PDF | 8 MB - Australian Building Codes Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

INTERNATIONAL Regulatory Development Scheme (SINGLAS) or other laboratory accredited under a mutual recognition agreement with SINGLAS are required. Reliability Assessment The second step in the classification approach involves the reliability assessment, i.e. verification of material reliability against the quality assurance requirements. Reliability assessment to ensure the steel materials are manufactured under stringent quality assurance system shall meet the quality assurance requirements. Failure in the reliability assessment shall result in the downgrading of material class to Class 3. A complete reliability assessment consists of two compulsory evaluation processes, namely FPC certification and manufacturer test certification. Manufacturers of steel materials shall have an FPC system already attested by an independent third-party certification agency acceptable to or recognised by BCA. Valid FPC certificates issued by the certification agency upon successful first and annual inspections shall be produced by the manufacturers as an indicator of an FPC system acceptable to BCA. In FPC certification, QPs shall evaluate the validated copy of the valid FPC certificate, obtained either directly from the manufacturer or through the stockholder or trader. The document mentioned shall also be made available for subsequent inspection by BCA, if required. It shall be pointed out that ISO9001 certificate is only complimentary, while European Union FPC certificates and API Monograms can be considered ‘acceptable in lieu’. Manufacturers shall issue an authenticated test certificate for every batch of steel materials delivered as a form of quality assurance on the steel materials. Actual quantity of steel materials delivered shall be clearly indicated by the stockholders. In manufacturer test certification, QPs shall inspect and confirm that all the mandatory information is indicated on the actual certificate. The document shall also be made available for inspection by BCA, if required. Classification of Steel Materials The classification procedure will end with the class of steel materials being determined. Three classes, namely Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3, are the possible outcome. Class 1 status can only be achieved by certified steel materials, i.e. those materials which meet material performance requirements through rigorous certification process, if and only if quality assurance given by the manufacturers also satisfies the respective requirements. These materials can be used as per normal to BS5950. No material factor will be applied on the design strength of the steel. In other words, full nominal strength given by the material standard of Class 1 structural steel is employed for design calculation. On the other hand, design parameters for bolts and welds are those recommended by the respective national standards. Similarly, non-certified steel materials outside BS/EN, ASTM/API/AWS, JIS, AS/NZS and GB steel materials which are proven to be reliable can also be used as per normal to BS5950, if they can demonstrate compliance with the essential material performance requirements through material testing. These materials are considered as Class 2 materials under the classification framework of BC1. However, a lack of local experience and rigorous study, and hence understanding on the local use of such materials necessitates a material factor of 1.1 to be imposed on Arts and Science Museum at Marina Bay Integrated Resorts under construction the design strength of Class 2 structural steel. Likewise, Class 2 connection components like bolts, welds and stud shear connectors, shall be designed to lower strength parameters as compared to their Class 1 counterparts. All other steel materials which fall outside Class 1 and Class 2 are regarded as Class 3 materials which fail to satisfy material performance requirements and/or quality assurance requirements. This type of materials which are really ‘commercial-grade’ steel shall be restricted to non-structural use only. The design strength for Class 3 steel shall be limited to not more than 170 N/mm2. However, use of Class 3 bolts, welds and stud shear connectors to BS5950 is not permitted. SPECIAL CASE While BC1 is in the early phase of implementation, interim measures are necessary to ensure a smoother transition for key industry players to adjust and switch to the new requirements, as well as to cater for existing on-going projects and current stockpiles of steel materials which meet adequacy requirements but obviously do not come with FPC certificates from audited mills. For the above reasons, a material performance-based assessment in lieu of the adequacy and reliability 18 • Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
assessments, based on material testing per heat or batch and control might be appropriate under the alternative route provided for under Clause 4.4 of BC1. Subject to case-by-case approval from BCA, the steel materials concerned may be treated as Class 2 materials if their adequacy and reliability can be guaranteed through testing and control plans of the materials delivery to site. As this special provision is meant to be an interim measure to cope with the transition stage, it should not be seen as an escape route to by-pass the new requirements for quality requirements. QPs who resort to using this alternative path because of material non-compliance with quality assurance requirements, not only have to monitor and propose a very rigorous material control plan, but also have to review and redo the design because of the change in the material classification. In addition, QPs will still have to continue to shoulder the quality problem caused by lesser manufacturers. USE OF ALTERNATIVE STEEL MATERIALS The main objective of introducing these new requirements on both adequacy and reliability of the steel materials is to improve