C. Twaddle and R. Van Bergen Beca Ltd, New Zealand Fitzroy ... Innovations... · Beca Ltd, New...
Transcript of C. Twaddle and R. Van Bergen Beca Ltd, New Zealand Fitzroy ... Innovations... · Beca Ltd, New...
An Innovative Approach to Wind Strengthening of a Cantilevered Stadium Roof, Yarrows Stadium, Taranaki
C. Twaddle and R. Van Bergen
Beca Ltd, New Zealand Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited
New Plymouth District Council ABSTRACT: This case study outlines the assessment and innovative retrofit of a large cantilevered stadium roof at Yarrows Stadium, New Plymouth, Taranaki that sustained significant wind related damage in a high wind event in 2012. The stadium roof sustained damage to a significant area of roofing due to a roof fixing failure. However the investigation highlighted a significant change in the wind loading standard associated with cantilevered roofs. Through agreement with the then owner, the New Plymouth District Council (NPDC), a roof structure review by Beca was initiated. The review identified that the stadium stand structure, constructed in 2001 had been designed and built prior to the current versions of AS/NZS1170.2 where cantilevered roofs are specifically covered. The upward wind loading of the truss imposed the most significant load in this case where the existing (steel circular hollow section) top chord was subjected to a significant compressive axial load that exceeded the capacity of the member. This risked structural failure at what is considered a wind event with a serviceability probability of exceedance. This meant that the stadium roof structure was subject to a relative risk of failure of 10 to 20 times that of a new roof structure of the same form. This can be considered similar to the relative risk associated with an earthquake prone building. While there is no provision in the building act for retrofitting structures for wind loading, the recent changes to the wind loading standards are specific and significant. Given the level of relative risk and the number of potential affected parties, the NPDC commissioned Beca to design a retrofit to mitigate this risk. A logical retrofit for this roof involved providing a restraint at the middle of the top chord of the truss, with suitable load paths to transfer restraint loads into existing load paths. This would stabilize the strut and protect it from an axial buckling failure. The issues with such a solution that governed the design were: safety, access, environmental issues and work quality. The roof was 14m above ground level making access difficult and risky. The existing roofing system was underslung with fixings that failed under pedestrian/service loading (therefore access was limited to the purlin structure only, at 2.5m centers). The areas of works were exposed to all elements being exterior in nature. The expense and associated risks (safety, works length, quality and cost) of the works suggested an alternative solution that allowed for prefabrication and simple site assembly. The retrofit included:
• A bespoke multifunctional innovative steel clamp that accommodated multiple members and alignments;
• It could be fabricated offsite and site fitted directly off a bespoke lifting plate assembly; • Access was via Mobile crane lifted work platforms; • A single member type and connection detail to be used for the entire strengthening works. • Tactical use of friction grip bolts to facilitate rapid construction with site tolerance.
The retrofit allowed: • Minimizing exposure of contractors to site risks such as height, weather and access. • Improving the quality of the product by offsite fabrication. • Improving the efficiency of all parties onsite including the ultimate cost of the retrofit.
The retrofit design was initially conceived in house and then collaboratively developed further with both the client and the contractor, Fitzroy Engineering Group limited (FEGL). Ultimately, the successful design and collaboration of all parties allowed the installation of 4 tons of structural steel on top of a relatively inaccessible stadium in three and a half working days.
1. BACK GROUND:
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.As this commission evolved it became evident that
• •
• Yarrow Stadiusporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of spectators in the two main stands, the TSB Stand and the Yarrows Stand. and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.to Figure 1 below for a site aerial photo.
The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current form. (TRC)established 2. EXISTING STADIUM STA
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The steel tsection (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled aluminum roofing supported below steel rectangular holstand is in the order of 3,000m
YarrowsStand
BACK GROUND:
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.As this commission evolved it became evident that
Its structural condition. Capacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
standard Consider
Yarrow Stadium issporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of spectators in the two main stands, the TSB Stand and the Yarrows Stand. and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.to Figure 1 below for a site aerial photo.
The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current form. Since July 2013, t(TRC) and NPDCestablished (comprising T
EXISTING STADIUM STA
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The steel truss (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled aluminum roofing supported below steel rectangular holstand is in the order of 3,000m
Yarrows Stand
BACK GROUND:
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.As this commission evolved it became evident that
Its structural condition.apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
standard. onsideration of
m is located near the CBD of New Plymouth and issporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of spectators in the two main stands, the TSB Stand and the Yarrows Stand. and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.to Figure 1 below for a site aerial photo.
The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current Since July 2013, tand NPDC, with Management and
(comprising T
EXISTING STADIUM STA
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled aluminum roofing supported below steel rectangular holstand is in the order of 3,000m
BACK GROUND:
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.As this commission evolved it became evident that
Its structural condition. apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
ation of serviceability issues relating to the TSB stand.located near the CBD of New Plymouth and is
sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of spectators in the two main stands, the TSB Stand and the Yarrows Stand. and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.to Figure 1 below for a site aerial photo.
The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current Since July 2013, the ownership of the stadium
, with Management and (comprising TRC and NPDC)
EXISTING STADIUM STA
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled aluminum roofing supported below steel rectangular holstand is in the order of 3,000m2.
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.As this commission evolved it became evident that
apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
serviceability issues relating to the TSB stand.located near the CBD of New Plymouth and is
sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of spectators in the two main stands, the TSB Stand and the Yarrows Stand. and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.to Figure 1 below for a site aerial photo.
Figure 1 The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current
he ownership of the stadium , with Management and
RC and NPDC)
EXISTING STADIUM STAND DESCRIPTION:
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled aluminum roofing supported below steel rectangular hol
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.As this commission evolved it became evident that
apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
serviceability issues relating to the TSB stand.located near the CBD of New Plymouth and is
sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of spectators in the two main stands, the TSB Stand and the Yarrows Stand. and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.
Figure 1 – Plan of Yarrows The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current
he ownership of the stadium , with Management and Operations undertaken by the NPDC.
RC and NPDC) to provide overall gove
ND DESCRIPTION:
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled aluminum roofing supported below steel rectangular hol
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.As this commission evolved it became evident that assessment
apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
serviceability issues relating to the TSB stand.located near the CBD of New Plymouth and is
sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of spectators in the two main stands, the TSB Stand and the Yarrows Stand. and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.
Plan of Yarrows The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current
he ownership of the stadium has residedperations undertaken by the NPDC.
to provide overall gove
ND DESCRIPTION:
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled aluminum roofing supported below steel rectangular hollow sections (RHS). The total roofed area of each
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.
assessment was required
apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
serviceability issues relating to the TSB stand.located near the CBD of New Plymouth and is a sports venue catering for top level
sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of spectators in the two main stands, the TSB Stand and the Yarrows Stand. and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.
Plan of Yarrows StadiumThe TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current
has resided perations undertaken by the NPDC.
to provide overall governance
ND DESCRIPTION:
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled
low sections (RHS). The total roofed area of each
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.
was required of
apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
serviceability issues relating to the TSB stand. a sports venue catering for top level
sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of spectators in the two main stands, the TSB Stand and the Yarrows Stand. These are located on the East and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.
Stadium The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current
with the Taranaki Regional Council perations undertaken by the NPDC.
ance and a joint vision
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled
low sections (RHS). The total roofed area of each
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the failure of roof sheeting on the TSB Stand Roof at Yarrow Stadium, which occurred during high winds in April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC to make appropriate repairs that would allow the stadium to be used for events.
of the following
apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
a sports venue catering for top level sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of
These are located on the East and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.
The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current the Taranaki Regional Council
perations undertaken by the NPDC. A Jointand a joint vision
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled
low sections (RHS). The total roofed area of each
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the during high winds in
April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC
the following:
apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
a sports venue catering for top level sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of
These are located on the East and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South.
The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current the Taranaki Regional Council
A Joint committee was and a joint vision.
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled
low sections (RHS). The total roofed area of each
TSB Stand
North
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the during high winds in
April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC
apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
a sports venue catering for top level sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of
These are located on the East and West sides of the main sports field respectively, which is aligned approximately North to South. Refer
The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current the Taranaki Regional Council
committee was
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled
low sections (RHS). The total roofed area of each
TSB Stand
North
Beca Infrastructure Ltd (Beca) was commissioned by New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) following the during high winds in
April 2012. The scope of our initial engagement was to investigate the cause of failure and assist NPDC
apacity of the existing roof structure to resist wind loads relative to the current wind loadings
a sports venue catering for top level sporting events, predominantly rugby. It seats approximately 26,000 people with the majority of
These are located on the East Refer
The TSB Stand (and Yarrows stand), the subject of strengthening was constructed in 2001 in its current the Taranaki Regional Council
committee was
The steel roof structure above the top floor level on both stands consists of heavy steel columns that form a portal frame with a steel truss, which cantilevers 21m over the bleachers towards the main field. The
russ (7.3m centres) is constructed from circular hollow sections (CHS) with a steel universal beam section (UB) as the bottom chord located immediately above the underslung roof, consisting of profiled
low sections (RHS). The total roofed area of each
TSB Stand
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are identified in The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor contains thmembers area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel structure, with both eccentrically (Kdirection and steel moment resisting frames in the easton raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast concrete units with an inFigure
3. HIGH WIND DAMAGE: In March west which loaded the underslungheld the roofing to the underside of the RHS purlins.The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120mFigure 3 above for an annotatioDuring the subseqfor damage, it was raised to cantilever roofs hafor the to establish whether the structure was exposed to hiunderstood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
4. ROOF ASSESSMENT:
Wind The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases within the standard such as for an exposed roThe Australian wind loading standard, AS1170.2 cantilevered roofs in roofs by coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.In 2004, New Zealand and Australia combined
Transverse Strengthening plane
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are identified in Figure The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor contains the sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel structure, with both eccentrically (Kdirection and steel moment resisting frames in the easton raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast
rete units with an inFigure 2.
HIGH WIND DAMAGE:
March 2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south est which loaded the underslung
held the roofing to the underside of the RHS purlins.The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120mFigure 3 above for an annotatioDuring the subseqfor damage, it was raised to cantilever roofs hafor the stadium was extended to allow assessment of the primary structure as wellto establish whether the structure was exposed to hiunderstood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
ROOF ASSESSMENT:
Wind Loading The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases within the standard such as for an exposed roThe Australian wind loading standard, AS1170.2 cantilevered roofs in roofs by Melbourne and Cheung coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.In 2004, New Zealand and Australia combined
Transverse Strengthening
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are Figure 2. The same terms apply when discussing the
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel structure, with both eccentrically (Kdirection and steel moment resisting frames in the easton raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast
rete units with an in
Figure 2 & 3
HIGH WIND DAMAGE:
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south est which loaded the underslung
held the roofing to the underside of the RHS purlins.The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120mFigure 3 above for an annotatioDuring the subsequent investigation of the roof claddingfor damage, it was raised to cantilever roofs had changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering
stadium was extended to allow assessment of the primary structure as wellto establish whether the structure was exposed to hiunderstood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
ROOF ASSESSMENT:
oading StandardsThe structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases within the standard such as for an exposed roThe Australian wind loading standard, AS1170.2 cantilevered roofs in 2002
Melbourne and Cheung coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.In 2004, New Zealand and Australia combined
Strut 1
Strengthening
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are . The same terms apply when discussing the
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel structure, with both eccentrically (Kdirection and steel moment resisting frames in the easton raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast
rete units with an in-situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
Figure 2 & 3 –
HIGH WIND DAMAGE:
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south est which loaded the underslung
held the roofing to the underside of the RHS purlins.The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120mFigure 3 above for an annotation of the failure area.
