17-19 Gladding Place

P O Box 76 134
Manukau City
Auckland
New Zealand
Phone: +64-9-262 2885
Fax: +64-9-262 2856
Email: [email protected]

No. 62 June 2001

The author(s) of each article in this publication are noted at the
beginning of the article.

Introduction The publication of R4-100 has expanded the

This issue covers a range of topics, from design opportunities for designers and specifiers of
for fire through design for durability to evaluation structural steelwork to reduce their design time
of older buildings. Also mentioned in the and resource requirements and produce more
introduction are brief comments on a range of cost-effective structural steel solutions. A further
topical issues. significant expansion of these opportunities is
afforded to quantity surveyors, architects,
Don’t Forget To Renew Your Subscriptions designers and engineers through the development
of the On-Line Connection Guide, an interactive
DCB readers are reminded that this is the last version of R4-100 which is accessed via the
issue covered by the current year of subscription. internet. The On-Line Connection Guide offers:
Those wishing to continue receiving the DCB will • simplified scheduling
need to renew their subscriptions for 2001/2002. • quick and easy access to a comprehensive
This can be achieved by paying the invoice which connection database – larger than is currently
will be sent shortly. in [1]
• detailed drawings of all connections including
Back Orders and Ringbinders are Available plates, bolts and welds.
• ability to download detailed information on the
Special ringbinders are available for storing the most commonly used steel connections.
DCB at a cost of $10.00 (excl. GST) each; to
Those interested in accessing this valuable
order, see the attached order form.
resource should register for this through:
A complete set of back issues from No. 1 to No.
http://www.hera.org.nz/
62 is available in two DCB ringbinders. For price
and to order, see the attached order form. In This Issue Page
Individual copies of any issue of the DCB are
Revised SPM Software for Design of 2
available at one sixth the cost of an annual
Floor Slab Panels for Severe Fire
subscription. If a particular issue is wanted,
Attack
contact the HERA Information Centre.
Corrosion of Steel in Ground:
Online Connections Guide 6
Update on DCB No. 46 Guidance
HERA Report R4-100 Structural Steelwork
Connections Guide [1] should, by now, be a Allowance for Microclimatic Effects
When Determining the Design 8
familiar publication to all Bulletin readers. It
contains tables of pre-engineered and load-rated Corrosivity Category
connections that comply with the Steel Structures
Standard [2]. Design objectives, procedures and Revisions to FBJ Design Procedure 16
calculation formulae for each connection type are
also included, as are a set of engineering Appraisal of Old Building Steelwork 18
drawings for each type of connection covered.
The Guide covers the most commonly used References
19
flexible and rigid connections.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 1 No. 62, June 2001
NZS 3404 Amendment No. 1 Plain - (all sizes will be withdrawn)

The much heralded Amendment No. 1 to Deformed 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 32mm,
NZS 3404 is now available. This Amendment [3] (this means that sizes 6mm, 8mm,
is presented in a carefully structured format to 10mm, 12mm, 16mm & 40mm will be
facilitate rapid incorporation into the Standard, withdrawn)
rather than the traditional “cut and stick” format of
previous Amendments. SEISMIC 500
Plain 10mm, 12mm, 16mm, 20mm
Those users of NZS 3404 who have completed (this means that size 25mm will be
and returned the amendment notification address withdrawn)
form to Standards New Zealand and for whom
that address is still valid should have received Deformed 10mm, 12mm, 16mm, 20mm, 25mm,
their copy from Standards New Zealand by now. 32mm
Any user who has not received a copy must (40mm will be rolled and supplied
obtain one. This can be done through HERA; see against specific orders of at least 100
details on the attached order form. There is no tonnes)
charge for this Amendment, thanks to funding
st
from SCI-NZ and individual companies. From 1 April 2002:

Datasheet on Flexible Joint for Fire For SEISMIC 300 & SEISMIC 500, only the sizes
Separations as mentioned above will be available.

There are instances where a fire separation must For SEISMIC 430, the entire range will be
withstand significant deformation without withdrawn.
compromising its fire separating function.
Examples of this have been given on pages 1, 2 For further information, contact
of DCB Issue No. 61, along with details of a Rajiva Kumar
suitable new product. Product Development Manager
Fletcher Building Steel Makers
A datasheet on that product is available from the Tel : 09-270 4381
manufacturer and supplier of the flexible joint. He Fax : 09-276 1232
is Bill Norman at Passive Fire Protection
Systems (New Zealand) Ltd, phone 0-9-636 6115, Revised SPM Software for
fax 0-9-636 6113.
Design of Floor Slab Panels for
Rationalisation of Reinforcing Bar Sizes Dependable Inelastic Response
The material supply standard for reinforcing bar in to Severe Fire Attack
New Zealand has been NZS 3402: 1984 [4]. As
Background to Program
part of the programme of standards upgrading
and with Australia, this standard has now been DCB Issue No. 60 presents a detailed design
superseded by AS/NZS 4671:2001 [5]. procedure which takes account of the inelastic
reserve of strength available from a composite
The principal New Zealand supplier of reinforcing concrete floor slab supported on unprotected
bar, Pacific Steel Ltd, is taking this opportunity to secondary beams or joists in severe fires.
rationalise sizes and grades available. This is to
be undertaken in two stages, details of which are The scope and background to this procedure is
given below: presented in the first part of that Bulletin, with the
detailed procedure presented as Appendix A.
st
From 1 October 2001 only the following will be
available: Brief mention is made in that Bulletin of a free-to-
use program that was available, at that time, on a
SEISMIC 300 (ie. the new grade, to [5]) “use at your own risk basis”. An example of the
Plain 6mm, 10mm, 12mm, 16mm, 20mm input for the first version of that program was
(this means that sizes 8mm, 24mm, given as Table 60.1 therein.
25mm, 28mm & 32mm will be
Since DCB Issue No. 60 was published, that
withdrawn)
program has undergone extensive further
Deformed 10mm, 12mm, 16mm, 20mm 25mm, development and a much more concise and
32mm polished version, termed the SPM Program, is
now available. Details of the revisions made are
SEISMIC 430 (ie. the old grade, to [4]) briefly presented below, followed by advice on
how to obtain and install a copy.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 2 No. 62, June 2001
 Fig. 62. 1
Example of Input Screen for SPM Program

