5th CECARACECC TC-8
Special Forum on
Harmonization of Design
Codes in the Asian Region(in Sydney, Australia)

Date ：August, 11, 2010 Wednesday
Venue ：Bayside 101, Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre
Organized by ACECC TC-8
JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers)5th CECARACECC TC-8
Special Forum on
Harmonization of Design Codes in the Asian Region
Date:
Venue
Organized byAugust, 11, 2010 Wednesday
Bayside 101, Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre
ACECC TC-8
JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers)

Forum Schedule（Moderator：Dr. Horikoshi, K., Secretary, ACECC TC-8）
Time table
11:00-11:05

11:05-11:20

Sessions
Greetings

Opening Introduction
Introduction of the ACECC Activities on TC-8

11:20-12:45

Recent Revision of Japanese TechnicalStandard for Port and Harbour Facilities(15-20min for (TSPHF) Based on a Performance Basedeach topic)
Design Concept

Speakers
Dr. Kenji Sakata
President of JSCE

Dr. Kenichi Horikoshi,
Secretary, ACECC TC-8

Dr. Yoshiaki Kikuchi, Dr.Youichi Watabe
Port & Airport Research Institute
Dr. Tsuyoshi Nagao
National Institute for Land and InfrastructureManagement

Necessity of Code Harmonization for the Prof. Erdene Ganzorig,
Developing Countries. Mongolia Case Studies. Mongolian University of Science and Technology
Structural Engineering Department

President of MACE
Globalisation and the Harmonization of Design Mr. Phil Blundy
and Material Standards within the Asian Councillor of Standards Australia,
Region – an Australian Perspective
Chair of Structural College, EA

12:45-13:00

A Treatise of Current Australian Steel andSteel-Concrete Composite Standards andComparisons
with
Other
International
Standards

Prof. Brian Uy
Head of School, School of Engineering &Director, Civionics Research Centre,
University of Western Sydney

Future Developments of the Eurocode 4

Prof. Dennis Lam
Chair in Structural Engineering
School of Engineering, Design & Technology
University of Bradford, UK

Closing Remarks

Prof. Yusuke Honjo,
Gifu University, Chair of ACECC TC-8, JSCE

Presentations

5th CECAR ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on Harmonization of Design Codes in the Asian Region
August 11th, 2010

Recent Revision of Japanese Technical Standard for Port andHarbour Facilities (TSPHF) Based on a Performance Based
Design Concept
Dr. Yoshiaki Kikuchi, Dr.Youichi Watabe
Port & Airport Research Institute
Dr. Tsuyoshi Nagao
National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management

Recent Revision of Japanese Technical Standard
for Port and Harbour Facilities (TSPHF)
Based on a Performance Based Design Concept
The 5th Civil Engineering Conference in the Asian Region andAustralian Structural Engineering Conference 2010
Aug. 8-12, 2010
Sydney Convention and Exhibition Centre, Australia

Table of contents
1. Difference of former and new TSPHF
2. Reliability based design method in new

TSPHF
3. Summary

Y. Kikuchi*, T. Nagao**, Y. Watabe**Port & Airport Research Instituｔ**National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management

What is Breakwater?
1. Difference of former and new TSPHF
2. Reliability based design method in new

TSPHF
3. Summary

Breakwaters are constructed tomaintain the calmness of the basin andease of handling of cargo at quay walls.
To perform these aims, breakwater
should be designed to be safe against
strong wave forces and to cut thetransmission of wave forces.

Example of provisions in former TSPHF
Breakwater or Protective facilities

Objectives
andperformancerequirements

Contents

Provisions in former TSPHF

FunctionProtective facilities for harbors should be maintained its
function under every natural situations such as geography,
meteorology, marine phenomena and others. (Law Article 7)

SafetyProtective facilities should be safe against self weight, waterpressure, wave force, earth pressure, earthquake force and soon. (Law Article 7)

Calculationof forces
Performanceverification(They are also
written in
notification)

The wave force acting on a structure shall be determinedusing appropriate hydraulic model experiments or design
methods in the following procedure. (Notification Article 5)

SafetyExamination of the safety of the members of the rein forced
verification concrete structures shall be conducted as standard by the limitof members state design method. (Notification Article 34)
Stability
check

Examination of the stability of upright section of gravity typebreakwater shall be based on the design procedures using thesafety factors against failures. (Notification Article 48)

Wave force

Technical standard system under performance based
design concept NEW TSPHF
Objective

Mandatory

Law orNotification

Objectives of facilities

Performancerequirements

Performances facilities are required

Performance criteria

Concrete criteria which can be usedfor verification of performancerequirements.

Performance verification

Performances should be verified
Approach B
by engineering procedure.
(Specific design code:
TSPHF guideline)¾ Performance verification: Designers can select the approach for verification.
Approach A: Designers should prove the verification of the performance requirements
under a appropriate reliability. Verification results will be checked by an accreditedorganization or a authorized committee.
Approach B: Designers should prove the verification of the performance requirements inaccordance with technical codes prepared by the authorities

Not
mandatory

Approach A>> Guidelines which present the standard procedure of verification are prepared for reference.

Concept of performance based design system in New TSPHF

Performance considered in former TSPHF
For all the structures

Level

Definition / contents
of description

Mandatory
situation

Objectives

The reason why thefacility is needed.

Mandatory(Port and Harbor
Law)

Performances
Performance
which facilities are
requirements
required

Mandatory(Port and Harbor
Law)

Objective
Performancerequirements

Performance criteria

Performance verification
Approach B

Approach A(Specific design code:
TSPHF)

Performance
criteria

Concrete criteria
which represent
performancerequirements

Mandatory(Notification)

Performanceverification

Performances
should be verified
by engineering
procedure.

Not Mandatory(Guidelines arepresented forreferences)– Level 1 earthquake:
earthquake: is the intensity of seismic motion which
structures will encounter 1 or 2 times during its service period.
period.
This level of earthquake is the almost equivalent seismic motion
motionas that used for the external force against conventional seismic
design. Return period of this earthquake is about 75 years.
– Level 2 earthquake:
earthquake: is the intensity of seismic motion of which
event probability is quite low. Large scale plate boundary
earthquakes occurred near land or inland earthquakes will bethis kind of earthquakes.

Annual exceedance
probability

Relation between design situation and performancerequirement in New TSPHF

Reparability

1Serviceability

Safety factors against failure shall be larger
than prescribed value.

Largeearthquake

Level 2 earthquake is Safety factors against failure shall be larger
major action
than prescribed value.

Designsituation

Definition

Performance Requirement

Permanent actions
Persistent (self weight, earth
Situation pressures) aremajor actions
Variable actions
Transient (wave, Level1
Situation earthquake) aremajor actions

Serviceability (Possibility of damage is low or thefunctions of the facility would be recovered withminor repairs.)
・Serviceability is required for all facilities
・Serviceability includes Reparability and Safety.

Accidental actions
Accidental (Tsunami, Level 2
Situation earthquake) aremajor actions

・Levels of the performance requirements will bechanged by the importance of the facilities.
- Serviceability- Reparability: The function of the facility would
be recovered in relatively short period after some
repairs.
- Safety: Significant damage would take place.
However, the damage would not cause any lives
loss or serious economic damages to hinterland.

