.0 G + 0.7 ψlQ,
where:
G = building dead load from NZS 4203 [6]
ψl = live load long-term load factor for the
serviceability limit state, from Table 2.4.1
of [6]
Q = ψ aQb
Qb = base live load
ψa = tributary area reduction factor per floor
(as used in calculating seismic mass)
The 0.7 factor translates the average live load with
a 5% probability of exceedence, as represented by
ψl, to the mean value of average live load. This is
based on a normal probability distribution of live
load, with standard deviation = 0.15 x mean.
It is important that the calculated building mass
includes an average live load component, as to
ignore this is unduely conservative.
mo is calculated for a typical storey height and
mass over the top third of the building and
expressed in kg/m height of building.
Page 6 No. 66, February 2002
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])

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 7 No. 66, February 2002
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

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 8 No. 66, February 2002
(4) Calculation of alimit
This uses equation 66.7 herein.
[ ]  1000 
alimit = (3.51)(0.68) e - 3.55   = 7.0 milli - g
 9.81 
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.
As the two values are very close, however, it would
be advisable to determine the building’s wind
serviceability performance more accurately as part
of the final design, to confirm its suitability. (See
opposite).
Type of Buildings Covered / Not Covered By
This Procedure
This procedure is applicable to buildings with the
following characteristics [3, 5]:
(1) The mass per unit height is near uniformly
distributed throughout the building,
especially over the top third
(2) The plan shape of the building does not vary
significantly from that used in the
assessment over the height of the building
(3) The fundamental frequency and building
structural damping levels are within the limits
for the procedure, as specified above.
(4) The fundamental frequencies in the
translational modes (x and y) are lower than
that for the torsional mode
The procedure must also be applied with caution to
buildings with a height aspect ratio (height to plan
width) of > 5, as the building shape has an
influence on the response for buildings with higher
aspect ratios [5].
As noted in (4) above, the procedure is not
necessarily applicable to buildings which have a
strongly torsional fundamental mode of response.
Such an example would be a building that is
rectangular in plan, with a plan aspect ratio (long
plan dimension/short plan dimension) of greater
than, say, 2.5 and where the lateral load-resisting
system comprises a central stiff core (shear walls
or braced core). Such a building would be
susceptible to torsional movement under wind, with
the accelerations most noticeable at the ends of
the building. This situation is shown in Fig. 66.4.
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin
One solution to improving the performance in this
case would be to introduce bracing at the short
ends of the building. This bracing could
incorporate the features listed in items (1) and (3)
below.
Fig. 66.4
Example of Building With Potentially
Significant Torsional Response
Options If The Building Fails This Preliminary
Design Assessment
When the building’s response has been checked
for each orthogonal direction and amax < ≈ 0.85 alimit
in each direction, no further check on in-service
response to wind induced vibration need be made.
When this check shows 0.85 alimit < amax < alimit, the
response should be evaluated more carefully as
part of the final design check. This may require the
seeking of expert advice; it will certainly
require more detailed determination of fo.
When amax ≥ alimit, then the following options to
improve the building response are available:
(1) Add stiffness – eg. through changing from a
moment frame to a braced system or
through adding additional bracing. This
bracing could be designed and detailed to
operate at serviceability conditions and to
fail under ultimate limit state earthquake
conditions, thus not endangering the stability
of the building in the latter case.
(2) Add mass – eg. increase the depth of
concrete in the floor slabs. This will increase
mo, thus reducing amax . It also slightly
increases acoustic performance (see DCB
No. 57). However, it will increase the
requirements on the gravity and seismic
load-resisting systems and on the
foundations, especially if the increased mass
is significant.
(3) Add damping – the effect of added damping
must be considered in this assessment by
using equation (1) from [5] in lieu of equation
66.2 herein. Furthermore the additional
damping must raise the level significantly
above the 1% incorporated into equation
66.2; preferably to 5% or more. This
Page 9 No. 66, February 2002
 requires use of specialist devices and expert
advice. Such dampers could be readily
installed in a V-brace CBF system, where
they would be positioned between the
intersecting braces and the collector beam
at each level.
(4) Seek expert advice from a specialist in this
area, such as Peter Cenek from Opus
International Consultants, Wellington. His
contact details are:
peter.cenek@opus.co.nz
phone: 0-4-587 0600
Amendments to the SPM
Method for Fire Engineering
Design of Floor Systems
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer.
General
DCB No. 60 presents a detailed design procedure,
called the SPM method, which takes account of the
inelastic reserve of strength available from a