uent investigation of the roof claddingfor damage, it was raised to the stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large
d changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering stadium was extended to allow assessment of the primary structure as well
to establish whether the structure was exposed to hiunderstood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
ROOF ASSESSMENT:
Standards The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases within the standard such as for an exposed roThe Australian wind loading standard, AS1170.2
2002, after research into wind behavioMelbourne and Cheung
coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.In 2004, New Zealand and Australia combined
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are . The same terms apply when discussing the
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel structure, with both eccentrically (K-braces) and concendirection and steel moment resisting frames in the easton raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast
situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
– TSB Stand Typical Section and
HIGH WIND DAMAGE:
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south est which loaded the underslung roof such that it caused the roofing to puncture through the fixings that
held the roofing to the underside of the RHS purlins.The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120m
n of the failure area.uent investigation of the roof cladding
stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large d changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering
stadium was extended to allow assessment of the primary structure as wellto establish whether the structure was exposed to hiunderstood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
ROOF ASSESSMENT:
The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases within the standard such as for an exposed roThe Australian wind loading standard, AS1170.2
, after research into wind behavioMelbourne and Cheung in 1985. This
coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.In 2004, New Zealand and Australia combined
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are . The same terms apply when discussing the
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel
braces) and concendirection and steel moment resisting frames in the easton raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast
situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
TSB Stand Typical Section and
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south roof such that it caused the roofing to puncture through the fixings that
held the roofing to the underside of the RHS purlins.The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120m
n of the failure area.uent investigation of the roof cladding
stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large d changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering
stadium was extended to allow assessment of the primary structure as wellto establish whether the structure was exposed to hiunderstood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases within the standard such as for an exposed roof. The Australian wind loading standard, AS1170.2
, after research into wind behavio. This research, amongst others, suggested that the net pressure
coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.In 2004, New Zealand and Australia combined their
Main Column
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are . The same terms apply when discussing the
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel
braces) and concentrically braced (rod bracing), in the northdirection and steel moment resisting frames in the east-west direction. Concrete bleachers are supported on raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast
situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
TSB Stand Typical Section and
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south roof such that it caused the roofing to puncture through the fixings that
held the roofing to the underside of the RHS purlins. The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120m
n of the failure area. uent investigation of the roof cladding failure and inspection of the balance of the roof
stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large d changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering
stadium was extended to allow assessment of the primary structure as wellto establish whether the structure was exposed to higher wind related risk than was previously understood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases
The Australian wind loading standard, AS1170.2 (1989) , after research into wind behavio
research, amongst others, suggested that the net pressure coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.
their loadings standards into AS/NZS1170, Appendix D
Column
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are . The same terms apply when discussing the East or West Stand roof structures.
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel
trically braced (rod bracing), in the northwest direction. Concrete bleachers are supported
on raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
TSB Stand Typical Section and Perspective View
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south roof such that it caused the roofing to puncture through the fixings that
The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120m
failure and inspection of the balance of the roof stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large
d changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering stadium was extended to allow assessment of the primary structure as well
gher wind related risk than was previously understood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases
initially introduced provisions to cover large , after research into wind behaviour around stadium, stand like large cantilever
research, amongst others, suggested that the net pressure coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.
loadings standards into AS/NZS1170, Appendix D
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are East or West Stand roof structures.
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel
trically braced (rod bracing), in the northwest direction. Concrete bleachers are supported
on raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
Perspective View
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south roof such that it caused the roofing to puncture through the fixings that
The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120m
failure and inspection of the balance of the roof stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large
d changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering stadium was extended to allow assessment of the primary structure as well
gher wind related risk than was previously understood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases
initially introduced provisions to cover large r around stadium, stand like large cantilever
research, amongst others, suggested that the net pressure coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.
loadings standards into AS/NZS1170, Appendix D
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are East or West Stand roof structures.
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel
trically braced (rod bracing), in the northwest direction. Concrete bleachers are supported
on raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
Perspective View
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south roof such that it caused the roofing to puncture through the fixings that
The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120m
failure and inspection of the balance of the roof stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large
d changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering stadium was extended to allow assessment of the primary structure as well. The intent
gher wind related risk than was previously understood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural assessment, the findings and associated implementation is the subject of this paper.
The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases
initially introduced provisions to cover large r around stadium, stand like large cantilever
research, amongst others, suggested that the net pressure coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.
loadings standards into AS/NZS1170, Appendix D
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are East or West Stand roof structures.
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel
trically braced (rod bracing), in the northwest direction. Concrete bleachers are supported
on raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
Perspective View
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south roof such that it caused the roofing to puncture through the fixings that
The damage occurred on the SW tip of the TSB Stand and covered an area of 90 to 120m2
failure and inspection of the balance of the roof stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large
d changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering he intent of this was
gher wind related risk than was previously understood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural
The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases
initially introduced provisions to cover large r around stadium, stand like large cantilever
research, amongst others, suggested that the net pressure coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.
loadings standards into AS/NZS1170, Appendix D
2012 Failure Zone
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are East or West Stand roof structures.
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel
trically braced (rod bracing), in the north-south west direction. Concrete bleachers are supported
on raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south roof such that it caused the roofing to puncture through the fixings that
2. Refer to
failure and inspection of the balance of the roof stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large
d changed since the design of the original structure. Therefore the engineering scopeof this was
gher wind related risk than was previously understood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural
The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases
initially introduced provisions to cover large r around stadium, stand like large cantilever
research, amongst others, suggested that the net pressure coefficients around these types of structures were notably higher than had been previously assumed.
loadings standards into AS/NZS1170, Appendix D
2012 Failure Zone
For the purposes of discussion in later sections, the critical sections of the roof steel structure are
The entire TSB Stand structure is supported on piles as it is sited near to the middle of the original fill zone of the valley. This three storey structure has a double height middle storey. The ground floor
e sports facilities, the first floor contains the public concourse and the top floor contains the members area, known as the Legends Lounge. The lateral resisting structure consists of a braced steel
south west direction. Concrete bleachers are supported
on raking steel beams and the suspended floors are generally constructed from hollowcore precast situ concrete topping slabs. A typical section of the TSB Stand is provided in
2012, the TSB Stand suffered high wind related damage from a gust event(s) from the south roof such that it caused the roofing to puncture through the fixings that
. Refer to
failure and inspection of the balance of the roof stadium owner that the understanding of high wind loads relative to large
scope of this was
gher wind related risk than was previously understood and to then be able to manage that risk in an informed manner. This wind structural
The structure was designed under NZS4203:1992, which does not specifically cover large cantilevered roofs. However an assumed basis for design was likely derived from one of the existing similar cases
initially introduced provisions to cover large r around stadium, stand like large cantilever
research, amongst others, suggested that the net pressure
loadings standards into AS/NZS1170, Appendix D5
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented by a triangular profile that tapered to the supositive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of the area concerned relative to the structures edge.In 2011 AS/NZS1170.2 Appendix Dwas to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was notified by to assess the roof for wind loading. The current aligned toward the tip of the cantilever is as follows in
The above illustrateand the significance of the uplift case which was critical in this instance. within Ap
• • •
•
•
Assessment of the Roof StructureThe steel structure of the various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in plane of structural capacity in the truss out of plane direction.It was found however that the actions on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under NZS3404.Detailed Assessment of the Critical StrutIn the uplift load combination depicted in compression tcolumn at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signiderive capacity.
•
•
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented by a triangular profile that tapered to the supositive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of the area concerned relative to the structures edge.In 2011 AS/NZS1170.2 Appendix Dwas to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was notified by IPENZ in to assess the roof for wind loading. The current aligned toward the tip of the cantilever is as follows in
The above illustrateand the significance of the uplift case which was critical in this instance. within Appendix D
Downward loads from wind are also significant. Roof loading varies relative to the offset from the sides of the stand. These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan ar
the wind direction other typical structures.the NW, W and SW
The method in limitations and allowances respectively and non
AS/NZSshapes)and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.
Assessment of the Roof StructureThe steel structure of the various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in plane of the truss/frame portal. Out of plane the main trusses of the stadium structural capacity in the truss out of plane direction.It was found however that the
ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under NZS3404. Detailed Assessment of the Critical StrutIn the uplift load combination depicted in compression this element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signiderive capacity.
The potential fthese mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord).
The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of above the purlin
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented by a triangular profile that tapered to the supositive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of the area concerned relative to the structures edge.In 2011 AS/NZS1170.2 Appendix Dwas to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
IPENZ in 2011to assess the roof for wind loading. The current aligned toward the tip of the cantilever is as follows in
Figure 5 The above illustrates the increasing magnitude of the Cpn for these and the significance of the uplift case which was critical in this instance.
pendix D5 relevant to these types of roofs:Downward loads from wind are also significant.Roof loading varies relative to the offset from the sides of the stand.These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan arthe wind direction other typical structures.the NW, W and SWThe method in AS/NZSlimitations and allowances respectively and nonAS/NZS1170.2 Appendix D does not reference localized pressure factors
apes) for vortices or other mechanisms that are often critical for and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.
Assessment of the Roof StructureThe steel structure of the various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
russ/frame portal. Out of plane the main trusses of the stadium structural capacity in the truss out of plane direction.It was found however that the
ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
Detailed Assessment of the Critical StrutIn the uplift load combination depicted in
his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signiderive capacity. In doing so we considered:
The potential for rotational restraint at the bottom chord and the midspan vertical strutthese mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord).The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of above the purlin
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented by a triangular profile that tapered to the supositive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of the area concerned relative to the structures edge.In 2011 AS/NZS1170.2 Appendix Dwas to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
2011 as part of the draft update of to assess the roof for wind loading. The current aligned toward the tip of the cantilever is as follows in
Figure 5 – Cantilever Roof Wind the increasing magnitude of the Cpn for these
and the significance of the uplift case which was critical in this instance. relevant to these types of roofs:
Downward loads from wind are also significant.Roof loading varies relative to the offset from the sides of the stand.These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan arthe wind direction indicated in Figure 5other typical structures. Therefore the TSB Stand roof is exposed to the NW, W and SW directions
AS/NZS1170.2 limitations and allowances respectively and non
1170.2 Appendix D does not reference localized pressure factorsfor vortices or other mechanisms that are often critical for
and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.Assessment of the Roof StructureThe steel structure of the roof was computer various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
russ/frame portal. Out of plane the main trusses of the stadium structural capacity in the truss out of plane direction.It was found however that the AS/NZS
ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
Detailed Assessment of the Critical StrutIn the uplift load combination depicted in
his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signi
n doing so we considered:or rotational restraint at the bottom chord and the midspan vertical strut
these mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord).The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of above the purlin plane to restrain Strut 1.
1.5
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented by a triangular profile that tapered to the supositive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of the area concerned relative to the structures edge.In 2011 AS/NZS1170.2 Appendix D5 was revised, due to further work in this area. The significant change was to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
as part of the draft update of to assess the roof for wind loading. The current aligned toward the tip of the cantilever is as follows in
Cantilever Roof Wind the increasing magnitude of the Cpn for these
and the significance of the uplift case which was critical in this instance. relevant to these types of roofs:
Downward loads from wind are also significant.Roof loading varies relative to the offset from the sides of the stand.These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan ar
indicated in Figure 5Therefore the TSB Stand roof is exposed to
directions. 1170.2 Appendix D also includes dimensional
limitations and allowances respectively and non1170.2 Appendix D does not reference localized pressure factorsfor vortices or other mechanisms that are often critical for
and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.Assessment of the Roof Structure
roof was computer various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
russ/frame portal. Out of plane the main trusses of the stadium structural capacity in the truss out of plane direction.