Design situation in Japan

Damage extent
Safety0.01

Extraordinary
Situation

Performance Requirement

Performance matrix considered in New TSPHF

For the verification of earthquake resistance of public
structures, two types of seismic motions shall be appliedsuch as Level1 earthquake and Level 2 earthquake.

Serviceability

Ordinary
Situation

Definition
Permanent actions(self weight, earthpressures) are major
actions
Variable actions(wave, Level 1
earthquake) aremajor actions

The design situation only for earthquake proofed structures

Level 1 & 2 earthquake0

Designsituation

Accidental
situation

PersistentandTransientsituationNote) Accidental and transient situation are separated by the annual
exceedance probability of 0.01 for the descriptive purpose.

Port and Harbor Bureau considers to construct earthquake proofed facilities foreach mega port.
In this case, serviceability of the berth should be kept even after the attack ofLevel 2 earthquake which is an accidental action.
This kind of design situation should be considered in new TSPHF.

Hokkaido Nansei-oki
Earthquake in 1993

Kobe earthquake in 1995
L2 earthquake

Strong earthquake, but not
L2 earthquake

× Serviceability
× Reparability○ Safety

× Serviceability
× Reparability○ Safety

Safety: Significant damage would
take place. However, the damage
would not cause any lives loss orserious economic damages tohinterland.

Structure should be stronger indesigned with new TSPHF.

Large settlement

Seismic waves considered in design

Kansai International
Airport
2nd phase

600

2Hachinohe NS Base Corrected

400
200
0

Date
PI-79 NS Base Corrected

1999/1/1

2000/12/31 2002/12/31 2004/12/30 2006/12/30 2008/12/29

0Settlement (m)Seismic wave
for design of the
new runway in
Haneda Airport
for L2earthquake

Acc. [Gal]Kobe in 1995

800
400
0
-400
-800
800
400
0
-400
-800
800
400
0
-400
-800
0

p (kN/m )800

Hachinohein 1968

7.9 EW

20

40

60
80
Time [sec]

100

5

10

In some cases, this kindof large settlement
should be considered in
the design.

120
15

Advantage of new TSPHF
Advantage of new TSPHF shall be summarized asfollows;– Performance of facilities are clearly presented to users.
Fully performance based design code is introduced.

– Designers can utilize their decision and can exercise theiringenuity.
They can propose new design method or new type of structures.

– Building cost reduction is anticipated with ingenuity.

In order to employ above advantages appropriately, it isrequired for designers and promoters to understand thethoughts and technical contents of the TSPHF correctly.
And to guarantee to users that new technology has
satisfied the demand of TSPHF, the system for checking
the adequateness of proposed design to TSPHF is
founded.

1. Difference of former and new TSPHF
2. Reliability based design method in new

TSPHF
3. Summary

Levels of Reliability based design method

Performance based design in new TSPHF(in guideline)

Probability
densityfunction

Not only static analysis such as seismic coefficient method
but also dynamic response analysis is introduced especiallyin the case of important structures.

Failureprobability

Reliability index

f z (z)value
μz MeanStandard deviation

β ⋅σ z(2) Level 2 RBD・Distance between mean value μz and failure
condition is evaluated with reliability index β.
・Indirectly considering the probability
distribution form. β and σz are considered
for evaluating failure probability.

Pf– Performance of quay wall is indicated by displacement or
deformation. To evaluate those, analytical method to predict the
deformation of the structure is needed.

μz

Importance of model tests or field experiments areemphasized to include design verification procedure.
Reliability based design (Partial factor method) is introduced
for verifying the performance in persistent and transient
situations

Z

Z(3) Level 1 RBD

Performance
function

Resistance Action= R−S= (γ R Rk − γ s S k )– Performance levels are categorized mainly by importance of thestructures.

(1) Level 3 RBD・Failure probability is directly evaluated (Pf:
Probability of performance function Z<0)

Partial factor

Traditional safety factor method are still used for some types of structures.
In those cases, partial factors are formally used.

Partial factor

・Partial factors are used forconsidering the distance between
mean value and failure condition.
・Partial factors are decided fromLevel 2 RBD calculation.

⎛

γ i = ⎜⎜1 − α i βT⎝

σ i ⎞ μi⎟
μi ⎟⎠ xki

Design verification of gravity type of breakwater

Design verification of gravity type of breakwater

Design verification method used in new TSPHF is explained using theverification of gravity type of breakwater for example.

Traditional method

Three modes of failures are considered.
Forces acting on breakwater at sliding mode of failure
Wave force
Out side

Sliding failure mode

Rotational failure mode

In sideΣH

Bearing failure modeFs =μ ⋅ ∑W∑H

Fs: Safety factor for sliding
failureΣW: Total vertical force
ΣH: Total horizontal force
μ: coefficient of friction

ΣW

μΣW

Verification of sliding mode of failure is presented.
Design situation is transient situation at which wave force is the major action.

Difference in statements
between former and new TSPHF

Evaluation of failure probability of existing structures
Deciding Target system failure probability(Ex: Verification of the sliding stability of a gravity type of breakwater)Fs ≤μ ⋅ (W0 − U )P

Fs = 1.2
Fs: Safety factor
μ : friction coefficient between the
upright section and rubble moundW0: weight of the upright section
in still water
U: uplift force
P: horizontal wave force

γ f f k (∑ γ W Wik − PBd − γ P PUk ) ≥ γ P PHk
i

U

H

i

Pf ≤ 8.7 ×10 −3
γ: partial factor
k (suffix): characteristic value ,d (suffix): design value
f: friction coefficient between the
upright section and rubble moundW i: total weight of the upright section
PB: buoyancy acting on the uprightsection in still water
PU: uplift force acting
PH: horizontal wave force

Reliability indices of existing structures are calculated with first orderreliability method (FORM) for understanding average failure probabilityof existing structures.
About 40 cases were examined for each type of structures and design
method.
– * FORM method is categorized in level 2 of RBD.

Pf ≤ 8.7 × 10 −3

Average system reliability
index of existing caissontype breakwater is 2.38.

μz = β ⋅ σ z
f z (z)Z = R−SPf

μz: mean value
σz: Standard
deviation

1.E+00

1.E-01

Failure probability

Former TSPHF

New TSPHF

1.E-02

1.E-03

1.E-04

1.E-05

1.E-06μz

Z- Reliability index β

0

1

2

3

Reliability index

45Partial factors used in TSPHF
Partial factor γiCoefficient of variance V⎛σ ⎞μ= ⎜⎜1 − α i βT i ⎟⎟ i
μi ⎠ xki⎝

Sensitivity

Deviation of the characteristic value
to mean value

Target reliability index

Standard partial factor (Transient situation for wave)
Target system reliability index βT

2.38
8.7 X 10-3

Target system failure probability PfT
Target reliability used for partial factor βT'
α

μ/xk

σ/μ

0.79

0.689

1.060

0.150

steep slope

1.04

0.740

0.239

shallow slope

1.17

0.825

0.251

rwl=1.5

1.03

1.000

0.200

rwl=2.0,2.5

1.06

1.000

0.400

H.H.W.L.