Fig. 62. 2
Example of Output Screen for SPM Program

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 3 No. 62, June 2001
This is followed by guidance on applying the SPM Acknowledgment
program to different types of composite floor
systems other than those involving steel decking The HERA Structural Engineer would like to
and secondary beams. Application to concrete acknowledge the excellent work of Robert
slabs on steel decks supported on secondary Schmid, undergraduate engineering student from
beams follows the procedure as is fully described the Fachhochschule Ravensbury – Weingarten,
in DCB No. 60. who is currently on Industrial Study Leave at
HERA. Robert has developed the SPM Program.
Features of Revised SPM Program
Use of the SPM Program For Slab Panels
Extensive improvements have been made to the With Speedfloor Joists
first release. These include:
The Slab Panel Method presented in Appendix A
• A single program for set-up and installation of DCB No. 60 is written for application to either
with the installation routine now in English. concrete slabs cast onto steel decking supported
(The first version had the installation routine in on unprotected steel secondary beams or
German, as the program has been written and concrete slabs supported by Speedfloor Joists.
compiled by a German student currently
working at HERA) Section A4 of DCB No.60 covers the first
application, while section A5 covers the second.
• Much improved windows for data input and While the general provisions are the same in both
slab panel calculations. These are shown in cases, there are some significant differences in
Figs. 62.1 and 62.2, respectively the detailed application. These differences are
discussed in the commentary section CA5, on
• Much improved format for printing out of data pages 56-58 of DCB No. 60.
and for saving files
When the SPM Program was developed, it was
• Creation of a specific SPM icon for generated written for application to concrete slabs on steel
calculation files and the ability to load and run deck supported on secondary beams. However,
these files simply by double-clicking on the user feedback has shown that it is easily adapted
filename icon, as is done for most commercial to Speedfloor systems. This is done by treating
applications the floor slab as a solid slab, with the
reinforcement modelled as mesh. Details on how
• Correction of some minor errors in the original to do this are as follows (read in conjunction with
program, operating windows and printed Figs. 62.1 and 62.2)
output
(1) Calculation and input of the fire data follows
• The structural fire severity (fire data) can now standard practice
be entered either through the enclosure
characteristics (height of firecell, vertical (2) As noted in section CA5.1.2 of DCB No. 60,
openings, floor area, FHC, thermal inertia) or the reinforcement must be of Grade 430 to
through a user-specified time equivalent NZS 3402 [4] or the new Grade 500
value. Fig. 62.1 shows the latter option, with a reinforcement to AS/NZS 4671 [5]. If supplied
structural fire severity of 90 mins. as welded mesh, then plain bars should be
used; if supplied as individual bars,
How to Obtain the Program deformed bar must be used. Either way the
“hot-formed” option for mesh type must be
The SPM Program is available as a single selected.
executable file entitled SPM_07_01. It is 1.56 Mb
in size. It will operate in all Windows systems (3) The mesh or reinforcement cover, cmesh, is
from Windows 95 onwards. calculated from equation 62.1.

Those wanting a copy, which will be sent cmesh = to – 38 – dmesh (62.1)

via email, should contact Charles Clifton at
[email protected]. where:

The program can be installed simply by double- cmesh = cover from top of concrete to top of
clicking on the icon & following the instructions. It the upper-most layer of
will be sent with a sample calculation file, being reinforcement (mm)
the design example presented in DCB No. 60.
to = slab thickness, either 75 mm or 90
mm, as specified in the Speedfloor
Design Manual [6]

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 4 No. 62, June 2001
 38 = height of embedment of joist top (7) Speedfloor systems [6] require negative
flange into concrete slab (the reinforcement over the internal primary beam
intersection point of the two layers supports; these bars become the interior
of reinforcement is at this point, as support bars, as shown in Fig. 60.14. The
shown in Fig. 60.14, DCB No. 60) Speedfloor manual [6] requires these bars to
have 25 mm cover and this is incorporated
dmesh = diameter of the mesh bars or of the into the design procedure, in sections A5.1.2,
individual bars used (mm). A5.2.1 (3) and Fig. 60.14. These bars sit on
top of the upper layer of mesh reinforcement.
The design example shown in Figs. 62.1 and
62.2 is for a 75 mm thick slab, with 10 mm The SPM Program also treats the interior
diameter reinforcement, giving a cover to the support bars as sitting on top of the upper
mesh of 27 mm. This cover is from the top of layer of mesh reinforcement, as shown in
concrete to the top of mesh – ie. as defined Fig. 60.11 and section A4.2.1 (3). For this
on page 36 of DCB No. 60. reason, the height of these bars is controlled
by the mesh cover, which is why there is no
(4) The minimum quantity of reinforcement requirement to input a cover to the interior
supplied in each direction (ie. the bar diameter support bars in the SPM Program.
and bar spacing in the x, y directions) is
dictated by the need to provide “strong crack For a 75 mm thick Speedfloor slab, the SPM
control” in order to prevent integrity failure as Program positions the interior support bars
the slab deforms. The minimum area of within 3 mm of where they would be if placed
reinforcement in each direction required is at the recommended 25 mm cover, thus the
given by equation 60.CA1 of DCB No. 60 and negative moment generated by these bars is
the background to this limit is given in section effectively correctly calculated. For a 90 mm
CA5 1.1. For a 75 mm thick slab, Ar,min = 382 thick slab, the SPM Program considers the
2
mm /m in each direction. bars at 15 mm lower than they would be in
practice, thus the calculated negative moment
(5) Zero values should be entered for the is conservative.
secondary beam input, except for the
secondary beam spacing, where 1 should be The design example shown in Figs. 62.1, 62.2
used. does not include interior support bars. The
slab panel edge conditions for sides 1 and 3
The reason for the zero inputs is because the are therefore set as simple.
contribution of the Speedfloor joists is ignored
in the SPM design procedure, as detailed in (8) Deck trough bars cannot be placed in a
section CA5 2 of DCB No. 60. Speedfloor system, hence all input entries for
these should be set to zero.
Because of this, the shear capacity of the slab
panel is determined for the concrete alone, as (9) For the reasons described in (5) above, the
detailed in section A5.2.6. The design shear number of bolts in the secondary beam to
capacity is calculated on a kN/m width basis. primary beam connection should be set to
The check for shear adequacy for the zero.
Speedfloor system is given by section A5.2.8,
while that for a secondary beam system is With these modifications, the SPM Program will
given in section A4.2.8. The SPM Program determine the adequacy of a Speedfloor system
uses the secondary beam system check. To to carry an applied load, w * , under specified
make that equal to provisions for the
Speedfloor system, the contribution to shear severe fire conditions.
from the secondary beams, Vu,sb, must equal
zero and the value of Ssb equal 1. The former The inelastic load-carrying capacity of these slabs
can be significant, as shown by the design
is achieved either by setting the ambient
temperature design shear capacity of the example. Remember that this capacity ignores
secondary beam to zero or by setting the any contribution from the exposed area of the
Speedfloor joists. This design example involves a
number of bolts in each secondary beam to
slab panel 75 mm thick, supported on Speedfloor
primary beam connection to zero (both are
joists spanning 6 m between primary beams and
done in Fig. 62.1). The latter is achieved by
with a long dimension, Ly, of 10 m. The structural
setting Ssb = 1.
fire severity is 90 mins, which is at the upper end
(6) The slab panel inputs follow normal of what would be required for a FHC = 2 purpose
practice; he,slab = to . See Figs. 60.14 and group [7] in a building with normal weight concrete
floors. The applied load of 5.8 kPa is also at the
60.19 for this application.
upper end of that which would be required in