AS/NZS1170.2 Appendix D conditions were the only case that caused ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
Detailed Assessment of the Critical StrutIn the uplift load combination depicted in F
his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signi
n doing so we considered:or rotational restraint at the bottom chord and the midspan vertical strut
these mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord).The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of
to restrain Strut 1.
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented by a triangular profile that tapered to the support region of the cantilever. The pressure could be either positive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of the area concerned relative to the structures edge.
s revised, due to further work in this area. The significant change was to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
as part of the draft update of to assess the roof for wind loading. The current (and previous) aligned toward the tip of the cantilever is as follows in
Cantilever Roof Wind the increasing magnitude of the Cpn for these
and the significance of the uplift case which was critical in this instance. relevant to these types of roofs:
Downward loads from wind are also significant.Roof loading varies relative to the offset from the sides of the stand.These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan ar
indicated in Figure 5 aboveTherefore the TSB Stand roof is exposed to
Appendix D also includes dimensionallimitations and allowances respectively and non
1170.2 Appendix D does not reference localized pressure factorsfor vortices or other mechanisms that are often critical for
and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.
roof was computer modelledvarious wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
russ/frame portal. Out of plane the main trusses of the stadium structural capacity in the truss out of plane direction.
1170.2 Appendix D conditions were the only case that caused ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
Detailed Assessment of the Critical Strut Figure 5, Strut 1 assumes a compression load. When under
his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signi
n doing so we considered: or rotational restraint at the bottom chord and the midspan vertical strut
these mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord).The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of
to restrain Strut 1.
0.0
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented
pport region of the cantilever. The pressure could be either positive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of
s revised, due to further work in this area. The significant change
was to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was as part of the draft update of AS/NZS
(and previous) aligned toward the tip of the cantilever is as follows in Figure 5
Cantilever Roof Wind Pressure Coefficients in 1170.2the increasing magnitude of the Cpn for these
and the significance of the uplift case which was critical in this instance. relevant to these types of roofs:
Downward loads from wind are also significant. Roof loading varies relative to the offset from the sides of the stand.These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan ar
above, in other cases the windTherefore the TSB Stand roof is exposed to
Appendix D also includes dimensionallimitations and allowances respectively and non-conformance can still require wind tunnel testing.
1170.2 Appendix D does not reference localized pressure factorsfor vortices or other mechanisms that are often critical for
and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.
modelled in spacegassvarious wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
russ/frame portal. Out of plane the main trusses of the stadium structural capacity in the truss out of plane direction.
1170.2 Appendix D conditions were the only case that caused ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
igure 5, Strut 1 assumes a compression load. When under his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main
column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signi
or rotational restraint at the bottom chord and the midspan vertical strutthese mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord).The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of
0.0
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented
pport region of the cantilever. The pressure could be either positive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of
s revised, due to further work in this area. The significant change was to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
AS/NZS1170.2(and previous) pressure distribution coefficients for wind
Figure 5:
Pressure Coefficients in 1170.2the increasing magnitude of the Cpn for these types of
and the significance of the uplift case which was critical in this instance.
Roof loading varies relative to the offset from the sides of the stand.These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan ar
in other cases the windTherefore the TSB Stand roof is exposed to
Appendix D also includes dimensionalconformance can still require wind tunnel testing.
1170.2 Appendix D does not reference localized pressure factorsfor vortices or other mechanisms that are often critical for
and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.
in spacegass as a 3D frame and assessed under various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
russ/frame portal. Out of plane the main trusses of the stadium
1170.2 Appendix D conditions were the only case that caused ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
igure 5, Strut 1 assumes a compression load. When under his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main
column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signi
or rotational restraint at the bottom chord and the midspan vertical strutthese mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord).The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of
1.8
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented
pport region of the cantilever. The pressure could be either positive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of
s revised, due to further work in this area. The significant change was to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
1170.2, and was the baspressure distribution coefficients for wind
Pressure Coefficients in 1170.2types of roofs that occurred
and the significance of the uplift case which was critical in this instance. The following was a
Roof loading varies relative to the offset from the sides of the stand. These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan ar
in other cases the windTherefore the TSB Stand roof is exposed to governing
Appendix D also includes dimensional conformance can still require wind tunnel testing.
1170.2 Appendix D does not reference localized pressure factorsfor vortices or other mechanisms that are often critical for secondary
and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.
as a 3D frame and assessed under various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
russ/frame portal. Out of plane the main trusses of the stadium were
1170.2 Appendix D conditions were the only case that caused ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
igure 5, Strut 1 assumes a compression load. When under his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main
column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signi
or rotational restraint at the bottom chord and the midspan vertical strutthese mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord).The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of
1.8
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented
pport region of the cantilever. The pressure could be either positive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of
s revised, due to further work in this area. The significant change was to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
, and was the baspressure distribution coefficients for wind
Pressure Coefficients in 1170.2roofs that occurred
The following was a
These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan arin other cases the wind load on the roof is
governing
and dynamic amplification conformance can still require wind tunnel testing.
1170.2 Appendix D does not reference localized pressure factors (as per other roofing secondary elements (ie purlins
and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.
as a 3D frame and assessed under various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
were half modelled
1170.2 Appendix D conditions were the only case that caused ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
igure 5, Strut 1 assumes a compression load. When under his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main
column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most signi
or rotational restraint at the bottom chord and the midspan vertical strutthese mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord).The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented
pport region of the cantilever. The pressure could be either positive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of
s revised, due to further work in this area. The significant change was to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
, and was the basis for the advice pressure distribution coefficients for wind
Pressure Coefficients in 1170.2 roofs that occurred
The following was also notable
These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan arload on the roof is
wind loads from
and dynamic amplification conformance can still require wind tunnel testing.
(as per other roofing elements (ie purlins
and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.
as a 3D frame and assessed under various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
modelled
1170.2 Appendix D conditions were the only case that caused ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
igure 5, Strut 1 assumes a compression load. When under his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main
column at the highest point of the stadium. Therefore buckling sensitivity is the most significant issue to
or rotational restraint at the bottom chord and the midspan vertical strut. Hthese mechanisms were either weak or governed by poor connections (purlin to chord). The out of plane restraint and stiffness of the main column where it cantilevered out of plane
1.
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented
pport region of the cantilever. The pressure could be either positive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of
s revised, due to further work in this area. The significant change was to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
is for the advice pressure distribution coefficients for wind
roofs that occurred over time lso notable
These significant load cases only occur when the wind direction is within a 90 degree plan arc of load on the roof is as per
wind loads from
and dynamic amplification conformance can still require wind tunnel testing.
(as per other roofing elements (ie purlins
and roof fixings). Therefore testing and judgment of the engineer is required in these instances.
as a 3D frame and assessed under various wind loading cases from all directions. The model extent was such that the vertical frames were extended to the foundation level with a sensitivity analysis applied to the level of rotational restraint in
to assess
1170.2 Appendix D conditions were the only case that caused ns on any structural elements such that they did not meet their current code capacity under
igure 5, Strut 1 assumes a compression load. When under his element is 15m long approximately (L) from the bottom chord intersection to the main
ficant issue to
However
plane
1.1
of 1170.2 (wind loadings standard for Australia and New Zealand) formalized the findings from earlier works. In this standard, the suggested net pressure distribution on a large cantilever roof was represented
pport region of the cantilever. The pressure could be either positive or negative, but the magnitude of the coefficient changed with the sign and with the relativity of
s revised, due to further work in this area. The significant change was to increase the net pressure distribution from a triangular form to that of a trapezoid. This was
is for the advice pressure distribution coefficients for wind
time lso notable
c of
conformance can still require wind tunnel testing.
elements (ie purlins
to assess
•
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was where Ke was in the range of 0.85 to 1.0offer sin the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved, compression buckling governed.The results of the assessment
Ke
1.00 0.85 0.50 Comments on the above table are as follows:
• • •
•
LegislationAs referenced abovestrengthening would be required of the structure under the Building Actwind loading.Howeverthe following
• • • •
5.
From review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspanrequired to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.To stabilize the strut
• •
The first option of the two was selected for the following rational:1.2.
3.
See an
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering an out of
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was where Ke was in the range of 0.85 to 1.0offer some rotational restraint in the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved, compression buckling governed.The results of the assessment
Phi.Ncy(kNm)
327 455 1,097
Comments on the above table are as follows: V,des derived from an IL3 wind event (1000 year AEP), and an Mz,cat = V,actual The AEP derives from a reverse calculation of
to determine the event risk that would not cause failure.below to depict this
Therefore the strut had 10 to standards. (seismic loading
Legislation As referenced abovestrengthening would be required of the structure under the Building Actwind loading. However, both TRC and the following:
The level of increased relative risk; The number of parties that may attend a large event The nearby residen The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
5. STRENGTHENING SCHEMEFrom review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspanrequired to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.To stabilize the strut
A transverse A localized fly brace system to brace the vertical strut below Strut 1 at midspa
purlins to either side of the truss.The first option of the two was selected for the following rational:
1. A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.2. The fly brace system utilized existing
highly loaded.3. The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was
already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).See an elevated half section of the transverse strut and brace system adopted below
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering an out of plane
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was where Ke was in the range of 0.85 to 1.0
ome rotational restraint in the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved, compression buckling governed.The results of the assessment
Phi.Ncy (kNm)
Phi.Mcy(kNm)
139 139
1,097 139Comments on the above table are as follows:
des derived from an IL3 wind event (1000 year AEP), and an Mz,cat = actual derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.
The AEP derives from a reverse calculation of to determine the event risk that would not cause failure.below to depict this
Therefore the strut had 10 to standards. (This could be considered as equivalent to an easeismic loading).
As referenced above, if the actions were derived from seismic strengthening would be required of the structure under the Building Act
both TRC and
he level of increased relative risk;he number of parties that may attend a large eventhe nearby residen
The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
STRENGTHENING SCHEMEFrom review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspanrequired to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.To stabilize the strut:
A transverse strut and brace system, and;A localized fly brace system to brace the vertical strut below Strut 1 at midspapurlins to either side of the truss.
The first option of the two was selected for the following rational:A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.The fly brace system utilized existing highly loaded. The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).elevated half section of the transverse strut and brace system adopted below
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering moment end connection to strut 1.
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was where Ke was in the range of 0.85 to 1.0
ome rotational restraint available by the strut end conditionsin the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved, compression buckling governed. The results of the assessment were as follows
Table 1: Phi.Mcy (kNm)
139 139 139
Comments on the above table are as follows:des derived from an IL3 wind event (1000 year AEP), and an Mz,cat =
derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.The AEP derives from a reverse calculation of to determine the event risk that would not cause failure.below to depict this (note this is for V,r rather than V,des)
Therefore the strut had 10 to This could be considered as equivalent to an ea
).
if the actions were derived from seismic strengthening would be required of the structure under the Building Act
both TRC and NPDC deemed it appropriate to investigate strengthening of the stands
he level of increased relative risk;he number of parties that may attend a large eventhe nearby residential housing;
The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
STRENGTHENING SCHEMEFrom review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspanrequired to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.
trut and brace system, and;A localized fly brace system to brace the vertical strut below Strut 1 at midspapurlins to either side of the truss.
The first option of the two was selected for the following rational:A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.The fly brace system utilized existing
The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).elevated half section of the transverse strut and brace system adopted below
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering moment end connection to strut 1.
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was where Ke was in the range of 0.85 to 1.0. This was
available by the strut end conditionsin the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved,
were as follows
Table 1: Strut 1 N*/Phi.Ncy + M*/Phi.Mcy <=
1.0 (vs 100% of 1170.2)
Comments on the above table are as follows:des derived from an IL3 wind event (1000 year AEP), and an Mz,cat =
derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.The AEP derives from a reverse calculation of to determine the event risk that would not cause failure.