1

γWRC

Unit weight of RC

0.98

γWNC

Unit weight of NC

γWSAND

Unit weight of sand

γPH,γPU

Slidingγwl

New TSPHF is a fully performance based design code.
– clarifies the performance requirements andverification structure of the code.
– constructs a performance matrix for port facilities.
– makes designers utilize their decision.

2.40
γ

Coefficient of friction

γfSummary-0.704-0.059

-

-

0.030

0.980

0.020

1.02

0.025

1.020

0.020

1.01

0.150

1.020

0.040

Too much factors!!

Thank you for your kind attention.

Reliability based design concept is also introduced to
new TSPHF.
– Level 1 RBD– material factor format– code calibrations with about 40 existing structures– too many partial factors are needed5th CECAR ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on Harmonization of Design Codes in the Asian Region
11th August, 2010

Necessity of Code Harmonization for the Developing
Countries. Mongolia Case Studies.
Prof. Erdene Ganzorig,
Mongolian University of Science and Technology
Structural Engineering Department
President of MACE

5th
5th CECAR
CECAR
ACECC
-8: Special
TC
ACECC TCTC-8:
Special Forum
Forum ononHarmonization
Harmonization ofof Design
Design Codes
Codes inin thethe Asian
Asian Region
RegionRecent situations & specifics• The country is recently opened and willing to joinwith the international communities;

Necessity of Code Harmonization for theDeveloping Countries.
Mongolia Case Studies.
E.Ganzorig, Ph.D, MACE President• Mongolia is a Member country of WTO since 1997;• Country economy is very rapidly growing andexpecting the growth will sharply increase for next
years due to ““bum”
bum”
bum” of mining;• Due to luck of infrastructure, shortage of housing
fund, the government is concentrating on an
attraction of foreign investment;• Mongolian National Design Codes and Codeenforcement structure are mainly adopted from
Russia, so already began some initiatives to change
this situation;

11
11thth August,August, 2010,2010, Convention
Convention andand Exhibition
Exhibition Centre,
Centre,Sydney,Sydney, Australia
Australia

Necessity of the Code development• Codes are not sufficiently developed in terms oftechnical capacity and not harmonized with theinternational codes;• Codes were became out of dated and can’’t covercancan’t
some areas or advanced materials, structures &technologies;• Request of the MACE to collaborate on National
Design Code improvement within JSCE, MACE
Cooperation;• Still not existing in Mongolia an independent codefor the establishment of general requirements on
structural design;• The Vision of National policy documents on the
Code development;• Performance Based Design (PBD) Concepts;

Considerations on the code
harmonization• Close relationship with the central government isvery essential;• It is more advisable that, the activities on code
harmonization are must be addressed on ACECC;• First priority is must be given to thecomprehensive codes then particular or specificcodes;• Because of luck of national capacity, it need someassistance from outside;• As possible, the Performance Based Design(PBD) Concepts are must be introduced;• It is very beneficial to train national code writers &engineers for the code development;

Background of the Code development• Activities of the ACECC Subcommittee on““Harmonization
Harmonization of Design Codes in Asian Region”
Region”• An assistance of the Central government

Organization on Construction, which responsibility
is a code• Still not existing in Mongolia an independent codefor the establishment of structural design general
requirements• Draft code proposal of the Russian Federation iscarried out already, and it’’s enforced as local
itit’sstandard in organizations in Russia;• National policy documents on the Codedevelopment• International experience on implementation of
Performance Based Design (PBD) Approachs;

Reference materials• ““Structures
Structures and Foundation. Basis for the calculation””,
calculation
calculation”,
MNS 2111 - 82, 1982

• ““Reliability
Reliability of the Constructions and the foundations.

Basis for the calculation””. GOST 27751-88 (1+1999),
calculation
27751(1+1999),
calculation”.
27751-88((SD
SD SEV 384-87)
384
384-87)• ““Reliability
Reliability of the Constructions and the foundations.
General rules””, Draft SNiP RF,
rules
RF, 2008
rules”,• ISO 22111:2007, Basi
is for Design of Structures-General
Bas
Structures
Basis
Structures-General
Requirements,• ISO 2394:1998, General Principles on Reliability for
Structures,• EN1990, Eurocode 0: Basis of Structural Design, 2004
RevisionPerformance Based Design Concepts

Objectives and Scope of the Code

• ““Basis
Basis of Design for Civil and Buildings Structures””,
Structures
Structures”,
MLIT, Japan 2002

• Code PLATFORM: Principles, guidelines andterminologies for structural design code drafting
founded on the performance based design concept,
Ver. 1.0, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 2003, New
technologies• FEMA 273. Structural Engineers Assn. of California,
Vision 2000 Committee.,• FEMA 349, Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic
Design, 2000
• Others

Terms and definitions• General terms and definitions– Architectural & Civil engineering works,
works, type ofstructures,
structures, maintenance,
maintenance, monitoring,monitoring, repair &service etc.;– Construction material;– Codes & Standards;• Design and response calculation terms– Design & Calculation basis;– Load,Load, Effects & influences environment;– Modeling of Structures, Calculation model;– Material characteristics, parameters for calculation;– The Limit States;– Reliability;• Established are general requirements fordesign of structures and foundation (building,civil etc. all kind)• The code is a comprehensive design code
(will serve as a basis for design codes forparticular structures)• Concepts from ISO 2394, General
Principles on Reliability for Structures,
EN1990, Eurocode 0: Basis of Structural
Design are introduced

General Requirements• General concepts and conditions for thedesign• Reliability
Reliability criteria;
criteria;• Evaluation
Evaluation methods
methods ofof reliability
reliability criteria;
criteria;• Calculation
Calculation basis:
basis:
 stable;stable; unstable;
unstable; accidental;
accidental;• Durability of the structures and foundations• Pre
Pre condition
condition forfor thethe durable
durable structure;
structure;• Ultimate
Ultimate & Fatigue
Fatigue strength;
strength;• Design
Design working
working life;
life;

Loads and actions

Limit states• General requirements• Classification of limit states II group
group ofof limit
limit statesstates II
II groupgroup ofof limit
limit statesstates Accidental
Accidental limit
limit statesstates Other
Other limit
limit statesstates• Structural calculation according limit states• Calculation basis & model;• Factors for the calculation:
 Design
Design working
working life;life; Material
Material characteristics
characteristics && parameters;
parameters; LoadLoad && effects,
effects, their
their combinations;combinations; Performances
Performances ofof thethe structure
structure inin limit
limit state;state;
 Influences
Influences ofof production,
production, construction
construction &&maintenance;
maintenance;• General requirements;• Classification of loads & effects• According
According response
response ofof thethe structure:
structure: Static;
Static; Dynamic;
Dynamic;• According
According duration
duration ofof thethe action:action: Permanent;
Permanent; Variable
Variable forfor long
long term;
term;
 variablevariable forfor short
short term;
term; Accidental;
Accidental;• Design value of the loads & effects• Combinations of loads and effects• MainMain combinations;combinations;• Combination,
Combination, inin whichwhich included
included accidental
accidental loads;
loads;