composite concrete floor slab supported on
unprotected secondary beams or joists in severe
fires. The scope and background to this procedure
is presented in the first part of that Bulletin, with the
detailed procedure presented as Appendix A.
DCB Issue Nos 62 and 64 present updates on
aspects of the procedure and the use of the
associated software program.
In early March, 2002, the Structures in Fire
Workshop, SiF’02, was held. Charles Clifton
presented a paper [10] on the SPM method to that
Conference. This paper, entitled Design of
Composite Floor Systems With Unprotected Steel
Secondary Beams or Joists for Dependable
Inelastic Response in Severe Fires, presents a
reasonably detailed overview of the method.
The method was given a thorough airing at SiF’02
and immediately following, where the results from
its use have been compared with some of the
advanced finite element analysis (FEA) undertaken
on slab panels by UK researchers. Discussion
with these researchers, from the University of
Sheffield led by Professor Ian Burgess, and
application of the procedure to the UK floor slabs
analysed, have identified two errors in the current
procedure.
A brief outline of the results from the follow-up
comparison work is given below, followed by limits
on e, placement of insulation and then details
of the two errors in the procedure given in
DCB No. 60.
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 10
Results of Comparison with Advanced
Analyses on Slab Panels
These analyses are presented in [11]. They have
been made on a 9 m x 9 m slab panel and a
9 m x 18 m slab panel. Comparing the SPM
method with these analyses shows that:
(1) For the square panel, with two unprotected
secondary beams and with light levels of
slab reinforcement (mesh area 142 mm2/m
width, which is equivalent to 665 mesh),
good agreement is reached.
(2) For the square panel and with heavy
reinforcement (mesh area 393 mm2/m width,
which is equivalent to 12 mm dia. bars at
285 mm centres) the SPM predicts a greater
increase in load-carrying capacity than is
predicted by advanced analysis. However,
square panels will only require light
reinforcement because of their shape, hence
this effect will only show in situations outside
of actual design application. Nevertheless,
the method gives high enhancement factors
for square panels and, in light of the findings
from Ian Burgess’s research team, as
reported in [11] and follow up discussions, it
is prudent to place an upper limit on the
enhancement factors used until this issue is
more thoroughly researched. This limit will
only apply in a small number of realistic
design applications. Details are given
below.
(3) For panels with an aspect ratio of 2:1, the
SPM gives good agreement with advanced
analysis [11] for light and for heavy
reinforcement
(4) The inclusion of the unprotected secondary
beam contribution in the determination of
slab panel capacity is appropriate and
makes the SPM procedure more accurate.
Limits on Tensile Membrane Enhancement
Factor
This is the factor e given by equation 60.A41 of
DCB No. 60.
The limits recommended below have been
determined by applying the SPM method to the
slab panels reported in [11] and adopting a cut-off
factor corresponding to that obtained from
applications where the method gives answers in
good agreement with the results of the University
of Sheffield analyses.
The limits so obtained are:
(1) e ≤ 2.5 for slab panels incorporating the
contribution from secondary beams into the
determination of slab panel moment/tensile
membrane capacity.
No. 66, February 2002
(2) e ≤ 3.5 for slab panels with no secondary
beams input into the determination of slab
panel moment/tensile membrane capacity
(eg. slab panels formed from solid slabs or
from Speedfloor joist systems spanning in
the Lx direction).
These limits will only be reached for slab
panels which have a near to square aspect ratio
(Ly / Lx ≤ approximately 1.5).
The limits will be reviewed after mid-2002 following
completion of the planned slab panel fire test
series, which is mentioned on pages 35 and 36 of
DCB No. 64.
Insulation for the Ends of Unprotected Beams
Connecting Into Protected Members
There will be many instances when using the SPM
method where unprotected beams frame into
protected beams or into protected columns. In
severe fire conditions, the unprotected members
could be at a much higher temperature than the
protected members and therefore have the
potential to conduct heat locally into the protected
members, raising their temperature around the
connection region. It is important that this
tendency for increased local temperature rise is
effectively suppressed.
This can easily be done by extending the insulation
material applied to the protected member a
minimum distance into the unprotected member.
The question to be answered is; what distance is
needed to be effective?
The answer to this can be determined from a
number of sources, the most relevant of which is
the Cardington steel building test data [14]. In the
most severe of their large-scale realistic fire tests,
the Demonstration Furniture Test, the primary
beams and secondary beams were unprotected.
The primary beams were connected to the
columns with flexible endplate (FE) connections
and the secondary beams were connected with
web plate (WP) connections. The columns were
protected full height, including through the beam to
column connection region, with a 25 mm thick
ceramic fibre blanket. This covered the flexible
endplate and bolts in the primary beam to column
connections and was packed around the web cleat