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 5 No. 62, June 2001
practice. Reinforcement is DH 10 bars to [4] at This will result in lower amounts of reinforcement
200 centres both ways. required to support the fire emergency design
load than are needed through the use of HERA
The results (Fig. 62.2) show the slab panel has Report R4-82 [8].
adequate moment/tension membrane capacity
and adequate shear capacity. Corrosion of Steel in Ground:
As a final point regarding reinforcement content Update on DCB No. 46
and layout, from Fig. 60.19 of DCB No. 60 it can Guidance
be seen that the reinforcement in the x-direction is
parallel to the Speedfloor joists. If this
Introduction and Background
reinforcement comprises individual bars and if the
joist spacing is close to, or equal to a whole
Steel piles offer a very cost-effective piling
number multiple of the bar spacing (eg. joist
solution for a wide range of applications.
spacing of 1.23 m centres – the standard value –
However, up to recent times they have been
and bar spacing of 0.2 m centres) then the area of
under-utilised in New Zealand, in part because of
the Speedfloor joist that is integrally cast into the
concerns over their susceptibility to corrosion and
slab can be considered as effective reinforcement
how to account for this in design. In order to
in place of the bar that would otherwise be put
provide guidance on this very important issue,
there. This offers a way of reducing the number
HERA has published design long-term corrosion
of individual bars required in the x-direction. The
rates for steel piles in DCB Issue No. 46, October
embedded joist steelwork effective in bending will
1998. This guidance covers steel piles buried in
always exceed that available from an individual
natural soils exhibiting a wide range of natural soil
DH10 or DH12 bar, even allowing for the
conditions and in different types of filled ground.
differences in yield stress and temperature
between the embedded joist steelwork and the
The principal research references used to derive
bar.
the design data presented in DCB Issue No. 46
are a paper by Ohsaki entitled Corrosion of Steel
Use of the SPM Program For Flat Slab Panels Piles Driven in Soil Deposits [9] and a report by
Romanoff entitled Corrosion of Steel Pilings in
Follow the same procedure as for the slab panel Soils [10]. The former describes tests on steel
on Speedfloor joists. piles driven into a wide variety of natural soil
deposits in southern and central Japan. The latter
Flat slabs cast onto removable formwork will need describes inspections on steel piles at 19
reinforcement for “strong crack control” to locations around the USA.
suppress potential integrity failure.
At the time of writing the DCB No. 46 guidance,
Use of the SPM Program for Slabs Cast onto the HERA Structural Engineer was not aware of
Steel Decking But With No Secondary Beams any studies conducted on corrosion rates of piles
buried in New Zealand soils. However, the fact
This situation may arise where the decking spans that data was available on a wide range of
between supporting blockwork walls, for example, Japanese soils and USA soils and the results
and is propped during construction so that the showing the insensitivity of pile corrosion rates to
required clear span can be achieved. Clear spans soil conditions gave confidence that the results
of as much as 6 metres can be achieved in this would be applicable to piles in New Zealand soil
way. conditions.
With reference to Fig. 60.17 of DCB No. 60, this Since then, in promoting the availability of this
would involve no secondary beams spanning design guidance to the profession, the HERA
across the dimensions Lx, with the slab panel Structural Engineer has been advised of, and
supported on the four sides by walls or primary obtained copies of, two papers presenting studies
beams. on the corrosion of mild steel plates in some New
Zealand soils. These papers are Corrosion of
In this instance, the SPM Program can be used in Mild Steel Plates in Some New Zealand Soils [11],
the normal manner for a secondary beam published in 1970 and Corrosion of Mild Steel
application, except that all the secondary beam Plates in Some New Zealand Soils After 20 years
inputs are set to zero apart from Ssb = 1. Interior [12], published in 1983. Both were written by
support bars can be used over internal supports H R Penhale of the DSIR in Lower Hutt.
and deck trough bars can be used. The number However, these studies were constructed to
of bolts in the secondary beam to primary beam determine corrosion rates in steel pipe
connection should be set to zero. applications, rather than steel pile applications.
The environments around the two types of

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 6 No. 62, June 2001
steelwork are very different; steel pipes are buried • The findings are also in agreement with UK
horizontally at shallow depths in disturbed, often findings (papers are referenced from [12]).
highly aerated soil, while steel piles are buried
vertically, through a range of depths and soil The key finding, in terms of this article, is the
conditions, typically in undisturbed soil. second to last one given above – namely that the
New Zealand soils show a similar if slightly lower
Romanoff has also conducted extensive studies corrosivity for buried steel plates and hence pipes
on the corrosion rates of buried plates [13] as well than USA soils.
as buried piles [10] and made comparisons of the
two sets of results. These comparisons show that Although these studies were for corrosion rates of
the corrosion rates and nature of attack are very buried steel plates rather than steel piles, they do
different in the two situations and are much more establish a link between the corrosivity of New
severe in the case of the buried plates or Zealand and American soils for this application.
pipes [13]. This link shows the New Zealand soil corrosivity to
be slightly less than the American soil corrosivity.
It is worthwhile comparing the buried plate
corrosion rates for New Zealand soils from This link increases the confidence in applying the
[11, 12] with those for USA soils from [13]. The USA steel pile corrosion rate studies from [10] to
results give an indication of the differences that New Zealand conditions, as has been done in
may apply to the corrosion rates of steel piles DCB No. 46.
between New Zealand and USA soils.
Design Guidance on Corrosion Rates for
Comparison of Steel Plate Corrosion Rates in Steel Pipes
New Zealand and USA Soils
As stated by Romanoff in [10], the corrosivity of
The New Zealand studies [11, 12] covered 33 soil the soil environment to steel plates and pipes
types ranging from sand to clay and peat. Soil pH buried to shallow depths in disturbed soil is very
ranged from 3.3 to 8.3. Soil resistivity ranged much greater than that to steel piles, especially
from 430 ohm - cm to 94,800 ohm - cm. Wet piles buried in undisturbed natural soils. The
densities ranged from 0.86 g/mL to 1.88 g/mL. severity of the former means that applied
The range of these variables was similar to that corrosion protection to the external surface of
undertaken by Romanoff for both plates [13] and buried steel pipes in trenches will typically be
piles [10]. Corrosion rates in the New Zealand necessary, while for piles a design corrosion rate
studies were determined and presented for 2.5, 6 will typically be applied over the specified design
and 10 years exposure in [11] and for 20 years life of the structure supported by the piles, to
exposure in [12]. determine a sacrificial thickness of material to be
used for durability considerations. Suitable design
Penhale’s conclusions after the 20 years study corrosion rates for steel piles are given in DCB
[12] were that No. 46.

• There is little or no statistical significance For steel pipes, designers should obtain [11, 12]
between the observed corrosion rate and any and use the results presented therein to
of the soil properties mentioned above determine the design corrosion rates. The 20
year results [12] are most valuable in this regard.
• The most corrosive soils were those having
low resistivity or strongly leached acid clay These results show the mean rate of uniform
soils with medium to rapid drainage. corrosion loss for the most corrosive soils was
However, there is not a strong correlation around 0.030 mm/steel surface/year, while the
between corrosion rate and acidity mean rate of pitting attack was 0.140 mm/steel
surface/year. As previously stated, the most
• The least corrosive soils are water-logged, corrosive soils were soils with low resistivity or
slow draining soils highly acidic, drained clay soils.

• The results are in agreement with Romanoff’s Slight to moderate rates of uniform attack
findings [13]. Some of the American results (average 0.015 mm/steel surface/year) without
show distinctly higher corrosion rates than the much pitting occurred in waterlogged soils.
New Zealand results, however the American
soils include a high number of low-resistivity Very low rates of uniform attack (average 0.008
soils. Table 5 from [12] gives a comparison of mm/steel surface/year) occurred in dry sandy and
average rates of corrosion for the different gravelly soils in areas of low rainfall.
studies
Comparing these rates of attack with the
design corrosion rates for steel piles, given in

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 7 No. 62, June 2001
DCB No. 46, show the latter to be considerably (2.4) Select an appropriate corrosion protection
lower in undisturbed natural soils, but higher in system to meet the environmental
uncontrolled fill above the permanent water table, requirements of 2.2 and 2.3, based on cost,
which is a situation more akin to the buried pipes. performance and any client-specified
factors such as colour and appearance.
The incidence and magnitude of pitting attack is
also much lower in steel piles than steel pipes [10] The design life is readily determined from the
and the importance of pitting attack on the NZBC [14], being typically 50 years. It may be a
performance of steel piles is also less. longer period as directed by the client.