Materials and soil
• Characteristics of construction materials andsoil• Strength characteristics;• Deformation characteristics;• Other physical and mechanical characteristics;• Values of the parameters of characteristics:
 Nominal
Nominal value;
value;
 Design
Design value;
value;• Working condition of the structures, materials& soil;• Working conditions are reflected in a calculation
by multiplying factors;

Requirements for the Calculation model• Factors for build up the calculation model• Specifics
Specifics ofof designdesign andand detailingdetailing• Performance
Performance specifics
specifics ofof structure
structure before reach the limit
limit
state
state

• Loads
Loads && effects
effects• WorkingWorking condition
condition• Pre
Pre conditions
conditions && assumptions
assumptions• Composition of the Calculation model• ModelModel ofof Loads
Loads andand effects
effects• Stress
Stress –– strainstrain relationshiprelationship model
model• Performance
Performance model
model against
against external
external actions
actions• Test model of the calculation model

Technical evaluation of thestructures• Evaluation background• PlanPlan && timetime schedule
schedule ofof technicaltechnical services;
services;• Request
Request ofof thethe Client
Client oror owner;owner;• Request
Request or
or orderorder ofof thethe government
government organization;organization;• Time & condition to perform the evaluation• Design
Design working
working life
life isis finished;finished;• For
For reconstruction
reconstruction purpose;
purpose;• Maintenance
Maintenance schema
schema isis changed;changed;• For
For work
work ofof scheduledscheduled repair;
repair;• After
After disasterdisaster oror accident;
accident;• Investigating & reporting of technical evaluation;• Requirements for the technical evaluation survey &calculation;

Importance or significance of thestructures• Significance of the structures is reflected in a
calculation by multiplying factor;• Who where estimate the significance of thestructures;• Levels or categories of the significance; forexample: I category – essential structures II category – important structures III category – ordinary structures IV category – less important structures

Quality control• Objects for the Quality control’s stages• Design
itit’sDesign works
works andand it’stages && components
components• Products
Products ,, materials
materials && elements
elements ofof thethe structures
structures• Quality
Quality ofof construction
construction works
works• Stages of the Quality control of materials, products &elements of the structures• Design
Design phases;
phases;• GeologicalGeological investigation
investigation phases;
phases;• Production
Production phases
phases ofof materials,
materials, products
products && elements;
elements;
phases;• Construction
Construction phases;• Maintenance,
Maintenance, repair
repair && serviceservice phases;
phases;• Stages of the Quality control of design process• Estimation
Estimation phases
phases ofof requirements
requirements ,, conditions
conditions && TOR;TOR;• Calculation
Calculation model
model creation
creation && calculation
calculation phases
phasesdrawing&
documentation
phases;• Design
Design drawing & documentation phases;• Other
Other phases
phases not
not regulated
regulated byby thethe code;
code;

Performance based design concepts• Performance of the structures• Performance objectives• Performance requirements of structures• Performance criteria• Performance verification methods• Mandatory according the code methods• Non mandatory according the codes
methods

Activities, should be conducted within the
MACE, JSCE collaboration on Design Codedevelopment in Mongolia

Activities, conducted within the MACE,
JSCE collaboration on design codedevelopment in Mongolia• Develop the national code named as ““Basis
Basis of• Collectedgs;
meetinCollected aa necessary
necessary information
information andand organizedorganized series
series WG
WG meetings;
meetings;• RenewedesomRenewed andand submitted
submitted thethe Proposal
Proposal for
for Code
Code Development
Development with
with somesome• Renew the national standard named ““Structures
Structures and

• Key
an;
Mongoli
Key understandings
understandings ofof ISOISO 2394
2394 andand 22111
22111 areare preparedprepared inin Mongolian;
Mongolian;• MadeMade full
full translationtranslation ofof DraftDraft Code
Code andand Standard
Standard ofof Russian
Russian

Structural Design. General requirement”
requirement” ;Foundation. Basis for the calculation”
calculation” MNS 2111 82, ;• Organize training of national code writers &engineers, JSCE MACE joint seminars etc;

• Develop comprehensive, guiding document about

the PBD Concept using references, such as JSCE““PLATFORM”,
PLATFORM”
PLATFORM”, Guide of MLIT of the Japan and soon.;required
required funding
funding toto thethe Ministry;
Ministry;
Federation;Federation;• Translation
Translation ofof JSCE,JSCE, Code
Code Platform
Platform fromfrom English
English toto Mongolian
Mongolian isis nownow
going;
going;• Translation
Translation ofof JSCE,JSCE, Code
Code Platform
Platform fromfrom English
English toto Mongolian
Mongolian isis nownow
going;
going;• MadeMade translationtranslation ofof ACECCACECC Glossary
Glossary forfor PBD;
PBD;• Preparation
Basis of Structural Design”
Design” is now
Preparation ofof First
First Draft
Draft ofof CodeCode ““Basisgoing;
going;• Organized
Organized are
are thethe JSCE
JSCE andand MACE
MACE WG
WG meetings
meetings inin Ulaanbaatar,
Ulaanbaatar,
Hanoi
Hanoi andand Fukuoka;
Fukuoka;• According
According thethe request
request ofof MAVE,
MAVE, thethe JSCE
JSCE sent
sent experts
experts toto thetheMongolia
time
Mongolia andand organizedorganized thethe training
training forfor 33 time.
time..

Conclution• ACECC Technical Subcommittee TC-8 on
TC
TC-8Code Harmonization in Asian Region isessential for us, for developing countries, itneed to continue the committee activities;• Introduction of PBD concepts is a key issue
for the harmonization of design codes;• Under framework of T8 committee activities,
most desirable issue is an assistance fornational capacity building in developing
countries;

Thank you for your attention!

5th CECAR ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on Harmonization of Design Codes in the Asian Region
11th August, 2010

Globalisation and the Harmonization of Design and Material
Standards within the Asian Region – an Australian
Perspective
Mr. Phil Blundy
Councillor of Standards Australia,
Chair of Structural College, EA

INTRODUCTION
1. Recent Australian Standards
2. Global Harmonisation• Material Standards

Globalisation and the Harmonization of
Design and Material Standards- an Australian perspective• Design Standards
3. Standards Development in a Changing World• Goals and Strategies• WTO Free Trade and ISO Standards

Philip Blundy
Independent Chair of Loading Codes, Standards Australia
Chair of Structural College, Engineers Australia
Principal, Cardno

4. Future of Australian Standards Development• Harmonisation• New Funding and Process2• Priorities

RECENT AUSTRALIAN
STANDARDS

BRIDGE DESIGN
AS5100 - 2004

• AS5100 - 2004

Bridges• Goal - National Bridge Design Standard• AS1170.4 -2007

Earthquake Actions• Vehicle Loading – future proofing…

• AS3600 - 2009

Concrete Structures• Vehicle• Barriers and Collision loads• Material Standards• e.g. Concrete AS3600• Durability“