(note this is for V,r rather than V,des)
Therefore the strut had 10 to 20 times the relative risk of a new structure designed to current
This could be considered as equivalent to an ea
if the actions were derived from seismic strengthening would be required of the structure under the Building Act
NPDC deemed it appropriate to investigate strengthening of the stands
he level of increased relative risk;he number of parties that may attend a large event
tial housing; The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
STRENGTHENING SCHEMEFrom review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspanrequired to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.
trut and brace system, and;A localized fly brace system to brace the vertical strut below Strut 1 at midspapurlins to either side of the truss.
The first option of the two was selected for the following rational:A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.The fly brace system utilized existing
The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).elevated half section of the transverse strut and brace system adopted below
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering moment end connection to strut 1.
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was . This was
available by the strut end conditionsin the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved,
were as follows in Table 1trut 1 – Wind Assessment Results
N*/Phi.Ncy + M*/Phi.Mcy <= (vs 100% of 1170.2)
1.81 1.30 0.63
Comments on the above table are as follows: des derived from an IL3 wind event (1000 year AEP), and an Mz,cat =
derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.The AEP derives from a reverse calculation of to determine the event risk that would not cause failure.
(note this is for V,r rather than V,des)
0 times the relative risk of a new structure designed to current This could be considered as equivalent to an ea
if the actions were derived from seismic strengthening would be required of the structure under the Building Act
NPDC deemed it appropriate to investigate strengthening of the stands
he level of increased relative risk; he number of parties that may attend a large event
The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
STRENGTHENING SCHEME From review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspanrequired to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.
trut and brace system, and; A localized fly brace system to brace the vertical strut below Strut 1 at midspa
The first option of the two was selected for the following rational:
A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.The fly brace system utilized existing elements and connections that were either weak and/or
The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).elevated half section of the transverse strut and brace system adopted below
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering moment end connection to strut 1.
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was . This was to reflect the potential of the boundary conditions to
available by the strut end conditionsin the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved,
in Table 1, under the load combination of 0.9G & Wuplift:Wind Assessment Results
N*/Phi.Ncy + M*/Phi.Mcy <= (vs 100% of 1170.2)
des derived from an IL3 wind event (1000 year AEP), and an Mz,cat = derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.
The AEP derives from a reverse calculation of the equation, to determine the event risk that would not cause failure.
(note this is for V,r rather than V,des)
0 times the relative risk of a new structure designed to current This could be considered as equivalent to an ea
if the actions were derived from seismic strengthening would be required of the structure under the Building Act
NPDC deemed it appropriate to investigate strengthening of the stands
he number of parties that may attend a large event
The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
From review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspanrequired to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.
A localized fly brace system to brace the vertical strut below Strut 1 at midspa
The first option of the two was selected for the following rational:A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.
elements and connections that were either weak and/or
The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).elevated half section of the transverse strut and brace system adopted below
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was to reflect the potential of the boundary conditions to
available by the strut end conditions. Induced moments were also included in the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved,
, under the load combination of 0.9G & Wuplift:Wind Assessment Results
N*/Phi.Ncy + M*/Phi.Mcy <=
V,des(m/s)
41.041.041.0
des derived from an IL3 wind event (1000 year AEP), and an Mz,cat = derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.
equation, AS/NZSto determine the event risk that would not cause failure. See a part extract from
(note this is for V,r rather than V,des).
0 times the relative risk of a new structure designed to current This could be considered as equivalent to an earthquake prone building under
if the actions were derived from seismic loading strengthening would be required of the structure under the Building Act
NPDC deemed it appropriate to investigate strengthening of the stands
he number of parties that may attend a large event;
The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
From review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspanrequired to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.
A localized fly brace system to brace the vertical strut below Strut 1 at midspa
The first option of the two was selected for the following rational: A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.
elements and connections that were either weak and/or
The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).elevated half section of the transverse strut and brace system adopted below
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was to reflect the potential of the boundary conditions to
. Induced moments were also included in the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved,
, under the load combination of 0.9G & Wuplift:Wind Assessment Results
des (m/s)
Strut 1 V,
41.0 41.0 41.0
des derived from an IL3 wind event (1000 year AEP), and an Mz,cat = derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.
AS/NZS1170.2, table 3.1 region A7See a part extract from
0 times the relative risk of a new structure designed to current rthquake prone building under
loading and the level of risk was such strengthening would be required of the structure under the Building Act. But, no such legislation exists for
NPDC deemed it appropriate to investigate strengthening of the stands
The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
From review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspanrequired to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.
A localized fly brace system to brace the vertical strut below Strut 1 at midspa
A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.elements and connections that were either weak and/or
The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).elevated half section of the transverse strut and brace system adopted below
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was to reflect the potential of the boundary conditions to
. Induced moments were also included in the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved,
, under the load combination of 0.9G & Wuplift: Strut 1 -,allowable
(m/s) 32.0 36.0 56.0
des derived from an IL3 wind event (1000 year AEP), and an Mz,cat = (15m,C3derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.
1170.2, table 3.1 region A7See a part extract from
0 times the relative risk of a new structure designed to current rthquake prone building under
and the level of risk was such no such legislation exists for
NPDC deemed it appropriate to investigate strengthening of the stands
The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
From review of Table 1 above, it is clear that stabilizing Strut 1 laterally at its midspan is all that is required to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.
A localized fly brace system to brace the vertical strut below Strut 1 at midspan to the RHS
A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.elements and connections that were either weak and/or
The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).elevated half section of the transverse strut and brace system adopted below in Figure 6.
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering
Given the above issues, the effective length of strut 1 relative to compression buckling was Ke X L = Leto reflect the potential of the boundary conditions to
. Induced moments were also included in the analysis, but given the bending stability of the section and the small moments involved,
, under the load combination of 0.9G & Wuplift:
llowable
1776
>>5,0
(15m,C3) = 0.89derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.
1170.2, table 3.1 region A7See a part extract from AS/NZS
0 times the relative risk of a new structure designed to current rthquake prone building under
and the level of risk was such no such legislation exists for
NPDC deemed it appropriate to investigate strengthening of the stands
The unknown extent of area affected by a structural failure of such a large roof.
is all that is required to allow the existing structure to operate as close as practical to a new structure.
n to the RHS
A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s.elements and connections that were either weak and/or
The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was already known to have leakage and durability issues (reference the roofing failure).
in Figure 6.
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering
Ke X L = Le, to reflect the potential of the boundary conditions to
. Induced moments were also included
, under the load combination of 0.9G & Wuplift:
AEP
17 years 76 years 5,000 years
89. derives from a gust speed that generates a unity check in the capacity calculation.
1170.2, table 3.1 region A7 AS/NZS1170
0 times the relative risk of a new structure designed to current rthquake prone building under
and the level of risk was such that no such legislation exists for
NPDC deemed it appropriate to investigate strengthening of the stands due to
is all that is
n to the RHS
A strut and brace system did not clash with another reroof project to be atop the existing RHS’s. elements and connections that were either weak and/or
The fly brace option would have required hot work very close to the existing roofing which was
in Figure 6.
The ability of the main column to also offer torsional restraint (in plan) to Strut 1, thereby offering
,
. Induced moments were also included
00 years
no such legislation exists for
4. CONCEPT DISCUSSIONDue to the location of works, a number of issues became more important to considergenerally as follows:Construction SafetyThe works were required to be fitted onthe stadium roof, 14m in the air roofing that had historically been subject to damage by servicemenwas already the subject of a water tightness review of existing leakage. There was an area of age/UV embrittled opaque roofing that separated the area ofixed roofing over the members lounge areasThis area of roofing had a without mesh. It had also been installed in such a manner that repair/replacement of this roof would be expensive.Construction AcDue to the roof height and accessibility of the works areas, access was required to be considered early to assist in mitigating construction safety, maintaining quality and planning for a reasonable construction form.more awkward the access, the longer contractors would be exposed to the risks of working on the roof.Construction QualityThis was a concern for both existing stand features and for any new elementsconstruction activity damaging the exiwas high, while any new works up on the roof would be of lesser quality due to the extreme access issues.Safety in DesignDue to the preceding issues and and NPDC appreciating them, we were able to bring in the contractor early to derive the benefits of the client, operators and the contractor FEGL) process issues above. This allowed a collaborative approach throughout the project l 5. DETAILED DESIGN:
From early conception the intent of the design was to • Transverse c
CONCEPT DISCUSSIONDue to the location of works, a number of issues became more important to considergenerally as follows:Construction SafetyThe works were required to be fitted onthe stadium roof, 14m in the air roofing that had historically been subject to damage by servicemenwas already the subject of a water tightness review of existing leakage. There was an area of age/UV embrittled opaque roofing that separated the area of works from the more accessiblefixed roofing over the members lounge areas
his area of roofing had a without mesh. It had also been installed in such a manner that repair/replacement of this roof would be expensive.Construction AcDue to the roof height and accessibility of the works areas, access was required to be considered early to assist in mitigating construction safety, maintaining quality and planning for a reasonable construction form.more awkward the access, the longer contractors would be exposed to the risks of working on the roof.Construction QualityThis was a concern for both existing stand features and for any new elementsconstruction activity damaging the exiwas high, while any new works up on the roof would be of lesser quality due to the extreme access issues. Safety in DesignDue to the preceding issues and
NPDC appreciating them, we were able to bring in the contractor early to derive the
nefits of the client, operators and the contractor (Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited FEGL) being on board with a safety in design process as well as issues above. This allowed a collaborative approach throughout the project l
DETAILED DESIGN:From early conception the intent of the design was to have the following features:
Transverse c
Figure 6
CONCEPT DISCUSSIONDue to the location of works, a number of issues became more important to considergenerally as follows: Construction Safety The works were required to be fitted onthe stadium roof, 14m in the air roofing that had historically been subject to damage by servicemen.was already the subject of a water tightness review of existing leakage. There was an area of age/UV embrittled opaque roofing that separated
works from the more accessiblefixed roofing over the members lounge areas
his area of roofing had a without mesh. It had also been installed in such a manner that repair/replacement of this roof would be expensive. Construction Access Due to the roof height and accessibility of the works areas, access was required to be considered early to assist in mitigating construction safety, maintaining quality and planning for a reasonable construction form.more awkward the access, the longer contractors would be exposed to the risks of working on the roof. Construction Quality This was a concern for both existing stand features and for any new elementsconstruction activity damaging the exiwas high, while any new works up on the roof would be of lesser quality due to the extreme
Safety in Design Due to the preceding issues and
NPDC appreciating them, we were able to bring in the contractor early to derive the
nefits of the client, operators and the (Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited
being on board with a safety in design as well as specifically address
issues above. This allowed a collaborative approach throughout the project l
DETAILED DESIGN:From early conception the intent of the design
have the following features:Transverse collector
Figure 6 –Transverse Strut and Brace Strengthening Concept
CONCEPT DISCUSSIONDue to the location of works, a number of issues became more important to consider
The works were required to be fitted onthe stadium roof, 14m in the air and across roofing that had historically been subject to
. The underswas already the subject of a water tightness review of existing leakage. There was an area of age/UV embrittled opaque roofing that separated
works from the more accessiblefixed roofing over the members lounge areas
his area of roofing had a 5m fall beneath it without mesh. It had also been installed in such a manner that repair/replacement of this roof
Due to the roof height and accessibility of the works areas, access was required to be considered early to assist in mitigating construction safety, maintaining quality and planning for a reasonable construction form.more awkward the access, the longer contractors would be exposed to the risks of
This was a concern for both existing stand features and for any new elementsconstruction activity damaging the exiwas high, while any new works up on the roof would be of lesser quality due to the extreme
Due to the preceding issues and NPDC appreciating them, we were able to
bring in the contractor early to derive the nefits of the client, operators and the
(Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited being on board with a safety in design
specifically addressissues above. This allowed a collaborative approach throughout the project l
DETAILED DESIGN: From early conception the intent of the design
have the following features:ollector horizontal
Transverse Strut and Brace Strengthening Concept
CONCEPT DISCUSSION Due to the location of works, a number of issues became more important to consider. These were
The works were required to be fitted on top of and across
roofing that had historically been subject to he underslung roofing
was already the subject of a water tightness review of existing leakage. There was an area of age/UV embrittled opaque roofing that separated
works from the more accessiblefixed roofing over the members lounge areas
5m fall beneath it without mesh. It had also been installed in such a manner that repair/replacement of this roof
Due to the roof height and accessibility of the works areas, access was required to be considered early to assist in mitigating construction safety, maintaining quality and planning for a reasonable construction form.more awkward the access, the longer contractors would be exposed to the risks of
This was a concern for both existing stand features and for any new elements. The risk of construction activity damaging the existing roof was high, while any new works up on the roof would be of lesser quality due to the extreme
Due to the preceding issues and both the NPDC appreciating them, we were able to
bring in the contractor early to derive the nefits of the client, operators and the
(Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited being on board with a safety in design
specifically addressingissues above. This allowed a collaborative approach throughout the project life.