Allowance for Microclimatic The relationship between the first year corrosion
rate and the long-term corrosion rate is given on
Effects when Determining the pages 5,6 of DCB No. 46; see especially Table
Design Corrosivity Category for 46.1 therein. That means that, provided the first-
year corrosion rate can be realistically
Structural Steel in Exterior determined, then either the thickness of sacrificial
Atmospheric Conditions steelwork to be designed for (in the case of
unprotected steelwork) or the appropriate
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA corrosion protection system can be selected.
Structural Engineer.
The first year corrosion rates for mild steel,
Introduction galvanized steel and aluminium coupons have
been determined for many sites around New
The general procedure used in design of Zealand, by BRANZ, with results from 168 sites
steelwork for durability when exposed to exterior published in [15]. The test specimens for this
atmospheric conditions is as follows: study were arranged in racks, an example of
which is shown in Fig. 62.3, with these racks
(1) For unprotected structural steelwork positioned and oriented so as to be representative
(carbon–manganese steel) of the general environment (ie. the
macroenvironment) at the test site.
(1.1) Determine the design life

(1.2) Determine the long-term site-specific

corrosivity category, on the basis of :
• macroclimate, plus any
• microclimatic effects
• changes in corrosion rate during design
life

(1.3) Determine the thickness of sacrificial

steelwork required.

(1.4) Determine the design capacity of the

residual member/system, at the end of its
design life, and ensure that it is equal to or
greater than the design actions.
Fig. 62.3
(2) For protected structural (carbon– Test Rack for Corrosion Rate Determination of
manganese) steelwork Steel Panels (from [15])

(2.1) Determine the design life Hyland and Enzensberger have performed multi-
variable regression analyses on the BRANZ data
(2.2) Determine the site-specific corrosivity so as to present the macroenvironmental
category, which is derived from the first corrosion rate as a function of the significant,
year corrosion rate for the steel material. readily available site location and meteorological
This rate is determined from the: data.
• macroclimate, plus any
• microclimatic effects Their paper [16], which was written for and
presented at ASEC98, presents six equations,
(2.3) Determine the time to first major relating to different distances from the sea coast,
maintenance required for the protection each of which gives the predicted first year mild
system steel corrosion rate as a function of:

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 8 No. 62, June 2001
• The average annual daily temperature Other effects either listed in [17] or noted from
• The 9.00 am time of wetness observation of existing steelwork are:
• The annual rainfall. • steel to concrete interfaces (see Fig. 62.5)
• effect of acidic/alkaline fallout
This meteorological data is readily available from • effect of sulphur dioxide; eg. through pollution,
NIWA, which means that [16] can be used to geothermal activity or discharges such as
predict the first year corrosion rate for unprotected chimneys (see Fig. 62.6).
structural steel for any location in New Zealand
outside of known heavy industrial, coal burning or It is very important in designing for durability that
geothermal areas. Eight of the BRANZ test sites the macroclimatic effects and the microclimatic
[15] were located in heavy industrial or coal effects are determined as accurately as
burning areas, with a further 11 sites located in practicable. That is because the design outcome,
geothermal areas. For these locations, the in terms of performance and cost, is directly
differences between the predicted and actual dependent on these choices.
corrosion rates are given in [16].
AS/NZS 2312 [17] gives six atmospheric
Therefore, for any site in New Zealand, the first classifications, which are based broadly around
year corrosion rate for structural steel, due to the the five atmospheric corrosivity categories
macroclimate at that location, can be determined. from ISO 9223 [18]. The draft replacement of
AS/NZ 2312, as of March 2000 [19], has aligned
In addition to the macroclimate, the local the corrosivity categories directly to the ISO
environmental effects (or microclimate) produced categories. However, the description of each
by the erection of a structure or installation of category in both the current standard [17] and the
equipment need to be taken into account. This is proposed draft replacement [19] is too general to
because these factors can cause a significant allow the macroclimate to be determined for a
local acceleration in the corrosion rate. The most particular site. Hence the role of [16], which
commonly occurring microclimatic effects, from allows the site macroclimate to be determined and
AS/NZS 2312 [17], are: hence the appropriate atmospheric classification
for that macroclimate from [17, 19] to be selected,
(1) Areas remaining damp for an extended for sites not closer than 0.5 km to the sea.
period
(2) Unwashed surfaces – ie. exposed to Guidance on allowing for some microclimatic
atmospheric contaminates, notably coastal effects is given in DCB No. 46 and 47. In terms of
salts, but protected from cleansing rain. allowing for the influence of shaded areas and
(see Fig. 62.4) unwashed surfaces, it allows for these through
modifying the 9.00 am time of wetness and the
rainfall parameters given in equations (1) and (6)
of Hyland and Enzensberger’s paper [16].

Fig. 62. 4 Fig. 62. 5

Effect of Unwashed Surfaces on Corrosion Rate: Effect of Steel/Concrete Interface Corrosion
Site 400m From Sea, Prevailing Wind Off Land

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 9 No. 62, June 2001
 Quantifying The Influence of Unwashed
Surfaces

Principal Factors

The principal atmospheric pollution contribution

to corrosion in New Zealand is airborne salinity
[15, 16], ie. chloride ions. This effect is greatest at
the seacoast and decreases at a rapid, non-linear
rate with increasing distance from the seacoast.
The influence of atmospheric chlorides on the
washed surface first year corrosion rate for mild
steel shows clearly in the BRANZ test results [15]
and in the design equations presented in [16].