3

4

EARTHQUAKE ACTIONS
AS1170.4 - 2007 /NZS1170.5

CONCRETE STRUCTURES
AS3600 - 2009

• Goal - Common (not identical) National Loading Standards• Goal – Contemporary Concrete Standard• AS1170.0 General Principles,• Durability• AS1170.1 Permanent & Imposed,• Concrete Strength 25MPa – 100MPa• AS1170.2 Wind Actions• Strut and Tie Methods• Draft Standard Developed• Class L Reinforcement (elongation 1.5%)
The Golden Eagle Hotel in Kalgoorlie was damaged in the earthquake• Ductility• Consensus not reached -• Development Lengths and Lap Splices• Agreed to develop
independent Standards

5• Lap splices > development length

CHILE - building damaged in the earthquake

6

STANDARDS AUSTRALIA DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS AUSTRALIA - GOALS• Standards Australia goals• Maximize Use of International Standards• Priority / Needs Driven Program• Standards ONLY produced where Appropriate• Development Paths (and funding)• Driven by Commitment to Stakeholders• SA Project Management• Benefit Australian Community• Independent Project Management, SA secretariat• External Development• Scrutiny and Probity• Still the same rigorous review and consensus• Research• International Cooperation – engagement with ISO

7

8

STANDARDS AUSTRALIA FUNDING

GLOBAL MARKETPLACE• Standards Australia goals-– Construction Materials• Maximize Use of International Standards• Steel sections, prestressing wire
• Bolts and welding• Cement, glass, timber etc.

• Standards ONLY produced where Appropriate• Driven by Commitment to Stakeholders• Benefit Australian Community– Fabrication• BUT Who pays?

• Offshore competition• Government, Regulator?

– Engineering Services• User?

• Loading standards• Materials standards• Stakeholder?

10

9

FUTURE IN AUSTRALIAN
STANDARDS - HARMONISATONSUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATECHANGE• Standards Australia commitment!

• Salinity (durability)• International harmonization = ISO?

• Sea level• Differences• Flooding• Terminology and Language• Cyclonic Wind

• Units of Measure• Temperatures• Design Philosophy• Sustainable

Tsunami damage• Material capacity factors v Member capacity factors• Construction• Safety Indices• Operation• Eurocode? Japan? China? India? USA?
• Regulatory Background11

12

GLOBAL HARMONISATIONCONCLUSION• Team A• We live and work in a Global Market• Product and Material Suppliers• Global standards should be part of that

• Constructors• Regulators and engineers need to work together• Consultants• Researchers and Experts• Regulators and Agencies• Team B• Regulators and Agencies

13

15

FEDERATION SQUARE, Melbourne AUSTRALIA

14

5th CECAR ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on Harmonization of Design Codes in the Asian Region
11th August, 2010

A Treatise of Current Australian Steel and Steel-Concrete
Composite Standards and Comparisons with Other
International Standards
Prof. Brian Uy
Head of School, School of Engineering & Director, Civionics Research Centre,
University of Western Sydney

A Treatise of Current Australian Steel andSteelSteel-Concrete Composite Standards andComparisons with Other International Standards

Professor Brian Uy
Head of School, School of Engineering &Director, Civionics Research Centre,
University of Western Sydney

ABSTRACTThis paper introduces the five main codes of practice published by Australian Standards which relate
to design of steel structures for buildings and bridges respectively.
respectively. For buildings structures unlike
overseas standards such as the new Hong Kong Steel Standard and the long established American
Institute of Steel Construction, Australian Standards for the design
design of steel structures are quite
fragmented yet extremely comprehensive. Rather than reflecting structural systems, AustralianStandards tend to deal with material types and thus individual standards
standards deal with different types ofsteel and also composite steelsteel-concrete forms. The five main codes of practice in Australia which
which
relate to steel structures include AS2327.1AS2327.1-2003 Composite Structures; AS4100AS4100-1998 Steel
Structures; AS/NZS4600AS/NZS4600-2005 Cold Formed Steel Structures; AS/NZS4673AS/NZS4673-2001 Cold Formed
Stainless Steel Structures; and AS5100.62005
Bridgedesign,
Part
6:
Steel
and
Composite
AS5100.6
Construction.
Construction. This paper will outline the general principles in each standard
standard and a few examples ofprojects and how these would need to be designed are given. In addition over the last two decades
there have been many situations in Australia where the current codes
codes of practice for steel structures
are not able to be used for various projects. Issues dealing with
with these cases will also be addressed
and the methods for design will also be discussed. Research projects
projects and design recommendations inorder to deal with such situations is also outlined.

Australian Encompassing Documents“I have not found a better way to introduce you to thesethoughts on construction than through my own projects,
and, somewhat like an author writing his first book, one
always gets a little autobiographical.”
autobiographical.”Santiago Calatrava(Eminent Architect and Structural Engineer )From Conversations with Students,
The MIT Lectures, Princeton Architectural
Press (2002)

INTRODUCTION
There are all encompassing documents which must be
adhered to in Australia. The two key documents which
relate to building and bridge construction respectively are:
 Building Code of Australia (Australian Building Codes
Board, 2006); and Bridge Design Standard (Standards Australia, 2004)

Overseas Steel Standards,(Hong Kong Buildings Department, 2005
and American Institute of Steel Construction, 2005)

Australian Standards

AS2327.1AS2327.1-2003 Composite structures:simply supported beams

Thus unlike overseas standards for structural steel design, (Hong(Hong Kong
Buildings Department, 2005 and American Institute of Steel Construction,
Construction,2005), Australian Standards call up specifications within the two
two documents
shown in Figure. The following section will briefly outline the various standards
for steel structures:






AS2327.1AS2327.1-2003 Composite structures: simply supported beams
AS4100AS4100-1998 Steel Structures;
Structures;
AS/NZS4600AS/NZS4600-2005 Cold formed steel structures
AS/NZS4673AS/NZS4673-2001 Cold formed stainless steel structures
AS5100.6AS5100.6-2004 Bridge design, Part 6 Steel and composite construction

AS2327.1AS2327.1-2003 Composite structures:simply supported beams

AS2327.1AS2327.1-2003 Composite structures:simply supported beams

This Australian Standard was produced by committee BD32. The
Australian Standard deals with the design of simply supported
compositecomposite-steel concrete beams. The standard was firstly released in
1996 in limit states format, (Standards Australia, 1996). The major
majorinnovations in this standard are the ability to allow the use of partial
shear connection. The standard also requires designers to pay close
close
attention to the various stages of loading, namely construction, service
and ultimate loading stages. Committee BD32 also has a remit astandard for composite slabs, continuous composite beams andcomposite columns and significant work is currently ongoing in this
this
area.

AS4100AS4100-1998 Steel Structures

AS4100AS4100-1998 Steel Structures
This Australian Standard was produced by committee BD1. This
Australian Standard is a primary reference standard for the Building
Building
Code of Australia, Australian Building Codes Board, 2006) and deals
dealswith the design of bare steel structures. The standard was firstly
firstly
released in 1990 in limit states format, (Standards Australia, 1990).
1990).
One of the major innovations in this standard is the ability to allow theuse of advanced analysis. The standard limits the yield stress ofof thematerial to 450 MPa (N/mm2).