From early conception the intent of the design have the following features:
horizontal struts that
Transverse Strut and Brace Strengthening Concept
Due to the location of works, a number of issues hese were
top of and across
roofing that had historically been subject to ung roofing
was already the subject of a water tightness review of existing leakage. There was an area of age/UV embrittled opaque roofing that separated
works from the more accessible top fixed roofing over the members lounge areas.
5m fall beneath it without mesh. It had also been installed in such a manner that repair/replacement of this roof
Due to the roof height and accessibility of the
construction safety, maintaining quality and planning for a reasonable construction form. The
contractors would be exposed to the risks of
This was a concern for both existing stand he risk of sting roof
was high, while any new works up on the roof would be of lesser quality due to the extreme
TRC NPDC appreciating them, we were able to
(Fitzroy Engineering Group Limited - being on board with a safety in design
ing the issues above. This allowed a collaborative
From early conception the intent of the design
struts that
Transverse Strut and Brace Strengthening Concept
•
•
The for various rational• •
•
The Strut/Brace DesignThe CHS strut design was approach methodology was job specificthe issues noted in strut/brace connection design was generally as follows:•
•
•
•
•
Transverse Strut and Brace Strengthening Concept
pick up stabilizing loads (assuming they are all additive2.5% of the primary axial load NZS3404
The collector struts are to then be diagonally bottom chord
The existing vertical strut within the truss then transfers texisting roof plane struts and braces, thereby distributing actions into structural system that has redundancy this type of load combination.
The structural braces were selected as CHS’s for various rational Ease of coating. The ability to accommodate significant
compression loads as well as tension. A CHS could be consistently and efficiently
used for all member types while remaining consistent with the exi
The Strut/Brace DesignThe CHS strut design was approach (127CHS)methodology was job specificthe issues noted in strut/brace connection design was generally as follows:
The connection cleat was a kniwelded into the CHS.
Connection of the cleat to the connection on the primary structure was via friction grip(TF) bolting and slotted holes.
The slotted holes allowed for additional site tolerance beyond a site measure, while the TF bolting allowed for a nonload path connection to accommodate the connection play deriving from the slotted holes and the use of bolts in shear to take the axial strut/brace loads.
To mobilizeaction loads, the a specific steel to steel interfaces were coated in an inorganic zinc coating to both provide some corrosion protection while still providing a high friction surface interface to maximize the connection capacity.
In the event of actions exceeding the
BracesTransverse Strut and Brace Strengthening Concept
pick up stabilizing loads (assuming they are all additive, and of the incremental order of 2.5% of the primary axial load NZS3404 1997).The collector struts are to then be diagonally braced to nominally above the bottom chord of the trussThe existing vertical strut within the truss then transfers the stabilizing existing roof plane struts and braces, thereby distributing actions into structural system that has redundancy this type of load combination.
tructural braces were selected as CHS’s for various rational, s
Ease of coating.The ability to accommodate significant compression loads as well as tension.A CHS could be consistently and efficiently used for all member types while remaining consistent with the exi
The Strut/Brace DesignThe CHS strut design was
(127CHS), however the connection methodology was job specificthe issues noted in Sstrut/brace connection design was generally as
The connection cleat was a kniwelded into the CHS.Connection of the cleat to the connection on the primary structure was via friction grip
bolting and slotted holes.The slotted holes allowed for additional site tolerance beyond a site measure, while the
lting allowed for a nonload path connection to accommodate the connection play deriving from the slotted holes and the use of bolts in shear to take the axial strut/brace loads.
mobilize the accumulated stabilizing action loads, the a specific localizedsteel to steel interfaces were coated in an inorganic zinc coating to both provide some corrosion protection while still providing a high friction surface interface to maximize
onnection capacity.In the event of actions exceeding the
Braces Transverse Strut and Brace Strengthening Concept
pick up stabilizing loads (assuming they are and of the incremental order of
2.5% of the primary axial load ).
The collector struts are to then be braced to nominally above the
of the trussThe existing vertical strut within the truss
he stabilizing existing roof plane struts and braces, thereby distributing actions into structural system that has redundancy this type of load combination.
tructural braces were selected as CHS’s , such as:
Ease of coating. The ability to accommodate significant compression loads as well as tension.A CHS could be consistently and efficiently used for all member types while remaining consistent with the existing structure
The Strut/Brace Design The CHS strut design was a conventional
, however the connection methodology was job specific,
Section 4 in mind. The strut/brace connection design was generally as
The connection cleat was a kniwelded into the CHS. Connection of the cleat to the connection on the primary structure was via friction grip
bolting and slotted holes.The slotted holes allowed for additional site tolerance beyond a site measure, while the
lting allowed for a nonload path connection to accommodate the connection play deriving from the slotted holes and the use of bolts in shear to take the axial strut/brace loads.
the accumulated stabilizing action loads, the TF bolt interfaces utilized
localized coating systemsteel to steel interfaces were coated in an inorganic zinc coating to both provide some corrosion protection while still providing a high friction surface interface to maximize
onnection capacity. In the event of actions exceeding the
pick up stabilizing loads (assuming they are and of the incremental order of
2.5% of the primary axial load – reference
The collector struts are to then be braced to nominally above the
of the truss. The existing vertical strut within the truss
he stabilizing actionsexisting roof plane struts and braces, thereby distributing actions into an existing structural system that has redundancy this type of load combination.
tructural braces were selected as CHS’s
The ability to accommodate significant compression loads as well as tension.A CHS could be consistently and efficiently used for all member types while remaining
ting structure
conventional , however the connection
, developed with ection 4 in mind. The
strut/brace connection design was generally as
The connection cleat was a knife plate shop
Connection of the cleat to the connection on the primary structure was via friction grip
bolting and slotted holes. The slotted holes allowed for additional site tolerance beyond a site measure, while the
lting allowed for a non-slip primary load path connection to accommodate the connection play deriving from the slotted holes and the use of bolts in shear to take the axial strut/brace loads.
the accumulated stabilizing bolt interfaces utilized
coating systemsteel to steel interfaces were coated in an inorganic zinc coating to both provide some corrosion protection while still providing a high friction surface interface to maximize
In the event of actions exceeding the
Collector Struts
pick up stabilizing loads (assuming they are and of the incremental order of
reference
The collector struts are to then be braced to nominally above the
The existing vertical strut within the truss actions to the
existing roof plane struts and braces, an existing
structural system that has redundancy for
tructural braces were selected as CHS’s
The ability to accommodate significant compression loads as well as tension. A CHS could be consistently and efficiently used for all member types while remaining
ting structure.
conventional , however the connection
developed with ection 4 in mind. The
strut/brace connection design was generally as
fe plate shop
Connection of the cleat to the connection on the primary structure was via friction grip
The slotted holes allowed for additional site tolerance beyond a site measure, while the
slip primary load path connection to accommodate the connection play deriving from the slotted holes and the use of bolts in shear to take
the accumulated stabilizing bolt interfaces utilized
coating system. The steel to steel interfaces were coated in an inorganic zinc coating to both provide some corrosion protection while still providing a high friction surface interface to maximize
In the event of actions exceeding the
Collector Struts
pick up stabilizing loads (assuming they are and of the incremental order of
to the
an existing
A CHS could be consistently and efficiently used for all member types while remaining
strut/brace connection design was generally as
fe plate shop
on the primary structure was via friction grip
The slotted holes allowed for additional site tolerance beyond a site measure, while the
bolt interfaces utilized
inorganic zinc coating to both provide some
connectthe member), the joint would slip (whilemaintaining the joint TF new position 10mm offset whereby the bolting can then behave alsoas well. Therefore the connection can be said to have considerable redundancy in it.The 10mm deformation in the strut connections would also have associated deformations in the restrained Hmomthe length of accommodated.
• Refer to Figure strut/brace members, and refer to Figure for the connection details of the strut/braces.
The Strut/Brace DesignThe Sdetailed design is the element that allowed the works to progressfor the following considerations• It
to the primary structure.• P
strut/braceclamping the connection in two halves around the existing primary structure
• Ware all fabricated and coated offsite.
The success of the joint relies on the clamping action around the existing vertical strut in the roof truss. To address this, the following was conducted to make provision for construction conditions:• Early site measuring of the 163CHS
existing struts was cond• An allowance for a UV resistant rubber
sleeve was made between the existing CHS outer diameter and the inner diameter of the clamp.
• TFclamping action on the 163CHS
• All TF bolts also used lwashers to assist in site QA.
• Refer to Figure clamp and strut/brace connection details used.
connections capacity (which is smaller the member), the joint would slip (whilemaintaining the joint TF new position 10mm offset whereby the bolting can then behave alsoas well. Therefore the connection can be said to have considerable redundancy in it.The 10mm deformation in the strut connections would also have associated deformations in the restrained However the order of these additional moment actions is insignificant relative to the length of accommodated.Refer to Figure strut/brace members, and refer to Figure for the connection details of the strut/braces.
The Strut/Brace DesignThe Structural Steel clamp adopted in detailed design is the element that allowed the works to progressfor the following considerations
It forms the connection of the struts/braces to the primary structure.Provides vertical clestrut/braceclamping the connection in two halves around the existing primary structureWith this scheme the clamps, struts/braces are all easilyfabricated and coated offsite.success of the joint relies on the clamping
action around the existing vertical strut in the roof truss. To address this, the following was conducted to make provision for construction conditions:
Early site measuring of the 163CHS existing struts was condAn allowance for a UV resistant rubber sleeve was made between the existing CHS outer diameter and the inner diameter of the clamp.TF bolting was again adopted to mobilize a clamping action on the 163CHSAll TF bolts also used lwashers to assist in site QA.Refer to Figure clamp and strut/brace connection details used.
ions capacity (which is smaller the member), the joint would slip (whilemaintaining the joint TF new position 10mm offset whereby the bolting can then behave alsoas well. Therefore the connection can be said to have considerable redundancy in it.The 10mm deformation in the strut connections would also have associated deformations in the restrained
owever the order of these additional ent actions is insignificant relative to
the length of Strut 1 and can be easily accommodated. Refer to Figure 6 for an elevation of the strut/brace members, and refer to Figure for the connection details of the strut/braces.