The rate at which the chloride influence on

washed surfaces diminishes with increasing
distance from the seacoast depends to a limited
extent on whether the prevailing or common wind
direction at the site is off the sea or off the land.
(The terms prevailing and common wind are
defined in NZS 3101 [20] and their directions are
given therein for the country and for specific major
metropolitan areas.) The influence is not
Fig. 62.6
significant enough to have been incorporated into
Effect of Sulphur Dioxide/Acidity
the design equations of [16] as a regression
Note to Fig. 62.6: the effect is shown through the rust spots
variable, with the result that those equations
(dark spots) in the galvanized internal gutter. An explanation slightly (up to 10%) underestimate the
is given on page 16 herein. experimentally recorded washed surface
corrosion rate for sites near the open seacoast
In accordance with HERA’s policy of ongoing and subject to prevailing or common winds
review and evaluation of our published design blowing off the sea and slightly overestimate the
procedures, the adequacy of the DCB No.46 experimentally recorded rate for sites near the
guidance on allowing for microclimatic effects has seacoast but subject to prevailing or common
been considered by the HERA Structural winds blowing off the land.
Engineer. This consideration has been based on
“engineering observation” of the performance of a The experimental test racks comprise an upper
range of existing buildings rather than a rigorous washed surface and a lower partially washed
scientific study. surface, as shown in Fig. 62.3. Thus the results
from these racks also incorporate a degree of
This has shown that the guidance relating to unwashed influence, especially in locations of low
allowance for shaded surfaces (that of setting the rainfall. However, a surface which is completely
time of wetness parameter to 1.0) is reasonable. protected from rain washing, such as beams
As stated on pages 6 & 7 of DCB No. 46, that under a bridge, will be subject to greater
guidance is applicable to surfaces that are only unwashed effects and evidence from observations
shaded, not surfaces that are permanently wet or around New Zealand show that the influence of
covered with debris. The adjustment of the time- prevailing or common wind direction relative to the
of-wetness parameter to allow for shaded areas is adjacent seacoast is significant on unwashed
also within the validity range for that parameter surfaces, as well as the nature of that seacoast
given in [16]. (open sea or sheltered bay). The chlorides act on
unwashed surfaces through chemical action and
The allowance for unwashed surfaces given on by increasing the time of wetness on the surface
page 6 of DCB No. 46 does not take into account through hygroscopic action.
the influence of the prevailing wind on chloride ion
build up and the recommendation to set the When quantifying the influence of these factors,
annual rainfall parameter, Ra, to zero is also recourse has been made to guidance from
outside the validity range for rainfall from [16]. For existing standards and evidence from buildings.
both those reasons, the HERA Structural This has been correlated with the estimated first
Engineer’s study concentrated on ascertaining the year corrosion rate for mild steel surfaces in, and
adequacy of the allowance for unwashed areas. immediately adjacent to salt water applications,
Quantifying this effect is covered in the next which can be obtained for mild steel from
section, followed by revised design considering the design long-term corrosion rate
recommendations for allowance for unwashed for various applications given in DCB Issue No. 46
surfaces. in conjunction with the relationship between

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 10 No. 62, June 2001
design long-term corrosion rate and first year • Distance from seacoast and type of seacoast
corrosion rate given in Table 46.1 of DCB Issue • Direction of prevailing wind relative to site and
No. 46. The resulting design recommendations seacoast
for allowance for unwashed surface effects are • Openness of environment (to ensure as far as
then presented. practicable the only microclimatic effect that is
important is the unwashed surface effect)
Guidance from standards • Condition of the unwashed and washed
surfaces – both must be in an actively rusting
AS/NZS 2312 [17] and the currently proposed condition so that the differences in state of the
draft replacement [19] both require microclimates unwashed and washed surfaces can be
to be considered, but do not provide guidance on directly compared.
the extent of their influence, beyond saying that it
“can be significant”. Fortunately (at least within the context of this
study), the HERA Structural Engineer has found a
BS 5493:1977 [21] provides explicit guidance for number of good candidate buildings, within the
unwashed areas, which are termed exterior range of locations and environmental conditions
sheltered atmospheres. This advice, given in desired. These are:
Table 3, Part 5 of [21] is that:
• Distances of 0.5 km to 20 km from the
• For sacrificial systems, the thickness of bare seacoast
or sealed metallic coatings should be • Prevailing winds off the open sea (principally
increased by about 25% around the Wanganui region) and off the land
• For barrier systems, the systems should be at (Howick/Pakuranga region of Auckland and
least as good as for the washed conditions, the Napier region of Hawke’s Bay)
with preference for the more water-resistant • All cases where the buildings are not shaded
systems by trees or adjacent buildings
• All cases where there is no apparent source
BS 5493 is currently in the process of being of geothermal, coal burning or other local
replaced by BS EN standards. The appropriate pollution effects.
standard for corrosivity classification is
BS EN ISO 12944-2 : 1998 [22]. This gives only These have been visual observations only.
general advice, stating that an appreciation of the Before giving the general results of these
microenvironment is essential, giving examples as observations, two examples of the buildings
undersides of bridges and sunny/shady sides of a studied are covered in some detail.
building.
The first building is a house located in Howick, on
Thus, of all the relevant standards listed above, Auckland’s east coast. Fig. 62.7 shows the view
only [21] provides quantifying advice on the effect looking towards the sea, which is 0.5 km away.
of unwashed areas. The next source of guidance The seacoast is semi-sheltered (the Waitemata
comes from observations of buildings. Harbour) and the prevailing wind direction is from
the land towards the sea (approximately in the
Observation from buildings direction in which Fig. 62.7 was taken).
In selecting buildings from which to observe the
influence of unwashed surfaces, the following
factors are important:

Fig. 62.7
View from Howick House Looking Towards Sea

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 11 No. 62, June 2001
 Fig. 62.8 Fig. 62.9
Unwashed And Semi-Washed Faces of Close-up of Semi-Washed West Face
Balcony Column, Howick House Of Balcony Column, Howick House

The relevant steelwork comprises light RHS In the HERA Structural Engineer’s estimation, the
columns supporting a deck/carport on the north multiplier of 1.25 for unwashed surfaces
side. Figs. 62.4, 62.8 and 62.9 show aspects of recommended by [21] would conservatively cover
the unwashed south face of these columns and this effect in this instance.
the washed/semi-washed surfaces of the west
and east faces. Fig. 62.5 shows corrosion at the Visual observations of a range of buildings at
steel/concrete interface of one column. varying distances from the seacoast in this region
(ie. where the prevailing wind is off the land) show
The painted surfaces shown in these pictures are that the unwashed effects become minimal at
over 20 years old and no maintenance has been distances of less than 5 km from the adjacent
undertaken on them. The rust percentages range (eastern) seacoast.
from under 25% on the least corroded of the
washed surfaces to over 75% on the most The second example covered herein is a
corroded unwashed surfaces. On the unwashed woolstore in Wanganui. This building was built
surfaces there is no visible flaking of rust and
negligible pitting attack.

Fig. 62.10 Fig. 62.11

Wanganui Woolstore (WW), General View WW, General View
From South East From South West

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 12 No. 62, June 2001
 Fig. 62.12
WW, Washed Surface of Fig. 62.13
Angle Steelwork, East Face WW, Washed/Unwashed
Surfaces, West Face

Fig. 62.15
Fig. 62.14 WW, Unwashed Truss
WW, Unwashed Surfaces, Steelwork, East Side
East Face Of Building

during the early 1960’s and has not undergone on the seacoast are visible to the left of the
any obvious maintenance since the late 1970’s building from the viewpoint from which Fig. 62.10
and possibly earlier. The building is located was taken, although they don’t show up in that
0.5 km from the open seacoast and 0.3 km from photo. Along the south side of the building, which
the tidal Wanganui river mouth. (An open fronts onto a now disused railway siding,
seacoast is one with continuous surf). It is fully are examples of washed steelwork (Fig. 62.12)
exposed to the prevailing westerly winds blowing and washed/semi-washed/unwashed steelwork
off the sea. (Figs. 62.13, 62.14). On the east side of the
building, which is sheltered from the prevailing
Figures 62.10 and 62.11 show two general views westerly quarter winds, is unwashed truss
of the south and east sides of the building, which steelwork supporting a canopy (Fig. 62.14).
contain the steelwork of interest. The sand-dunes