the resilience and sustainability of Singapore’s steel construction industry. The enforcement and full implementation of such requirements will bring about some tangible and positive improvements in the long run as few will argue on the need for quality. In the short term, some re-adjustments will be necessary amongst all the key industry stakeholders while some will be affected more and others will view the new requirements as restrictive. The long term objective should not be clouded by the short term difficulties which are usually driven by commercial consideration. Such issues are best addressed separately. In the local context, the need to look into the use of alternative steel materials is also understandable from the availability point of view. The presence of Chinese steel materials in this region is a case in point. Under the new provision of BC1, as long as the steel materials can be proven to be adequate and reliable, their use to BS5950 will be allowed irrespective of where the materials originate from and what production standards they are manufactured to. By widening the option to source these materials from, it is hoped that more economical and sustainable steel construction will eventually result in Singapore. Equal Platform for all Steel Materials The mandatory requirement on material adequacy and reliability implies that only adequate and reliable materials can be used under the provision of BC1. Therefore, the approach is consistent and fair, and all steel materials, including those manufactured to BS and BS EN standards are treated equally without any preference when design recommendations are given. In addition, BC1 is fair to all Class 1 steel materials by allowing the use of the full material strength as its design strength. Design strengths recommended by their respective national steel design codes might not be appropriate because of the fundamental difference in design philosophy compared to BS5950. Quality Culture BC1 took the opportunity to address the long-standing material problems where non-certified materials which are readily available have been used in the past and are still being used today. The notion that material adequacy and reliability can be assured by testing a few tensile coupons is a fallacy which really needs to be debunked. Material production standards are serious documents with complicated processes in which manufacturers have to follow through strictly. There are in-line production tests in place which would not be possible to duplicate off-line once the material is produced. The manufacturer test certificates are only meaningful if manufacturers adhere to and follow the production standards closely and report the information faithfully. The mere existence of a certificate is not sufficient proof because such information can be easily copied over from the feedstock materials without having to do a single production test. The need for consistently reliable and quality materials, and to single out, reward and encourage manufacturers who practiced quality assurance and took the trouble to put in place a stringent production control system and product certification is clear. With such a framework in place, the manufacturers will be more responsible and forthcoming. Moving forward, the Authority will be more vigilant on the use of non-certified materials such as JIS G3101 SS400, ASTM A500 and BS4360 Grade 43A which are still readily available. Key stakeholders (traders, stockholders, fabricators and QPs) should well take note of this development. CONCLUSIONS Adequacy and reliability of steel materials are the two major concerns in promoting alternative use of steel materials to pave a way towards a more sustainable construction industry in Singapore. With BC1 in place, adequacy and reliability of all steel materials are checked against the material performance and quality assurance requirements. Their adequacy can be evaluated through either certification or material testing; whereas their reliability must be substantiated by factory production control (FPC) certificate and mill test certificate (MTC) from the manufacturers. The steel materials are categorised into three classes, each with different scope for use with and without restriction, in design to BS5950. BC1 will bring several positive benefits to the steel construction industry in the long run. In the short term, it is recognised that some re-adjustments will be necessary and some stakeholders will be affected more than others. The use of alternative steel will open up the availability and widen the source of materials which will result in greater economy and affordability. All steel materials, including BS and BS EN materials, regardless of country of origin, are treated equally in the same manner. Finally, BC1 addresses some quality issues head-on in the hope it will lead to a healthy quality culture on steel usage which will set a new standard for others in the region to follow. INTERNATIONAL REGULARTORY DEVELOPMENT Australian Building Regulation Bulletin • 19
Page 1: BULLETIN AUSTRALIAN BUILDING REGULA
Page 4 and 5: ChAirmAn’S ADDreSS Mr Graham huxl
Page 6 and 7: BCA & INDUSTRY NEWS Premises Standa
Page 8 and 9: 3576_bushfire_shelter_cvr_v4.indd 1
Page 10 and 11: BCA & INDUSTRY NEWS ABCB Board Memb
Page 12 and 13: A STATe PerSPeCTive WeSTern AUSTrAl
Page 14 and 15: COVER STORY Breaking through the ba
Page 16 and 17: ToWArDS SmArTer BUilDing • SA: Ta
Page 18 and 19: INTERNATIONAL Regulatory Developmen
Page 22 and 23: INTERNATIONAL Regulatory Developmen
Page 24 and 25: BCA energY & INDUSTRY eFFiCienCY NE
Page 26 and 27: INDUSTRY Perspective INDUSTRY DISCI
Page 28 and 29: INDUSTRY Perspective HVAC&R THE •
Page 30 and 31: Client Feature PRODUCT Innovation B
Page 32 and 33: Client Feature PRODUCT Innovation B
Page 34 and 35: ConFerenCe + events Calendar ConFer
Page 36: Do your windows & doors comply to t

PDF | 8 MB - Australian Building Codes Board

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?