in the web plate connections to the secondary
beams. It did not extend onto the ends of the
beams. For the column inside the test enclosure,
there were two incoming primary beams and two
incoming secondary beams. A view of this column
and the incoming beams is given in Fig. 59.2, DCB
No. 59.
In that test, the column temperature recorded in
the connection region was no higher than that
away from the connection region. Furthermore, in
that test, there was a very large difference between
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin
the maximum temperature reached in the
protected column (380oC) and in the unprotected
beams (over 1100oC). This would have maximised
the potential for heat to flow from these beams into
the column, however the influence of any such
heat flow was minimal.
Another source is evidence from Corus standard
fire tests on unprotected beams, where the
temperature of the beam end 150 mm outside the
line of the furnace has been shown to be under
60oC, when the maximum steel beam temperature
within the furnace is over 600oC. Finally, a BRANZ
study on pipe penetrations through fire walls
(reported on in DCB No. 42) has shown that, by a
distance of 150 mm away from the fire face, the
temperature will have decreased to well under the
general insulation criterion of 140oC max. over
ambient.
From these sources, the following
recommendations can be made:
(1) When an unprotected beam member is
connected into a protected beam or a
protected column member, the insulation
material used on the protected member
should extend onto the ends of the
unprotected member so as to:
(1.1) Completely cover the connection region, any
connection components and connectors,
and
(1.2) Extend at least 200 mm into the span of the
unprotected beam from its end.
(2) The insulation material should be the same
type and thickness as used on the protected
member and must be detailed to dependably
remain in place during a fire. (The latter is
important for boarded insulation materials, in
terms of how they are fastened at the ends
of the otherwise unprotected members).
(3) When an unprotected Speedfloor joist
is connected to a protected beam (see
Fig. 60.14, DCB No. 60) the insulation
material should completely cover the area of
the joist shoe through which the joist is
connected to the beam and the area of the
joist web connected to that joist shoe.
(Refer to the steel beam support detail in
[15]) for details of this shoe.
(4) Protected beams supporting Speedfloor
joists should use spray applied protection or
ceramic fibre blanket protection, which is
able to easily cover the surfaces involved in
(3) and will dependably remain in place
(pinned where necessary) in a severe fire.
These requirements cannot be easily
achieved with board protection in that
application.
Page 11 No. 66, February 2002
(5) Intumescent paint protection of the protected
beams is an option, however for the high
structural fire severities expected it would be
expensive. There is also the issue of
ensuring that the target limiting temperatures
are met for beams and columns (see DCB
No. 59), where these limiting temperatures
are less than the typically 620oC limiting
temperature for which intumescent paint
thicknesses are determined.
Errors In Published Procedure
(1) Incorrect representation of cover slab
thickness
When determining the heat flow into the slab mesh
for slabs cast onto profiled steel decking (section
A4.1.1, page 31, DCB No. 60, and Fig. 59.12, DCB
No. 59), the heat path dimension, u3, should be
taken from the centreline of the mesh to the top of
the slab rib for trapezoidal decks and from the
centreline of the mesh to the underside of the pan
for effectively solid slabs.
This means that, for a trapezoidal deck profile, the
cover slab thickness is needed, while, for a profile
giving a solid slab (eg. Traydek), the total slab
depth is needed.
In equation 60.A3.1, which gives u3,mesh, the
expression (2he – to) is used to generate the
required thickness. This is correct for the
solid slab case and for the trapezoidal decking
case where the ribs are symmetrical (ie. where
he = t + hrc/2, where t = cover slab thickness
(from [12]) and hrc = deck rib height). The
principal decking profile used in New Zealand,
Dimond Hi-Bond, is a symmetrical profile, so the
results are correct for it.
However, where the ribs are not symmetrical, the
expression (2he – to) ≠ t. It is proposed, therefore,
to replace equation 60.A3.1 with the following:
u3, mesh = to – hrc – cmesh - dmesh (new(60.A3.1))
where:
to = total depth of slab
hrc = rib height for trapezoidal profile
= 0 for profile giving a solid slab
cmesh = cover to mesh = 30 mm (typical)
dmesh = diameter of bar = 7.2 mm for D147 mesh
with bars at 300 centres.
The same change is required in equation 60.A20,
which becomes:
m'x = φfire Rtx,isb (to – hrc – er,isb - ecθ) (new (60.A20))
The same change is required in equation 60.A44,
which becomes:
dv = to – hrc – er,isb – 0.67ecθ (mm) (new (60.A44))
HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin
The only other change is to the commentary in
section CA4.2.6(1)(i), where the cover slab depth
is to – hrc, not 2he – to as currently stated.
(2) Error in Equation 60.A37, for e1bx
This error comes from the original report [13] on
the tensile membrane method. It involves the
omission of a pair of brackets, which has made the
equation slightly underestimate the magnitude of
enhancement that is actually available. The
correct equation is;
 α b β b2 2
e1bx = 2n  1 + x (k - 1) - x
2 3