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 13 No. 62, June 2001
Visual observation of this steelwork shows that: with the paint showing between 25% and
50% rusting in the adjacent washed
(1) All paint surfaces have significantly broken regions.
down
Visual observations of a range of buildings at varying
(2) Breakdown of the paint on the washed distances from the seacoast in the Wanganui
steelwork is similar on both the west and region show that the unwashed effects on
east facing surfaces (ie. the surfaces facing surfaces facing into the prevailing wind and
into and away from the prevailing wind). exposed to it are of no greater magnitude than
That on the surface facing away from the those of the Howick House steelwork for locations
prevailing wind (Fig. 62.12) is marginally 5 km from the seacoast and that these effects are
greater. negligible for locations further than around 10 km
(3) Unwashed effects are most significant on from the seacoast.
the unwashed surfaces facing into the
prevailing wind and on the western side of Comparison with first year corrosion rate for
the canopies (Fig. 62.13, near steelwork). steelwork on the seacoast
Unwashed effects are noticeably less
significant on the unwashed surfaces facing The maximum severity of unwashed effect for
away from the prevailing wind and either steelwork right on the open seacoast will be
away from the western side of the canopies similar to that experienced by steelwork in the
or on the eastern side (Fig. 62.14). splash and marine atmospheric zones. The
design long term corrosion rate for steel in
(4) Unwashed effects are minimal on the truss such environments is given by DCB No. 46 as
steelwork supporting the canopies on the 75 µm/surface/year. (See article on Design Long-
sheltered eastern side of the building Term Corrosion Rates for Steel Piles : Steel Piles
(Fig. 62.15). in Water : Splash and Marine Atmospheric Zones
on page 4 therein). Combining this with the
(5) In terms of a visual comparison between reciprocal of the long-term corrosion rate multiplier
the unwashed effects on the Wanganui given in Table 46.1 of DCB No. 46 gives a first
Woolstore (WW) building steelwork and that year corrosion rate of 75/0.6 = 125 µm.
of the Howick House (HH) presented
above, the following observations can be The predicted first year macroenvironmental
made: corrosion rate for the WW building, from [16], is
38 µm. This is applicable to washed surfaces
(i) The HH unwashed surface effects located at 0.5 km from the seacoast. This lies in
are slightly less than those on the ISO Zone C3 [18], 52% of the way between the
WW unwashed surfaces facing east
lower end of that zone (25 µm) and the higher end
(Fig. 62.14)
(50 µm).
(ii) The HH unwashed surface effects are
similar to those for the WW unwashed Hyland and Enzensberger’s equations [16] are
truss steelwork on the sheltered east valid to 0.5 km from the seacoast. For steelwork
side of the building (Fig. 62.15) 0 km from the seacoast, the recommended
practice is to the next most severe ISO category.
(iii) The WW unwashed effects on the In this case, that is ISO Category C4 and the
surfaces facing into the prevailing wind appropriate first year corrosion rate for a washed
and on the windward side of the surface is 52% of the way between the lower end
canopies (Fig. 62.13) are noticeably of that zone (50 µm) and the higher end (80 µm).
more severe than those on the HH This gives a value of 66 µm.
steelwork.
Applying the proposed multiplier of 1.75 for
(6) In the HERA Structural Engineer’s unwashed effects given above gives a value of
estimation, the unwashed effects on the 1.75 x 66 = 116 µm for an unwashed surface 0 km
most severely affected surfaces of the WW from the seacoast in Wanganui. That is slightly
building would be appreciably greater than less than the value of 125 µm derived from the
those allowed for through a multiplier of design long-term rate for steel in splash zones,
1.25 on the washed surface corrosion rate which is appropriate.
and he recommends a factor of 1.75 for
these surfaces. In the most corroded This provides an alternative check as to the
locations shown in Fig. 62.13, the paint has validity of the 1.75 multiplier proposed for
completely disappeared and the surface unwashed surfaces exposed to a prevailing or
has rusted to an estimated rust grade C common wind and which are located within 0.5 km
from BS 7079: Part A1 [23]. This compares from an open seacoast (ie. with continuous surf).

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 14 No. 62, June 2001
Revised Design Recommendations for (4) For locations in (1) and (2) wind regimes
Allowance for Increased Corrosion on but where the unwashed surface is on a
Unwashed Surfaces of Structural Steelwork building face sheltered from the prevailing
or common wind direction, use the values
These recommendations take the form of a from (3).
multiplier to be applied to the design first year
corrosion rate determined for washed surfaces. Allowance for Shaded Locations
The rate for washed surfaces should be obtained
from [16] for sites 0.5 km or greater from the If using equations (1) to (6) of [14], set the time of
seacoast. For sites 0 km from the seacoast, wetness parameter, W9am, to 1.0.
determine the rate for 0.5 km, determine where
within the appropriate ISO corrosivity category The space immediately adjacent to the steelwork
[18, 19] this rate lies then use the corresponding should be kept clear of vegetation to allow good
rate from the next highest corrosivity category. natural drying conditions to prevail. Also,
(See above for an example). steelwork should be kept further than 300 mm
clear of the ground and 2000 mm clear of running
Make allowance for shaded locations through water, wherever practicable.
adjusting the time of wetness value as specified in
the next section. Then apply the following Use Good Detailing to Eliminate Permanently
multiplier, Cuw, to the calculated first year Wet Areas and Debris Traps
corrosion rate to allow for unwashed effects.
This comes down to clean and simple detailing to
(1) For locations where the prevailing or avoid traps where debris and water can lie for
o
common wind (see [20]) is within ± 60 C of extended periods. Guidance on suitable detailing
blowing from an open seacoast towards the for many common applications is given in Fig. 4.1
site and the unwashed surface is exposed of AS/NZS 2312 [17].
to that wind direction;
The effect of debris and water is to keep the
Cuw = 1.75 for sites ≤ 0.5 km from the surface wet, which can lead to localised corrosion
seacoast rates in excess of those allowed for the shaded
Cuw = 1.25 for sites 5 km from the locations allowance above.
seacoast
Cuw = 1.0 for sites ≥ 20 km from the Avoid Dissimilar Metal Contact and Contact
seacoast With Timber

(2) For locations where the prevailing or Both these effects can cause considerable
common wind direction is as for (1) but the localised increases in the corrosion rate. Contact
seacoast is not an open surf beach (eg. with timber is particularly severe, because the
Wellington Harbour, Waitamata Harbour) timber will absorb moisture and keep the steel
and the unwashed surface is exposed to surface wet and salts used in the treatment of
that wind direction; timber for external conditions will attack the steel.
If the steelwork has to support timber members,
Cuw = 1.75 for sites 0 km from the separate them with a damp proof course
seacoast extending at least 6 mm beyond the face of the
Cuw = 1.5 for sites 0.5 km from the timber in contact with the steel.
seacoast
Cuw = 1.0 for sites ≥ 5 km from the This effect is evident in the Howick House
seacoast steelwork supporting the balcony, but is not
severe enough, in that instance, to show up in
(3) For locations where the prevailing or Figs. 62.8 or 62.9.
common wind direction is from the site
either parallel to or blowing towards the Use Appropriate Detailing for Steel to
seacoast; Concrete Interfaces

Cuw = 1.5 for sites 0 km from the This is one of the more significant microclimate
seacoast effects and is covered in DCB No. 47, pages 1-3.
Cuw = 1.25 for sites 0.5 km from the
seacoast An example of its greater severity than the
Cuw = 1.0 for sites ≥ 5 km from the unwashed influence on steelwork located close to
seacoast the sea and where the prevailing wind is off the