The Strut/Brace Designtructural Steel clamp adopted in
detailed design is the element that allowed the works to progress. The clamp for the following considerations
forms the connection of the struts/braces to the primary structure.
vertical clestrut/braces, while alsoclamping the connection in two halves around the existing primary structure
ith this scheme the clamps, struts/braces easily removable and able to be fully
fabricated and coated offsite.success of the joint relies on the clamping
action around the existing vertical strut in the roof truss. To address this, the following was conducted to make provision for construction
Early site measuring of the 163CHS existing struts was condAn allowance for a UV resistant rubber sleeve was made between the existing CHS outer diameter and the inner diameter of the clamp.
bolting was again adopted to mobilize a clamping action on the 163CHSAll TF bolts also used lwashers to assist in site QA.Refer to Figure 8 for and extract of the clamp and strut/brace connection details
ions capacity (which is smaller the member), the joint would slip (whilemaintaining the joint TF capacity) into a new position 10mm offset whereby the bolting can then behave alsoas well. Therefore the connection can be said to have considerable redundancy in it.The 10mm deformation in the strut connections would also have associated deformations in the restrained
owever the order of these additional ent actions is insignificant relative to
trut 1 and can be easily
for an elevation of the strut/brace members, and refer to Figure for the connection details of the
The Strut/Brace Design tructural Steel clamp adopted in
detailed design is the element that allowed the he clamp design provided
for the following considerations: forms the connection of the struts/braces
to the primary structure. vertical cleats for the
also allowing for clamping the connection in two halves around the existing primary structure
ith this scheme the clamps, struts/braces removable and able to be fully
fabricated and coated offsite.success of the joint relies on the clamping
action around the existing vertical strut in the roof truss. To address this, the following was conducted to make provision for construction
Early site measuring of the 163CHS existing struts was conducted by FEGL.An allowance for a UV resistant rubber sleeve was made between the existing CHS outer diameter and the inner diameter
bolting was again adopted to mobilize a clamping action on the 163CHSAll TF bolts also used load indicating washers to assist in site QA.
for and extract of the clamp and strut/brace connection details
ions capacity (which is smaller the member), the joint would slip (while
capacity) into a new position 10mm offset whereby the bolting can then behave also in single shear as well. Therefore the connection can be said to have considerable redundancy in it.The 10mm deformation in the strut connections would also have associated deformations in the restrained Strut 1
owever the order of these additional ent actions is insignificant relative to
trut 1 and can be easily
for an elevation of the strut/brace members, and refer to Figure for the connection details of the
tructural Steel clamp adopted in the detailed design is the element that allowed the
design provided
forms the connection of the struts/braces
ats for the new allowing for
clamping the connection in two halves around the existing primary structure.
ith this scheme the clamps, struts/braces removable and able to be fully
fabricated and coated offsite. success of the joint relies on the clamping
action around the existing vertical strut in the roof truss. To address this, the following was conducted to make provision for construction
Early site measuring of the 163CHS ucted by FEGL.
An allowance for a UV resistant rubber sleeve was made between the existing CHS outer diameter and the inner diameter
bolting was again adopted to mobilize a clamping action on the 163CHS.
oad indicating washers to assist in site QA.
for and extract of the clamp and strut/brace connection details
ions capacity (which is smaller than the member), the joint would slip (while still
capacity) into a new position 10mm offset whereby the
in single shear as well. Therefore the connection can be said to have considerable redundancy in it.
connections would also have associated trut 1.
owever the order of these additional ent actions is insignificant relative to
trut 1 and can be easily
for an elevation of the strut/brace members, and refer to Figure 8
the detailed design is the element that allowed the
design provided
forms the connection of the struts/braces
clamping the connection in two halves .
ith this scheme the clamps, struts/braces removable and able to be fully
success of the joint relies on the clamping action around the existing vertical strut in the roof truss. To address this, the following was conducted to make provision for construction
ucted by FEGL. An allowance for a UV resistant rubber sleeve was made between the existing CHS outer diameter and the inner diameter
bolting was again adopted to mobilize a
oad indicating
for and extract of the clamp and strut/brace connection details
Figure
Figure To assess the influence of the stabilizing actions and clamping actions on the clamp parts as well
Figure 7 – Space
Figure 8 – Clamp detail drawing extractTo assess the influence of the stabilizing actions and clamping actions on the clamp parts as well
Space Gass Clamp Model
Clamp detail drawing extractTo assess the influence of the stabilizing actions and clamping actions on the clamp parts as well
ass Clamp Model
Clamp detail drawing extractTo assess the influence of the stabilizing actions and clamping actions on the clamp parts as well
ass Clamp Model
Clamp detail drawing extractTo assess the influence of the stabilizing actions and clamping actions on the clamp parts as well
ass Clamp Model
Clamp detail drawing extract To assess the influence of the stabilizing actions and clamping actions on the clamp parts as well
To assess the influence of the stabilizing actions and clamping actions on the clamp parts as well
as the existing structure, calculations were conducted by hand then verified by the use of a Space7). The findings following:• That the clamping load as well as action on
the existing 163CHS acceptable even in consideration of the existing loads in the CHS from uplift actions.
• That the loading verthe rubber sleeve
• That the clamp bolting to the existing strut had to be actions as when minimum tension and the clamp has rto deform, then the clamps take on significant load.
• To address even minor loading the clamneeded to be significantly stiffened in the detailed design, thereby taking the single clamp clamp methodology became topical due todifficulty
• The clamp in position and to transfer the vertical actions into the existing structure was relatively minor, again this mechanism had redundancy such that in the event of significant loading the clamps could deform while still maintaining their clamping capability.
• All TF bolts also used load indicating washers to assist in site QA.
The detailed design of the stadium wind strengthening ithe clamp and the strut. These only varied nominally by:• Length, for the struts versus the braces and
site measurement variations.• The single versus the double clamp that
took the braces.A last note on the clamps, due to the espaces on the clamp bolting stiffening angles, the clamps were hot dip galvanized initially. Top coating was via a 2 pot epoxy paint Therefore the clamps have a very long time before probable first maintenance is likely to be required. Howestiffeners that were likely to trap water were pitched at 7.5 degrees to the horizontal to actively shed water rather than retain it and the probable associated chloride laden deposits.
as the existing structure, calculations were conducted by hand then verified by the use of a
pace Gass model of the clamp (refer to Figure he findings
following: That the clamping load as well as action on the existing 163CHS acceptable even in consideration of the existing loads in the CHS from uplift actions. That the loading very sensitive to its support conditions (ie the rubber sleeveThat the clamp bolting to the existing strut had to be actions as when minimum tension and the clamp has rto deform, then the clamps take on significant load.To address even minor loading the clamneeded to be significantly stiffened in the detailed design, thereby taking the single clamp half clamp half methodology became topical due todifficulty manhandling of these The required clamp in position and to transfer the vertical actions into the existing structure was relatively minor, again this mechanism had redundancy such that in the event of significant loading the clamps could deform while still maintaining their clamping capability.All TF bolts also used load indicating washers to assist in site QA.
The detailed design of the stadium wind strengthening ithe clamp and the strut. These only varied nominally by:
Length, for the struts versus the braces and site measurement variations.The single versus the double clamp that took the braces.
A last note on the clamps, due to the espaces on the clamp bolting stiffening angles, the clamps were hot dip galvanized initially. Top coating was via a 2 pot epoxy paint
herefore the clamps have a very long time before probable first maintenance is likely to be required. Howestiffeners that were likely to trap water were pitched at 7.5 degrees to the horizontal to actively shed water rather than retain it and the probable associated chloride laden deposits.
as the existing structure, calculations were conducted by hand then verified by the use of a
s model of the clamp (refer to Figure he findings of this exercise raised the
That the clamping load as well as action on the existing 163CHS acceptable even in consideration of the existing loads in the CHS from uplift
That the loading distributiony sensitive to its support conditions (ie
the rubber sleeve and clamp stiffnessThat the clamp bolting to the existing strut had to be minimized closely to the design actions as when TFminimum tension and the clamp has rto deform, then the clamps take on significant load. To address even minor loading the clamneeded to be significantly stiffened in the detailed design, thereby taking the single
half weight to half weight to
methodology became topical due tomanhandling of these
required clamping load to keep the clamp in position and to transfer the vertical actions into the existing structure was relatively minor, again this mechanism had redundancy such that in the event of significant loading the clamps could deform while still maintaining their clamping capability. All TF bolts also used load indicating washers to assist in site QA.
The detailed design of the stadium wind strengthening included only two the clamp and the strut. These only varied
Length, for the struts versus the braces and site measurement variations.The single versus the double clamp that took the braces.
A last note on the clamps, due to the espaces on the clamp bolting stiffening angles, the clamps were hot dip galvanized initially. Top coating was via a 2 pot epoxy paint
herefore the clamps have a very long time before probable first maintenance is likely to be required. However as an added measure all stiffeners that were likely to trap water were pitched at 7.5 degrees to the horizontal to actively shed water rather than retain it and the probable associated chloride laden deposits.
as the existing structure, calculations were conducted by hand then verified by the use of a
s model of the clamp (refer to Figure of this exercise raised the
That the clamping load as well as action on the existing 163CHS vertical strut acceptable even in consideration of the existing loads in the CHS from uplift
distribution y sensitive to its support conditions (ie
and clamp stiffnessThat the clamp bolting to the existing strut
minimized closely to the design TF bolting is torqued to
minimum tension and the clamp has rto deform, then the clamps take on
To address even minor loading the clamneeded to be significantly stiffened in the detailed design, thereby taking the single
weight to 28kg, and the double weight to 50kg. In
methodology became topical due tomanhandling of these
clamping load to keep the clamp in position and to transfer the vertical actions into the existing structure was relatively minor, again this mechanism had redundancy such that in the event of significant loading the clamps could deform while still maintaining their clamping
All TF bolts also used load indicating washers to assist in site QA.
The detailed design of the stadium wind ncluded only two components
the clamp and the strut. These only varied
Length, for the struts versus the braces and site measurement variations.The single versus the double clamp that
A last note on the clamps, due to the espaces on the clamp bolting stiffening angles, the clamps were hot dip galvanized initially. Top coating was via a 2 pot epoxy paint
herefore the clamps have a very long time before probable first maintenance is likely to be
ver as an added measure all stiffeners that were likely to trap water were pitched at 7.5 degrees to the horizontal to actively shed water rather than retain it and the probable associated chloride laden deposits.
as the existing structure, calculations were conducted by hand then verified by the use of a
s model of the clamp (refer to Figure of this exercise raised the
That the clamping load as well as action on vertical strut was
acceptable even in consideration of the existing loads in the CHS from uplift
the clamp was y sensitive to its support conditions (ie
and clamp stiffnessThat the clamp bolting to the existing strut
minimized closely to the design bolting is torqued to
minimum tension and the clamp has rto deform, then the clamps take on
To address even minor loading the clamneeded to be significantly stiffened in the detailed design, thereby taking the single
, and the double nstallation
methodology became topical due to manhandling of these weight
clamping load to keep the clamp in position and to transfer the vertical actions into the existing structure was relatively minor, again this mechanism had redundancy such that in the event of significant loading the clamps could deform while still maintaining their clamping
All TF bolts also used load indicating washers to assist in site QA.