k - k + 1 ( )
 
( (
+ (1 - 2n ) 1- α x b - βx b 2 ))
(new(60.A37))
The effect of the change to equation 60.A37 in the
example from DCB No. 60 is to increase e1bx from
0.81 to 0.97, which increases e from 1.36 to 1.54.
(3) Corrections to Fig. 60.2
These corrections do not affect the method. In the
expression for the force developed along the
failure line, L should be l. The force T1 should be
T1 /2, as the model is for half of the slab panel.
New Version of SPM Program Available
A new version of the SPM Program is available
which incorporates these changes. It is entitled
SPM_03_02 and will operate in all Windows
systems from Windows 95 onwards.
Those wanting a copy, which will be sent via email,
should contact Charles Clifton at
structural@hera.org.nz.
The program can be installed simply by double-
clicking on the icon and following the instructions.
It will be sent with an updated sample calculation
file, being the design example presented in DCB
No. 60 generated by the revised program.
Design of Circular Bolted Flange
Annulus Connections:
Part 2 of 3
This part 2 article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer. Drawings are by Tanya Miller,
Undergraduate Student from the FH Ravensburg – Weingarten
on Study Leave at HERA.
1. Introduction and Scope of this Part 2
Article
At least partially as a result of an increased
number of large diameter circular communications
towers currently being designed for New Zealand,
the HERA Structural Division has been asked for
an appropriate design procedure for bolted steel to
Page 12 No. 66, February 2002
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
Compression side Tension side of
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

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 13 No. 66, February 2002
 (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.

 Mp, f + C f Mp, f + C w Mpr,w 

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)
= 378 mm (for stiffened
connection ; see Fig. 66.6)
2.3.2 Check on stiffened flange adequacy
n = 2 (2 bolts in the tributary length;
see Fig. 66.6)
ΣφNtf for M30 8.8/TB = 373 kN

This uses section 3.3, pp. 21 & 22 of DCB No. 65. φNtw = min (φNtw,1 ; φNtw,2) = 424 kN

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 14 No. 66, February 2002
(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*.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 15 No. 66, February 2002
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
1. AS/NZS 4673:2001, Cold-Formed Stainless
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
New Zealand, Wellington.
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

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 16 No. 66, February 2002
 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;
University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
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;
University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
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,
England, 2000, Report No. 81415.

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.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 17 No. 66, February 2002