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 15 No. 62, June 2001
land can be seen from comparing the extent of
corrosion in Fig. 62.5 with that in Fig. 62.9; these
Revisions to the Flange Bolted
are from the bottom and top, respectively, of the Joint Design Procedure
same column.
This article has been written by G Charles Clifton, HERA
Structural Engineer and John Butterworth, Senior Lecturer at
Special Cases the University of Auckland, Department of Civil and Resource
Engineering.
The above recommendations will adequately cater
for microclimatic effects at the majority of sites in Background
New Zealand.
HERA and the University of Auckland are
All the standards mentioned previously in this engaged in a long-term research project aimed at
article mention special case situations where the developing innovative new forms of semi-rigid
microclimatic influences may be different to those joints for moment-resisting steel framed seismic-
covered by the above recommendations. The resisting systems (MRSFs). These joints are
most comprehensive guidance on this is given in intended to remain rigid up to the design level
Appendix B of BS EN ISO 12944 – 2 [22]. ultimate limit state earthquake moment, eg. as
derived from NZS 4203 [24], then to allow rotation
One example, which can occur in localised to occur between the beam and the column, when
regions, is where sources of significant this design moment is exceeded. The joint is then
atmospheric pollution other than chloride content designed and detailed to withstand the expected
occur. The most common regional examples in inelastic rotation associated with the design level
New Zealand occur in geothermal and industrial / ultimate limit state earthquake with negligible
high coal burning regions. These are identified damage, such that minimum or no repair is
and quantified in [16]. necessary when the MRSF has been subjected to
that magnitude of earthquake. Finally, the joint is
However, a similar effect can occur in very expected to be able to withstand greater levels of
localised areas on a particular building where inelastic rotation, associated with more severe
polluted run-off can accumulate. An example is events, without catastrophic failure, instead
shown in Fig. 62.6 and comes from the HERA undergoing at worst a gradual loss of moment
Structural Engineer’s house roof! capacity with increasing cyclic rotation demand
beyond the design severe seismic level.
The problem shows in the localised patches of
rust in the galvanized internal gutter, that was 6 Of the five joint types that have been researched
years old at the time the picture was taken. to date for this project, two joint details have
emerged as preferred options for the beam to
The cause is runoff from the roof to the left, which column connections of MRSFs. These are the
is situated directly below the chimney. A fire is lit Flange Bolted Joint (FBJ) and the Sliding Hinge
almost every night over the winter months and the Joint (SHJ).
smoke from this deposits acidic contaminants and
sulphur dioxide rich contaminants on the roof. On The development work on the FBJ is essentially
rainless nights this contaminated water completed and design, detailing provisions for the
condenses on the roof, runs down and collects in joint and for MRSFs containing the FBJ have
the gutter and then evaporates the next day, been presented in DCB No. 58, October 2000
leading to a build-up of contaminants in specific Issue.
locations.
The focus of research has now switched to the
The effect has been easily overcome by sanding SHJ. Design concepts for the SHJ were
back to bare metal and coating with a cold- presented in DCB No. 59 and these have since
galvanizing spray. Monitoring of the location in been expanded into a full design procedure for
the two years since the repair shows the sacrificial both the joints and the MRSF containing the
zinc layer still in place. joints.

This illustrates a major advantage with steel and Numerical integration time-history analyses of trial
the use of sacrificial corrosion protection. frames has commenced.
Because steel corrodes from the outside, any
regions of unexpectedly high localised corrosion There are quite a number of aspects of SHJ joint
are readily noticed on routine maintenance, easily and system design that are the same or similar to
rectified and monitored for ongoing satisfactory FBJ joint and system design. Developing the SHJ
performance. This is very difficult to do for details has therefore involved an in-depth
materials that corrode from the inside. evaluation of the FBJ design provisions contained
in DCB No. 58.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 16 No. 62, June 2001
This process has uncovered some minor revisions Revision to section 3.10.1 : calculate
that need to be made to the FBJ connection horizontal design force/unit length of weld
design procedure presented in section 3, pages 7
–16 of that Bulletin. These revisions are Change to make
presented below.
Replace equation 58.29 on page 13 with a new
It has also confirmed that the MRSF system equation, thus:
design provisions incorporating the FBJ are OK as
written. These system design provisions are  3 M * x 103 0.9 t wp fy, wp 
presented in section 4, pages 16-20 of DCB *
v wh = Min  wh
;  (58.29)
No. 58. 
 ( )
d wp
2
2 x 10 3 


Revisions to the Design and Detailing where:

Provisions for the FBJ
*
M wh = design moment from equation 58.20, in
The revisions give the section number and page
reference from DCB No. 58, the changes to be kNm
made and the reasons for the changes. They also dwp = web plate depth, in mm
show the impact of these changes on the design twp = web plate thickness, in mm
example presented in section 5, pages 20-23 of fy,wp = yield stress of web plate in MPa
DCB No. 58.
Reason for change
Revisions to section 3.8.8: check shear
adequacy of web plate The first expression is the original equation 58.29
with the 2 in the numerator increased to 3. This
Change to make changes the determination of moment-induced
stress in the weld group from a plastic to an
Add a factor of 2 to the design shear force in elastic distribution. The elastic distribution is more
equation 58.25 on page 13, DCB No. 58, to read. accurate, given the position of the web bolts on
the web plate and the resulting mechanism of
* moment transfer from beam to web plate.
φVvn,wp ≥ 2 Vwv (58.25)
However, the weld need not be stronger than is
Reason for change required to develop the design tension yield
capacity of the plate. That level of weld strength,
There are two rows of web bolts, each of which in conjunction with NZS 3404 Clause (9.7.3.10.3)
resist half the vertical shear force. The design requirement that fuw > fu (weld metal tensile
*
shear force, Vwv , calculated in equation 58.16 and strength ≥ web plate tensile strength), will ensure
used in determining the number of web bolts that general web plate yield can develop instead
needed in one row represents only half the of weld failure. This is the second expression on
vertical design shear force that the web plate must the right hand side of the revised equation 58.29.
resist.
Impact of change on design example
Impact of change on design example
*
v wh is calculated in section 5.2.24 on page 22.
The vertical design shear force (on one row of The revised calculation becomes
bolts) is 116 kN, see section 5.2.10 on page 21.

The design shear capacity of the web plate is *  3 x 112 x 103 0.9 x 12 x 260 
v wh = min  ; 
379 kN, see section 5.2.19 on page 22.  450 2 2 x103 
 