The detailed design of the stadium wind components
the clamp and the strut. These only varied
Length, for the struts versus the braces and site measurement variations. The single versus the double clamp that
A last note on the clamps, due to the enclosed spaces on the clamp bolting stiffening angles, the clamps were hot dip galvanized initially. Top coating was via a 2 pot epoxy paint system
herefore the clamps have a very long time before probable first maintenance is likely to be
ver as an added measure all stiffeners that were likely to trap water were pitched at 7.5 degrees to the horizontal to actively shed water rather than retain it and the probable associated chloride laden deposits.
as the existing structure, calculations were conducted by hand then verified by the use of a
s model of the clamp (refer to Figure of this exercise raised the
That the clamping load as well as action on was
acceptable even in consideration of the
the clamp was y sensitive to its support conditions (ie
and clamp stiffness). That the clamp bolting to the existing strut
minimized closely to the design bolting is torqued to
minimum tension and the clamp has room
To address even minor loading the clamps needed to be significantly stiffened in the detailed design, thereby taking the single
, and the double stallation
weights. clamping load to keep the
clamp in position and to transfer the vertical actions into the existing structure was relatively minor, again this mechanism had redundancy such that in the event of significant loading the clamps could deform
All TF bolts also used load indicating
components, the clamp and the strut. These only varied
Length, for the struts versus the braces and
The single versus the double clamp that
nclosed spaces on the clamp bolting stiffening angles, the clamps were hot dip galvanized initially. Top
system. herefore the clamps have a very long time
before probable first maintenance is likely to be ver as an added measure all
stiffeners that were likely to trap water were pitched at 7.5 degrees to the horizontal to actively shed water rather than retain it and the probable associated chloride laden deposits.
Therefore the coating system on the clamp more durable that the surrounding systems, they can also be locally removed to be recoated if required.We considered using the bolting arrangement to fit the clamp and connect the strut, but found that the need for high friction in the strut connectionwere incompatible or overly stressed the clamp.Significant interaction was conducted between Beca and FEGL during the entire detailed designfabrication stages ultimately derivduring the construction
Figure
Figure
Therefore the coating system on the clamp more durable that the surrounding systems, they can also be locally removed to be recoated if required. We considered using the bolting arrangement to fit the clamp and connect the strut, but found that the need for high friction in the strut connection and tolerance in the clamp fitting were incompatible or overly stressed the clamp.Significant interaction was conducted between Beca and FEGL during the entire detailed design, the workshop drawingsfabrication stages ultimately derivduring the construction
Figure 9
Figure 10
Therefore the coating system on the clamp more durable that the surrounding systems, they can also be locally removed to be recoated if
We considered using the bolting arrangement to fit the clamp and connect the strut, but found that the need for high friction in the strut
and tolerance in the clamp fitting were incompatible or overly stressed the clamp.Significant interaction was conducted between Beca and FEGL during the entire detailed
the workshop drawingsfabrication stages ultimately derivduring the construction
– FEGL Workshop ISO of Clamp
10 – FEGL Shop Drawing of Craned Access Platforms
Therefore the coating system on the clamp more durable that the surrounding systems, they can also be locally removed to be recoated if
We considered using the bolting arrangement to fit the clamp and connect the strut, but found that the need for high friction in the strut
and tolerance in the clamp fitting were incompatible or overly stressed the clamp.Significant interaction was conducted between Beca and FEGL during the entire detailed
the workshop drawingsfabrication stages ultimately derivduring the construction stage.
FEGL Workshop ISO of Clamp
FEGL Shop Drawing of Craned Access Platforms
Therefore the coating system on the clamp more durable that the surrounding systems, they can also be locally removed to be recoated if
We considered using the bolting arrangement to fit the clamp and connect the strut, but found that the need for high friction in the strut
and tolerance in the clamp fitting were incompatible or overly stressed the clamp.Significant interaction was conducted between Beca and FEGL during the entire detailed
the workshop drawings, testingfabrication stages ultimately deriving ben
stage.
FEGL Workshop ISO of Clamp
FEGL Shop Drawing of Craned Access Platforms
Therefore the coating system on the clamp is more durable that the surrounding systems, they can also be locally removed to be recoated if
We considered using the bolting arrangement to fit the clamp and connect the strut, but found that the need for high friction in the strut
and tolerance in the clamp fitting were incompatible or overly stressed the clamp.Significant interaction was conducted between Beca and FEGL during the entire detailed
, testing and benefits
FEGL Workshop ISO of Clamp
FEGL Shop Drawing of Craned
more durable that the surrounding systems, they
We considered using the bolting arrangement to
were incompatible or overly stressed the clamp.
FEGL Shop Drawing of Craned
6. CONSTRUCTION
The workshop drawing, fabrication and coatings and installation methodologies derived mainly from FEGL andproduct in the best way they could. Their experience and depth in combination with their active interaction in the workshop and interactive discussion of detail and works methodology led to many benefits for the projectare as follows:Workshop Drawings:All shop drawings for every plate and element were produced in Steel Pro. They included complete material measured variations.sample100% prefabrication and coating:All elements were able to be shop fabricated. Therefore weld and coating quality was high and able to be fully inspected. No rework was required on this project.Workshop testing of fitA mockupdeveloped in the workshop by FEGLallowing a test fit scenario prior to the elements getting to site. Refer to the shop assemblyBespoke access platforms:Due to accessing the roof, FEGL developed bespoke access/work platforms that spanned purlins and allowed discrete work areas at the clamps to be worked safeable to be lifted by crane next very rapidly. Refer to extract of the shop drawing of these platformsClamp lifting jigs:Clamps were efficiently fitted by use of a set of bespoke steel plate lifting jigs that allowed the clamps to be lowereseparated above the top chord (lowered and fitted into position around the vertical 163CHS. The crane could then finely adjust the clamp heights prior to the fitting bolts being tightened to fit the clamp in place. Ofitted the jig/crane assemble would then bring up the next one for the next joint creating a reliable, repeatable, rapid process. Refer to a sample of the shop drawing of this jig.Load indicator washers:Load indicator washers were adoptall TF bolting, specifically “Squirter Washers”They are so called due to the washers having
CONSTRUCTIONThe workshop drawing, fabrication and coatings and installation methodologies derived mainly from FEGL andproduct in the best way they could. Their experience and depth in combination with their active interaction in the workshop and interactive discussion of detail and works methodology led to many benefits for the project. A likely nonare as follows: Workshop Drawings:All shop drawings for every plate and element were produced in Steel Pro. They included complete material measured variations.sample isometric shop drawing of the clamp.100% prefabrication and coating:
ll elements were able to be shop fabricated. Therefore weld and coating quality was high and able to be fully inspected. No rework was required on this project.Workshop testing of fit
mockup of the braced assemble was developed in the workshop by FEGLallowing a test fit scenario prior to the elements getting to site. Refer to the shop assemblyBespoke access platforms:Due to the inaccessibility and safety concerns of accessing the roof, FEGL developed bespoke access/work platforms that spanned purlins and allowed discrete work areas at the clamps to be worked safely. These platforms, 3 in total were able to be lifted by crane next very rapidly. Refer to extract of the shop drawing of these platformsClamp lifting jigs:Clamps were efficiently fitted by use of a set of bespoke steel plate lifting jigs that allowed the clamps to be lowereseparated above the top chord (lowered and fitted into position around the vertical 163CHS. The crane could then finely adjust the clamp heights prior to the fitting bolts being tightened to fit the clamp in place. Ofitted the jig/crane assemble would then bring up the next one for the next joint creating a reliable, repeatable, rapid process. Refer to a sample of the shop drawing of this jig.Load indicator washers:Load indicator washers were adoptall TF bolting, specifically “Squirter Washers”
hey are so called due to the washers having
CONSTRUCTIONThe workshop drawing, fabrication and coatings and installation methodologies derived mainly from FEGL and their aim to provide the best product in the best way they could. Their experience and depth in combination with their active interaction in the workshop and interactive discussion of detail and works methodology led to many benefits for
likely non-
Workshop Drawings: All shop drawings for every plate and element were produced in Steel Pro. They included complete material take offs, weights and site measured variations. Refer to
isometric shop drawing of the clamp.100% prefabrication and coating:
ll elements were able to be shop fabricated. Therefore weld and coating quality was high and able to be fully inspected. No rework was required on this project. Workshop testing of fit
of the braced assemble was developed in the workshop by FEGLallowing a test fit scenario prior to the elements getting to site. Refer to Fthe shop assembly Bespoke access platforms:
the inaccessibility and safety concerns of accessing the roof, FEGL developed bespoke access/work platforms that spanned purlins and allowed discrete work areas at the clamps to be
y. These platforms, 3 in total were able to be lifted by crane next very rapidly. Refer to extract of the shop drawing of these platformsClamp lifting jigs: Clamps were efficiently fitted by use of a set of bespoke steel plate lifting jigs that allowed the clamps to be lowered by a spreader beam, separated above the top chord (lowered and fitted into position around the vertical 163CHS. The crane could then finely adjust the clamp heights prior to the fitting bolts being tightened to fit the clamp in place. Ofitted the jig/crane assemble would then bring up the next one for the next joint creating a reliable, repeatable, rapid process. Refer to a sample of the shop drawing of this jig.Load indicator washers:Load indicator washers were adoptall TF bolting, specifically “Squirter Washers”
hey are so called due to the washers having
CONSTRUCTION: The workshop drawing, fabrication and coatings and installation methodologies derived mainly
their aim to provide the best product in the best way they could. Their experience and depth in combination with their active interaction in the Safety In Design workshop and interactive discussion of detail and works methodology led to many benefits for
-complete list of these
All shop drawings for every plate and element were produced in Steel Pro. They included
ake offs, weights and site Refer to Figure
isometric shop drawing of the clamp.100% prefabrication and coating:
ll elements were able to be shop fabricated. Therefore weld and coating quality was high and able to be fully inspected. No rework was
Workshop testing of fits and bolt tensioning:
of the braced assemble was developed in the workshop by FEGLallowing a test fit scenario prior to the elements
Figure 12
Bespoke access platforms: the inaccessibility and safety concerns of
accessing the roof, FEGL developed bespoke access/work platforms that spanned purlins and allowed discrete work areas at the clamps to be
y. These platforms, 3 in total were able to be lifted by crane from one position to the next very rapidly. Refer to Figure extract of the shop drawing of these platforms
Clamps were efficiently fitted by use of a set of bespoke steel plate lifting jigs that allowed the
d by a spreader beam, separated above the top chord (Slowered and fitted into position around the vertical 163CHS. The crane could then finely adjust the clamp heights prior to the fitting bolts being tightened to fit the clamp in place. Ofitted the jig/crane assemble would then bring up the next one for the next joint creating a reliable, repeatable, rapid process. Refer to a sample of the shop drawing of this jig.Load indicator washers: Load indicator washers were adoptall TF bolting, specifically “Squirter Washers”
hey are so called due to the washers having
The workshop drawing, fabrication and coatings and installation methodologies derived mainly
their aim to provide the best product in the best way they could. Their experience and depth in combination with their
n Design (workshop and interactive discussion of detail and works methodology led to many benefits for
complete list of these
All shop drawings for every plate and element were produced in Steel Pro. They included
ake offs, weights and site igure 9 for a
isometric shop drawing of the clamp.100% prefabrication and coating:
ll elements were able to be shop fabricated. Therefore weld and coating quality was high and able to be fully inspected. No rework was
s and bolt tensioning:of the braced assemble was
developed in the workshop by FEGL, thereby allowing a test fit scenario prior to the elements
12 for photos of
the inaccessibility and safety concerns of accessing the roof, FEGL developed bespoke access/work platforms that spanned purlins and allowed discrete work areas at the clamps to be
y. These platforms, 3 in total were from one position to the
igure 10 for anextract of the shop drawing of these platforms
Clamps were efficiently fitted by use of a set of bespoke steel plate lifting jigs that allowed the
d by a spreader beam, Strut 1) and then
lowered and fitted into position around the vertical 163CHS. The crane could then finely adjust the clamp heights prior to the fitting bolts being tightened to fit the clamp in place. Ofitted the jig/crane assemble would then bring up the next one for the next joint creating a reliable, repeatable, rapid process. Refer to Figure a sample of the shop drawing of this jig.