AS/NZS4600AS/NZS4600-2005
Cold formed steel structures

AS/NZS4600AS/NZS4600-2005
Cold formed steel structures
This is one of the first standards to be written as a harmonised standard
between Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand and was produced
producedby committee BD82. This Standard will be referenced in the Building Code ofAustralia 2006, thereby superseding AS 4600—
4600—1996. The standard deals
primarily with closed and open thin walled sections produced by cold working
with thicknesses less than 25 mm. One of the innovations is the ability todesign elements using the direct strength methods, whereby bucklingbuckling modes
are determined to allow for the interaction of the component plates
plates in the crosscrosssection. The standard would be primarily used in the design of secondary
structural elements such as purlins and girts, and structures where
where live loads
are generally quite low in proportion to dead loads.

AS/NZS4673AS/NZS4673-2001
Cold formed stainless steel structures

AS/NZS4673AS/NZS4673-2001
Cold formed stainless steel structures
This is another one of the first standards to be written as a harmonizedharmonized
standard between Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand
and was produced by committee BD86. The standard deals withstainless steels with at least 10.5% chromium and up to 1.2% Carbon.
This standard also is concerned primarily with closed and open thin
thin
walled sections produced by cold working. The standard draws heavily
heavilyon overseas standards, such that Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this
thisStandard is based on ANSI/ASCE8
90Specification
forthe
Designof
ANSI/ASCE
ColdCold-formed Stainless Steel Structural Members. Section 6 is based on
AS/NZS 4600 and AS/NZS 1664.1.

AS5100.6AS5100.6-2004 Bridge design,Part 6 Steel and composite construction

AS5100.6AS5100.6-2004 Bridge design,Part 6 Steel and composite construction
This standard is part of the overall AS5100 Bridge design series andwas produced by committee BD90 which was a partnership between
Standards Australia, the Australasian Railway Association and
AUSTROADS. The Standard deals with the design of members insteel and composite construction. The standard draws heavily on theAustralian Standards, AS4100AS4100-1998 and AS2327.1AS2327.1-2003 (Standards
Australia, 1998 and Standards Australia, 2003) for beam and column
columndesign. The standard is also however also able to deal with composite
composite
construction members which may prove to be a forerunner to thedevelopment of a standard for composite columns produced by BD32
for buildings.

APPLICATIONS AND CASE STUDIESStar City, Sydney (1995)

 Star City, Sydney (1995)

 High strength steel
columns
 Composite beams
 Composite slabs
 High strength steel
trussesStar City, Sydney (1995)

CONCLUSIONSThis paper has briefly outlined the five main codes of practice published by Standards
Standards
Australia which relate to design of steel structures for buildings
buildings and bridges respectively.
The five main codes of practice in Australia which relate to steel
steel structures include
AS2327.1AS2327.1-2003 Composite Structures;
Structures; AS4100AS4100-1998 Steel Structures;
Structures; AS/NZS4600AS/NZS46002005 Cold Formed Steel Structures;
Structures; AS/NZS4673AS/NZS4673-2001 Cold Formed Stainless Steel
Structures;
Structures; and AS5100.6AS5100.6-2005 Bridge design, Part 6: Steel and Composite
Construction.
Construction. Some salient features of these standards have been outlined and a few
simplified case studies have been given to show how they can be applied.

CONCLUSIONS
An example of a building which has fallen outside the scope of existing steel standards
have also been given. In many ways it has been the tail wagging the dog in many
instances. However, more recently, research has become more pro
pro-active andsolutions for industry have had some of their fundamentals founded
founded in the research thathas been conducted by Australian universities. Much of the researchresearch conducted inAustralia has been underpinning the applications and it is pertinent
pertinent that AustralianStandards need to be properly developed to support the applications
applications more propro-actively.
Future harmonisation of international standards whereby countries
countries like Australia alignwith other nations to develop international standards is the subject of this session and it
is important to understand the Australian landscape in embarking on such a task. Initialdevelopments by Standards Australia have seen progress in the development
development of
harmonised standards with New Zealand.

5th CECAR ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on Harmonization of Design Codes in the Asian Region
11th August, 2010

Future Developments of the Eurocode 4
Prof. Dennis Lam
Chair in Structural Engineering
School of Engineering, Design & Technology
University of Bradford, UK

CONTENTS
Future Developments of Eurocode 4
by• Introduction• Future developments of Eurocode 4• On-going researches

Dennis Lam

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION• To harmonise all the code of practices across theEurocode 0: Basis of Structural Design
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures
Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistanceEurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures

whole European communities.

• To harmonise between different construction
materials and construction methods.

• To achieve full consistency and compatibility interms of loading, safety factors, etc.

• To eliminate technical obstacles to trade andharmonisation of technical specification.

INTRODUCTION
Eurocode 0: Basis of Structural Design
Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures
Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel and concrete structures
Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures
Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures
Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistanceEurocode 9: Design of aluminium structures

INTRODUCTION
Eurocode 4: Design of composite steel andconcrete structures
EN 1994-1-1: General rules and rules for buildings
EN 1994-1-2: Structural fire design
EN 1994-2: Bridges

Other Documentations• The Eurocodes are published by the National Standards body for use

EN1991
Actions
Dead Imposed Wind•
EN1990Basis of Design

EN1992Concrete
Structures•
EN1993
Steel
Structures

EN1994Composite
Structures•in that country, together with National Annexes, one for each part of
the Eurocode.
The National Annex contains information on those parameters which
are left open for national choice, known as Nationally Determined
Parameters.
Nationally Determined Parameters, NDP, may cover: values and/orclasses where alternatives are given in the Eurocode, values to be
used where a symbol only is given in the Eurocode, country specificdata (geographical, climatic, etc.), e.g. snow map, the procedure to
be used where alternative procedures are given in the Eurocode.
The National Annex may also contain:" decisions on the application of informative annexes," references to non contradictory complementary information (NCCI)
to assist the user to apply the Eurocode.

STANDARD PUSH TESTCURRENT GAPS & FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS• New specific push test procedure for studs inprofile steel sheeting• Ductility of studs in profiled steel sheeting• Special types of concrete slabs (hollow core)• Concrete strength classes greater than C60• Steel grades greater than 460• Frame design: sway stability, disproportionate
collapse.