= min (1.66 ; 1.40) = 1.40 kN/mm
The original design check is given in section
5.2.20 on page 22. With the above revision it now Revision to section 3.10.2: calculate vertical
becomes: design force/unit length of weld
*
φVvn,wp = 379 kN > 2 Vwv = 2 x 116 = 232 kN Change to make
√ OK.
Remove the 2 on the denominator of equation
*
Thus the revision has no impact on the FBJ in the 58.30 and correct v wh so that the equation reads;
design example.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 17 No. 62, June 2001
 *
Vwv design and construction practices have been
*
v wv = (58.30) drawn.
d wp
An overview of this publication is given in DCB
Reason for change No. 39, December 1997. However that review is
very brief and does not outline the scope of this
Same as for the revision to equation 58.25, very useful publication. Hence this article
namely that the weld must resist the vertical shear provides more detail.
from both rows of web bolts.
Summary of SCI Publication 138.
Impact of change on design example
This publication [25] gives guidance on the
* appraisal of existing iron and steel structures. It
v wv is calculated in section 5.2.24 on page 22. It deals mainly with building structures in cast and
doubles from 0.13 kN/mm to 0.26 kN/mm. The wrought iron, and in steel up to 1968. An
* * historical account of the manufacture of these
increase in both v wh and v wv increases the
combined design force/unit length of weld, given materials and their use in building construction is
by equation 58.31, to provided, in order to highlight differences in
design, forming, fabrication, and connection
methods as compared with present-day practice.
*
v w, (
wp = (1.40 ) + (0.26 )
2
)
2 0.5
= 1.42 kN/mm Guidance on appraisal strategy is accompanied
by reviews of relevant material properties, defects,
The original 8 mm leg length category SP fillet and methods of investigation of the existing
weld has a design shear capacity of 1.30 kN/mm, structure. The assessment method offers a three-
which is not now adequate. Increasing the weld stage approach to calculations for checking
leg length to 10 mm gives structural adequacy, and also considers adequacy
* in fire. Load testing is discussed as a
φvw = 1.63 kN/mm > v w, wp √ OK
complementary method of checking structural
adequacy. The three final sections consider
The clearance requirements of section 3.2.6 are methods of structural repair, strengthening and
still OK for a 10 mm leg length fillet weld between replacement, fire protection, and corrosion
web plate and column flange. protection. References and a Bibliography are
provided. Three Appendices list principal sources
Revised Software Available of available information, provide background
details of the historical development of column
The excel spreadsheet containing the FBJ design analysis, and summarise current research on
example for a 10 storey building has been revised structural cast iron.
to incorporate these changes. A copy is available
on a “use at your own risk” basis; email Charles Overview of Contents
Clifton for this, which will be sent via return
attachment. SCI Publication 138 covers the following:

• History and manufacture of iron and steel

th th
− 18 to 20 centuries
Appraisal of Existing Building − back to pre-medieval times
Steelwork: Excellent Guidance
• Iron and steel in building construction
Available − structural form
− members and connections
This book review has been written by G Charles − original design methods and (UK) building
Clifton, HERA Structural Engineer. regulations
Introduction • Appraisal strategy
Over the last two months, the HERA Structural • Properties of structural iron and steel
Engineer has received six requests for the − cast iron
properties of steelwork in existing buildings, dating − wrought iron
back to the early 1900’s. An excellent source of − steel before 1906
guidance is available through HERA in the form of
− steel since 1906
an SCI Publication entitled Appraisal of Existing
− stainless steel
Iron and Steel Structures [25].
− steel castings
That publication is written for UK practice, from − effect of fire on material properties
which most of New Zealand’s early steelwork
• Defects and deterioration

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 18 No. 62, June 2001
 − common defects 8. Barber, D J;Calculation of the Fire Resistance
− distortion, cracking and fracture of Composite Concrete Slabs With Profiled
Steel Sheet Under Fire Emergency
• Identification of properties Conditions; HERA, Manukau City, 1994,
− identification, measurement, testing HERA Report R4-82.

• Structural assessment 9. Ohsaki, Y; Corrosion of Steel Piles Driven in

− approach and strategy Soil Deposits; Soils and Foundations, Vol. 22,
− loadings No. 3, 1982, pp. 57-76.
− modelling for analysis
10. Romanoff, M; Corrosion of Steel Pilings in
− load testing
Soils; National Bureau of Standards,
Washington, USA, 1962, NBS Monograph 58.
• Assessment of fire performance
− “deemed to satisfy” approach 11. Penhale, H R; Corrosion of Mild Steel Plates
− fire engineering design in Some New Zealand Soils; New Zealand
Journal of Science, Issue No. 14, June 1971,
• Repair, strengthening and replacement pp 336 – 353.
− structural adequacy during alterations
− repair of sections 12. Penhale, H R; Corrosion of Mild Steel Plates
− replacement of sections in Some New Zealand Soils After Twenty
− connections between new and existing Years; New Zealand Soil Bureau Publication
members 1065, 1984.

• Corrosion protection 13. Romanoff, M; Underground Corrosion;

National Bureau of Standards, Washington,
• References and research USA, 1957, NBS Circular 579.
− principal sources of practical and
documentary information to assist the 14. NZBC:1992, New Zealand Building Code;
appraisal process Building Industry Authority, Wellington.
− background on column assessment
− research on structural cast iron. 15. Duncan, J R and Cordner, R J; Atmospheric
Corrosion Rates Over Two Years Exposure at
156 Sites in New Zealand; IPENZ
References Transactions, Vol. 18, No. 1/GEN, November
1991.
1. Hyland, C W K ; Structural Steelwork
Connections Guide, Incorporating 16. Hyland , C W K and Enzensberger, M;
Amendment No. 1; HERA Manukau City, Prediction of Site-Specific Steel Corrosion
1999/2001, HERA Report R4-100. Rates in New Zealand to Assist Coatings
Selection; ASEC98, Auckland, 1998, Vol. 2,
2. NZS 3404:1997, Steel Structures Standard; pp. 835-842, SESOC, Auckland, 1998.
Standards New Zealand, Wellington.
17. AS/NZS 2312:1994, Guide to the Protection of
3. Amendment No. 1 to NZS 3404:1997; Iron and Steel Against Exterior Atmospheric
Standards New Zealand, Wellington. Corrosion; Standards New Zealand,
Wellington.
4. NZS 3402:1989, Steel Bars for the
Reinforcement of Concrete; Standards New 18. ISO 9223:1992, Corrosion of Metals and
Zealand, Wellington. Alloys – Corrosivity of Atmospheres –
Classification; ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.
5. AS/NZS 4671:2001, Steel Reinforcing
Materials; Standards New Zealand, 19. Draft Replacement of AS/NZS 2312:1994,
Wellington. Guide to the Protection of Structural
Steelwork by the Application of Corrosion–
6. Speedfloor Design Manual; Speedfloor Resistant Coatings; Standards New Zealand,
Holdings Ltd, Auckland, 2001. Wellington, February 2000 issue.

7. C/AS1: 2001, Approved Document for NZBC 20. NZS 3101:1995 (incorporating Amendments 1
Fire Safety Clauses C1, C2, C3, C4; Building and 2, 1997), Concrete Structures Standard;
Industry Authority, Wellington. Standards New Zealand

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 19 No. 62, June 2001
21. BS 5493:1977, Code of Practice for Protective
Coating of Iron and Steel Structures Against
Corrosion; BSI Standards, London, England.
(Now superseded by BS EN ISO 12944)

22. BS EN ISO 12944–2:1998, Paints and

Varnishes–Corrosion Protection of Steel
Structures by Protective Paint Systems – Part
2: Classification of Environments, BSI
Standards, London, England.

23. BS 7079: Part A1: 1989, Preparation of Steel

Substrates Before Application of Paints and
Related Products, Part A1: Specification of
Rust Grades and Preparation Grades of
Uncoated Steel Substrates and of Steel
Substrates After Overall Removal of Previous
Coatings, BSI Standards, London, England.

24. NZS 4203:1992, General Structural Design

and Design Loadings for Buildings; Standards
New Zealand, Wellington.

25. Bussell, M; Appraisal of Existing Iron

and Steel Structures; The Steel
Construction Institute, Ascot, England, 1997,
SCI Publication 138.

HERA Steel Design & Construction Bulletin Page 20 No. 62, June 2001