Load indicator washers were adopted for use on all TF bolting, specifically “Squirter Washers”
hey are so called due to the washers having
The workshop drawing, fabrication and coatings and installation methodologies derived mainly
their aim to provide the best
experience and depth in combination with their (SID)
workshop and interactive discussion of detail and works methodology led to many benefits for
complete list of these
All shop drawings for every plate and element were produced in Steel Pro. They included
ake offs, weights and site for a
isometric shop drawing of the clamp.
ll elements were able to be shop fabricated. Therefore weld and coating quality was high and able to be fully inspected. No rework was
s and bolt tensioning:
, thereby allowing a test fit scenario prior to the elements
for photos of
the inaccessibility and safety concerns of accessing the roof, FEGL developed bespoke access/work platforms that spanned purlins and allowed discrete work areas at the clamps to be
y. These platforms, 3 in total were from one position to the
n extract of the shop drawing of these platforms
Clamps were efficiently fitted by use of a set of bespoke steel plate lifting jigs that allowed the
d by a spreader beam, trut 1) and then
lowered and fitted into position around the vertical 163CHS. The crane could then finely adjust the clamp heights prior to the fitting bolts being tightened to fit the clamp in place. Once fitted the jig/crane assemble would then bring up the next one for the next joint creating a reliable,
igure 11 for
ed for use on all TF bolting, specifically “Squirter Washers”.
hey are so called due to the washers having
“buttons” that deform flat at the appropriate bolt pretension and “squirt” out an indicator mark of paint. These allow a rapid review of tensioning completion to allow work to progresswas found in conjunction with FEGL that on the clamps with minor deformation (due to tensioning of the clamp bolts), bolt nuts do not activate the squirter buttons if the nut is not completely true. This canof the TF bolts in an attempt to activate the washers. This was observed testing stage (refer doing a parallel check using Thereforeconfirm a level of tensioning had been achieved, but not necessarily the final tension. Alsoclamp bolting to the existing strut did not critically need to be at full tensiontorque limits were seen as conservative in tcase to test on the lower side of the minimumsdue to them acting in tension as well as being pretensioned.Friction Grip bolting:The use of TF bolting in both shear and in tension allowed the site assembldimensionally stable structure with anabundance of construction tolerance, therefore avoiding lost time and roof top site works.
Figure
“buttons” that deform flat at the appropriate bolt pretension and “squirt” out an indicator mark of paint. These allow a rapid review of tensioning completion to allow work to progresswas found in conjunction with FEGL that on the clamps with minor deformation (due to tensioning of the clamp bolts), bolt nuts do not activate the squirter buttons if the nut is not completely true. This canof the TF bolts in an attempt to activate the washers. This was observed testing stage (refer doing a parallel check using Therefore, in this instanceconfirm a level of tensioning had been achieved, but not necessarily the final tension. Alsoclamp bolting to the existing strut did not critically need to be at full tensiontorque limits were seen as conservative in tcase to test on the lower side of the minimumsdue to them acting in tension as well as being pretensioned.Friction Grip bolting:The use of TF bolting in both shear and in tension allowed the site assembldimensionally stable structure with anabundance of construction tolerance, therefore avoiding lost time and roof top site works.
Figure 11
“buttons” that deform flat at the appropriate bolt pretension and “squirt” out an indicator mark of paint. These allow a rapid review of tensioning completion to allow work to progresswas found in conjunction with FEGL that on the clamps with minor deformation (due to tensioning of the clamp bolts), bolt nuts do not activate the squirter buttons if the nut is not completely true. This canof the TF bolts in an attempt to activate the washers. This was observed testing stage (refer Fdoing a parallel check using
in this instanceconfirm a level of tensioning had been achieved, but not necessarily the final tension. Alsoclamp bolting to the existing strut did not critically need to be at full tensiontorque limits were seen as conservative in tcase to test on the lower side of the minimumsdue to them acting in tension as well as being pretensioned. Friction Grip bolting:The use of TF bolting in both shear and in tension allowed the site assembldimensionally stable structure with anabundance of construction tolerance, therefore avoiding lost time and roof top site works.
11 – FEGL Shop Drawing ofInstallation Jigs
“buttons” that deform flat at the appropriate bolt pretension and “squirt” out an indicator mark of paint. These allow a rapid review of tensioning completion to allow work to progresswas found in conjunction with FEGL that on the clamps with minor deformation (due to tensioning of the clamp bolts), bolt nuts do not activate the squirter buttons if the nut is not completely true. This can lead to over tightening of the TF bolts in an attempt to activate the washers. This was observed during the mockup
Figure 12) doing a parallel check using a
in this instance, they were useful to confirm a level of tensioning had been achieved, but not necessarily the final tension. Alsoclamp bolting to the existing strut did not critically need to be at full tensiontorque limits were seen as conservative in tcase to test on the lower side of the minimumsdue to them acting in tension as well as being
Friction Grip bolting: The use of TF bolting in both shear and in tension allowed the site assembldimensionally stable structure with anabundance of construction tolerance, therefore avoiding lost time and roof top site works.
FEGL Shop Drawing ofInstallation Jigs
“buttons” that deform flat at the appropriate bolt pretension and “squirt” out an indicator mark of paint. These allow a rapid review of tensioning completion to allow work to progress. Hwas found in conjunction with FEGL that on the clamps with minor deformation (due to tensioning of the clamp bolts), bolt nuts do not activate the squirter buttons if the nut is not
lead to over tightening of the TF bolts in an attempt to activate the
during the mockup igure 12) when FEGL were
a torque wrench. they were useful to
confirm a level of tensioning had been achieved, but not necessarily the final tension. Alsoclamp bolting to the existing strut did not critically need to be at full tension. Therefore torque limits were seen as conservative in tcase to test on the lower side of the minimumsdue to them acting in tension as well as being
The use of TF bolting in both shear and in tension allowed the site assembly of a dimensionally stable structure with an abundance of construction tolerance, therefore avoiding lost time and roof top site works.
FEGL Shop Drawing ofInstallation Jigs
“buttons” that deform flat at the appropriate bolt pretension and “squirt” out an indicator mark of paint. These allow a rapid review of tensioning
. However it was found in conjunction with FEGL that on the clamps with minor deformation (due to tensioning of the clamp bolts), bolt nuts do not activate the squirter buttons if the nut is not
lead to over tightening of the TF bolts in an attempt to activate the
during the mockup when FEGL were torque wrench.
they were useful to confirm a level of tensioning had been achieved, but not necessarily the final tension. Also, the clamp bolting to the existing strut did not
herefore torque limits were seen as conservative in this case to test on the lower side of the minimums, due to them acting in tension as well as being
The use of TF bolting in both shear and in a
abundance of construction tolerance, therefore avoiding lost time and roof top site works.
FEGL Shop Drawing of Clamp
“buttons” that deform flat at the appropriate bolt
owever it was found in conjunction with FEGL that on the
lead to over tightening
during the mockup when FEGL were
confirm a level of tensioning had been achieved,
Figure
7. PROJECT RESULTS:From review of the project at completion the following can be surmised:
•
•
•
• • •
• •
•
Figure 12
PROJECT RESULTS:From review of the project at completion the following can be surmised:
The design intent achieved a robust strengthening schemeinvolvement, enabled by the clientprocess from the outset
A safe construction process was established and followedbespoke access and installation assemblies
The combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient construction.
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage. The strengthening is fully removable High quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination
with experienced contractors with formal quality assurance practices (FEGL). 40% cost reduction from estimates Functional
100m transverse Subsequent installation
engineer
12 – Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
PROJECT RESULTS:From review of the project at completion the following can be surmised:
esign intent achieved a robust strengthening schemeinvolvement, enabled by the clientprocess from the outsetA safe construction process was established and followedbespoke access and installation assemblies
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient construction. Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.The strengthening is fully removable
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination experienced contractors with formal quality assurance practices (FEGL).
40% cost reduction from estimates Functional installation 100m transverse Subsequent installation engineer’s site visits, albeit with improved access to the work stations.
Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
PROJECT RESULTS: From review of the project at completion the following can be surmised:
esign intent achieved a robust strengthening schemeinvolvement, enabled by the clientprocess from the outset. A safe construction process was established and followedbespoke access and installation assemblies
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.The strengthening is fully removable
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination experienced contractors with formal quality assurance practices (FEGL).
40% cost reduction from estimates installation occurred at
100m transverse long truss.Subsequent installation of the same system
s site visits, albeit with improved access to the work stations.
Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
From review of the project at completion the following can be surmised:
esign intent achieved a robust strengthening schemeinvolvement, enabled by the client
A safe construction process was established and followedbespoke access and installation assemblies
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.The strengthening is fully removable
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination experienced contractors with formal quality assurance practices (FEGL).
40% cost reduction from estimates occurred attruss. Therefore contractor risk exposure time was short.
of the same system s site visits, albeit with improved access to the work stations.
Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
From review of the project at completion the following can be surmised:esign intent achieved a robust strengthening scheme
involvement, enabled by the client (TRC/NPDC)
A safe construction process was established and followedbespoke access and installation assemblies
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.The strengthening is fully removable and maintainable
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination experienced contractors with formal quality assurance practices (FEGL).
40% cost reduction from estimates based onoccurred at 3.5 working days
Therefore contractor risk exposure time was short.of the same system
s site visits, albeit with improved access to the work stations.
Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
From review of the project at completion the following can be surmised:esign intent achieved a robust strengthening scheme
NPDC) who was able to appreciate the benefits of this
A safe construction process was established and followedbespoke access and installation assemblies. No accidents occurred during this project.
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.and maintainable
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination experienced contractors with formal quality assurance practices (FEGL).
based on conventional connection methodology.3.5 working days
Therefore contractor risk exposure time was short.of the same system on the opposing stand was fully installed betw
s site visits, albeit with improved access to the work stations.
Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
From review of the project at completion the following can be surmised:esign intent achieved a robust strengthening scheme through collaborative early contractor
who was able to appreciate the benefits of this
A safe construction process was established and followed through by the contractor including No accidents occurred during this project.
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.and maintainable.
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination experienced contractors with formal quality assurance practices (FEGL).
conventional connection methodology.3.5 working days for a total of
Therefore contractor risk exposure time was short.on the opposing stand was fully installed betw
s site visits, albeit with improved access to the work stations.
Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
From review of the project at completion the following can be surmised: through collaborative early contractor
who was able to appreciate the benefits of this
through by the contractor including No accidents occurred during this project.
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination experienced contractors with formal quality assurance practices (FEGL).
conventional connection methodology.a total of 4T of structural steel over a
Therefore contractor risk exposure time was short.on the opposing stand was fully installed betw
s site visits, albeit with improved access to the work stations.
Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
through collaborative early contractor who was able to appreciate the benefits of this
through by the contractor including No accidents occurred during this project.
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination experienced contractors with formal quality assurance practices (FEGL).
conventional connection methodology.T of structural steel over a
Therefore contractor risk exposure time was short.on the opposing stand was fully installed betw
s site visits, albeit with improved access to the work stations.
Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
through collaborative early contractor who was able to appreciate the benefits of this
through by the contractor including No accidents occurred during this project.
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination
conventional connection methodology. T of structural steel over a
Therefore contractor risk exposure time was short. on the opposing stand was fully installed betw
Photos from FEGL’s workshop depicting the mock assembly of components
through collaborative early contractor who was able to appreciate the benefits of this
through by the contractor including
e combination of a considered design and construction methodology meant a quick, efficient
Offsite work also protected the existing structure and roof from site work related damage.
quality steel products were achieved by workshop fabrication and painting in combination
T of structural steel over a
on the opposing stand was fully installed between
through collaborative early contractor