NEW PUSH TEST60
PTDSRM-1

470×1650 mm
Spreader beam

PTDSRM-2

50

300×2500×
25 mm plate

100

PTDSRMB-2

500×300×
25 mm plate1500 mm
254

Load per stud (KN)

PTDSRMB-1
40

50 mm
90 mm
50 mm

30

25 mm thk.
stiffeners

M24 bolts

20

1500 mm
50 mm packing
5 @75 mm 100 mm
Spreaderbeam

10

Hydraulic
jacks

Load
cell
250 mmP
1500 mm

0
0

1

2

3

4

5

Slip (mm)

6

7

8

9

10
HE 260 B or 254×254×73 kg/m UC, Grade S275, 3500 mm long

COMPOSITE BEAM WITH HOLLOWCORE SLABS

Load per stud (KN)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

1

2

3
4
Slip (mm)567FRAME STABILITY

P

P
2900
2200

2200 (for studs inprimary beams)

457x191x89 UB, Grade S275,
3300 mm long

Longitudinal
reinforcement

Precast hollowcore slabs

Two 305x102x28 kg/m UB, Grade S275
850 mm long, (secondary beams)
254x254x167 kg/m UC, Grade S275,
1500 mm longProposed Equations for Shear Stud Capacity
in Hollowcore Slabs to Eurocode 4

PRD = 0.8fu (πd 2 / 4 ) / γ v

PRD = 0.29αβεd 2 ωfcpEcp / γ v
The partial safety factor γv should be taken as

Proposed Equations for Composite Joints
with Hollowcore Slabs to Eurocode 4

CFT Columns with High Strength Concrete

Joint Moment Capacity:
M Rd = Fr ,t (Db + Dr − 0.5t f ) + Fb,t (Db − r1 − 0.5t f )Joint Rotation Capacity:
φu =

1.25

Slip
ΔL
+
Db + Dr
Db

FRAME STABILITYFRAME STABILITY

Speaker’s details

ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on
Harmonization of Design Codes in the AsianRegionSPEAKER’S DETAILSNAME OF SPEAKER:
Dr. Yoshiaki Kikuchi

TITLE OF PRESENTATION:“Recent Revision of Japanese Technical Standard for Port and Harbour
Facilities (TSPHF) Based on a Performance Based Design Concept”

BRIEF SUMMARY OF YOUR PRESENTAION:In this presentation, the revision of the Technical Standards for Port and Harbor
Facilities (TSPHF) which was recently revised in April 2007 will be introduced. It isthought that the TSPHF is one of the first cases of a revision of a design code basedon a performance based design/specification concept. First, the reason why aperformance based design concept was introduced to the TSPHF is explained. Then,the philosophy of providing a performance concept is explained. The standard
verification procedure in the TSPHF guidelines is explained using an example.
Finally, the policy for determining the geotechnical parameters used for the
performance based design concept is introduced.

CURRENT EMPLOYER/ORGANISATION & POSITION:
Port & Airport Research Institute
Director, Geotechnical and Structural Engineering Department
QUALIFICATIONS: (Degrees, University/College, Subject, Professional Membership)
Doctor of Engineering
Visiting professor of Yokohama National University and Kumamoto University
Menber of International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
Menber Of JSCE, Japanese Geotechnical Society
BRIEF CAREER SUMMARY:
Dr. Yoshiaki KIKUCHI obtained his Bachelor (1981), Master of Engineering (1983), and Doctor ofEngineering (2002) from University of Tokyo, Japan.
He joined Port and Harbour Research Institute in 1983 as a research engineer.
He became the Head of Foundations Division in 1996.
The name of Port and Harbour Research Institute was changed to Port and Airport ResearchInstitute in 2001.
He is now Director, Geotechnical & Structural Engineering Department, PARI and a visiting
proffessore of two universities.

SPECIAL AWARDS/PRIZES, DECORATIONS etc:
Technical Development Award, Japan Port and Harbour Association, May,2003.
Geotechnical Environmental Award, JGS, May 2009.

MEMBERSHIP OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEES:
A member of the drafting committee of a standard of Japanese Geotechnical Society 'Principles forfoundation designs grounded on a performance-based design concept.'

PUBLICATIONS (Number and any relevant examples):About 200 papers.
Investigation of Engineering Properties of Man-made Composite Geo-materials with Micro-focus
X-ray CT, 2006.
New Technical Standard for Port and Harbor Facilities in Japan - New TSPHF -, 2008.
Change of Failure Mechanism of Cemet Treated Clay by Adding Tire Chips, 2008
Bearing Capacity Evaluation of Long, Large Diameter Open Ended Piles, 2008
Durability of Cement Treated Clay with Air Foam Used in Water Front Structures, 2010.
Multifaceted potentials of tire-derived three dimensional geosynthetics in geotechnical applications
and their evaluation, 2010.

ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on
Harmonization of Design Codes in the Asian Region
SPEAKER’S DETAILSNAME OF SPEAKER:
Prof. Erdene Ganzorig

TITLE OF PRESENTATION:"Necessity of Code harmonization for the developing countries. Mongolia case studies."

BRIEF SUMMARY OF YOUR PRESENTAION:
Described are the necessities of Code Harmonization for the rapidly developing countries such as
Mongolia. Presented are the common conditions in developing countries. Summarized are theactivities between MACE and JSCE on the collaborative work on code development. Introduced isthe summary of proposed code for structural design in Mongolia.
Also made attempts to figure out possible future activities on the Code development in Mongolia
and expectations to the ACECC in this issue.

CURRENT EMPLOYER/ORGANISATION & POSITION:
Mongolian University of Science and Technology, School of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Professor
in Structural Engineering Department
QUALIFICATIONS: (Degrees, University/College, Subject, Professional Membership)
Mongolian State University, Master on Structural Engineering, 1981
Moscow University of Civil Engineering, Ph.D, 1990-1994
Japan, IISEE, Earthquake Engineering Training, Diploma, 1996-1997
President, Mongolian Association of Civil Engineers
Vice President, Mongolian National Construction Association
Executive Committee Member, Asian Civil Engineering Coordinating Council
Member, National Academy of Engineering Science
Member, Doctoral Degree Board on Civil Engineering
Board, JICA Alumni Association in Mongolia
Board, American Concrete Institute, Mongolian Chapter

BRIEF CAREER SUMMARY:
2008 - to present, Lecturer, Mongolian University of Science and Technology, StructuralEngineering Department,
2002-to present, Goo Van Consulting Co., Ltd, Consultant.

2006-2007, Vice Director, State Agency for Construction, Urban Development and Public Utilities,
Mongolia
1997-2005, Director, Infrastructure Training Institute.
1984-1997, Lecturer, Mongolian Technical University.
1981-1984, Structural Engineer, National Institute for Architectural and Civil Engineering Design.

SPECIAL AWARDS/PRIZES, DECORATIONS etc:
Labour Medal, President of Mongolia
Medal of Democracy, President of Mongolia
Grand Sertificate of the Ministry for Achievement, MRTCUD, Mongolia
Honorory Builder, MRTCUD, Mongolia
Engineer of Best Design Award, 2009, Mongolian Union of Architects
MEMBERSHIP OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEES:
Chair, Technical Committee for High Rise Building and Earthquake Engineering
Member, Science and Technology Council under Ministry, MRTCUD, Mongolia
Member, Engineering and Architectural Qualication Board, MRTCUD, Mongolia
Member, National Engineering Accreditation Board
PUBLICATIONS (Number and any relevant examples):Publications ~ 20
Research & Science articles ~ 30
Design Code developed ~ 6
Mongolian National Standard developed ~ 5
Structural Design Projects, ~ 30 Projects
Consultant to Structural Design, ~ 20 Projects
Examples:“FEM Educational Software Development”, Developer, 1989
UN Project “RADIUS – Risk Assessment Tools for Diagnosis of Urban Areas against
Seismic Disasters”, Ulaanbaatar City Representative, 1998-2000
UNDP/UNCHS Project MON/99/301, “Earthquake Disaster Risk Management Scenario for
Ulaanbaatar”, National Consultant, 1999-2000
UNDP Project MON/99/G35 “Commercialization of Super-Insulated Buildings in
Mongolia”, National Consultant, 2002
Translation of FIDIC “Conditions of Contract for works of Civil Engineering Construction”
Part I, II, III into Mongolian, 2002
and etc.

ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on
Harmonization of Design Codes in the AsianRegionSPEAKER’S DETAILSNAME OF SPEAKER:
Philip Blundy

TITLE OF PRESENTATION:

Globalisation and the Harmonization of Design and Material
Standards within the Asian region – an Australian perspective

BRIEF SUMMARY OF YOUR PRESENTAION:
Australian Engineer’s perspective about this issue as one of the countries which havebeen influenced by British Standards and American Standards.
including
1) Standards Australia thinking about the harmonization of design codes, especially in
the Asian region,2) Standards Australia strategies towards globalisation and harmonization of design
standards, and
3) Past and present activity regarding collaborative work towards the globalisation andharmonization within Asia.

CURRENT EMPLOYER/ORGANISATION & POSITION:
Cardno (NSW/ACT) Pty Ltd
Principal Engineer
QUALIFICATIONS: (Degrees, University/College, Subject, Professional Membership)
B.E. (Hon I) UNSWMEngSc (Structures) UNSW
Fellow - Institution of Engineers Australia• Chairman of Structural College• Standard Australia Councillor
Member - Permanent Way Institute (NSW)IABSE

BRIEF CAREER SUMMARY:
Philip has over 28 years experience working with engineering organisations in consulting engineering and state
government departments in Australia and overseas. He has been involved in development projects from preparation ofmaster planning and feasiblity studies through concept, preliminary and final designs and site activities for major projects
both locally and internationally and is an accredited Proof Engineer for VicRoads.
Philip has led design teams both in Australia and internationally in the structural design of rail and road bridges, publicbuildings, low cost government housing, schools and hospitals, infrastructure developments in several countries including
Australia, Bahrain, Dubai, Malaysia, Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
Philip has worked with design-construct and architectural teams on a wide range of international developments including
Taiwan High Speed Rail viaducts; verification of Barito suspension bridge, Indonesia; Palace for the Crown Prince of
Bahrain; Emirates Towers, Dubai; and stations for the mass transit system, Bangkok. Philip has often worked in design
teams overseas including periods in offices in Europe, the Middle East, Taiwan and South East Asia.
Significant Projects:
Gateway Upgrade Project, Brisbane, Queensland
Team Leader for design management of 13 new bridges and bridge widenings south of the Gateway Bridge.
Design Verification - Incrementally Launched Bridges
Superstructure design verification of bridges at Lawrence Hargrave Drive-Wollongong and South Creek-Windsor
Parramatta Rail Link - Design Coordinator – Underground Station Structures
On secondment to Parsons Brinckerhoff. Responsible for the design and coordination of the station structures, including
platforms, suspended concourse and service buildings. A significant feature of the stations is the suspended concourse
floor which cantilevers 6m directly from the cavern rock support.
Taiwan High Speed Rail - ViaductsTeam Leader for 13.5km of viaduct for contracts C230 & C240. Design development and delivery of construction
documents for 30m-45m single box prestressed cast-in-situ viaducts, including seismic and dynamic analysis and design.
Also designed were 50m and 80m balanced cantilever bridges. Design Management Team for co-ordination of viaductsubmissions with design-build contractor.
Barito Bridge - Indonesia
Project Leader for design check of 800m dual cable suspension bridge in Indonesia. The two main spans of 250m utilise
a unique cable-stayed arrangement that was developed for use in under-developed countries.
Gudaibiya Palace, Bahrain
Designer for new palace for the ruling monarchy. Scope of work included strengthening of existing submerged
basement structure, and documentation of five storey building over, including many long-span structures over formal
and regal spaces
Federation Square, Flinders Street, Melbourne
Project Leader for Museum of Australian Art (MoAA), and other commercial developments for the Federations Square
Project. The construction of a new 400,00m sq composite steel and concrete deck over the multi-track railway between
Flinders Street Station and the former Jollimont Railway Yard provides the base for the construction of a new centre forthe arts in Melbourne. Philip was responsible for the design development and documentation of the MoAA and for overalldesign review of the other structural components including the new composite deck across the main railway. Projectvalue: $400m.

Emirate Towers, Dubai
Project Leader (Sydney) for the twin towers development in Dubai. The two towers are both over 300m high, with theoffice tower 350m high ranking in the top ten tallest buildings of the world. The building design incorporates mega-frame
design concepts to control occupant comfort and strength design for wind and earthquake.
Tattersall Club Redevelopment, Queens St Mall, Brisbane
Design and documentation of a multi-storey complex incorporating retail, entertainment, residential, gymnasium andswimming pool areas. The building is designed to resist earthquake and cyclonic forces through a perimeter beam andcolumn system. The gymnasium and pool are located directly over suites and are supported by high efficiency damping
bearings. Long spans of up to 11m create large column free space over the ballroom below.
Novotel Hotel Darling Harbour - Pyrmont, Sydney
Project Leader for the structural design for a 14 storey building. The hotel is built over an existing steel framed car park. A
recreational area built over the car park includes a steel truss support for a swimming pool spanning 17m and a steel truss
pedestrian footbridge spanning 35m to a new monorail station.
Landmark Hotel - Sydney
Structural designer and team leader for the 18 storey structure including a major steel transfer structure and eight storey car park,
Woolloomooloo.

SPECIAL AWARDS/PRIZES, DECORATIONS etc:
Water Board Gold Medal – public health engineering

MEMBERSHIP OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEES:
Independent Chairman – Standards Australia BD-06 (Loading Standards)
Member – Standards Australia BD-02/06 (Concrete – serviceability)

PUBLICATIONS (Number and any relevant examples):May 2010

Aug 1999
Jan 1997

RECENT EXAMPLES OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
AND THE NEW VISION IN AUSTRALASIAIABSE Conference, Croatia"HPC Challenges Facing the Designer"
CIA/EA Seminar
High Performance Concrete: A Problem or a Problem Solution
CIA Seminar

ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on
Harmonization of Design Codes in the AsianRegionSPEAKER’S DETAILSNAME OF SPEAKER:
Professor Brian Uy
Head of School of Engineering &Director Civionics Research Centre
University of Western Sydney
TITLE OF PRESENTATION:
A treatise of Current Australian Steel and Steel-Concrete Composite Standards and Comparisonswith other International Standards
BRIEF SUMMARY OF YOUR PRESENTAION:This paper will examine the broad framework for Australian Standards in Steel and Steel-Concrete
Composite Standards and compare and contrast it with other overseas standards, namely AISC,
Eurocodes and Hong Kong Building Standards

CURRENT EMPLOYER/ORGANISATION & POSITION:
Head of School of Engineering &Director Civionics Research Centre
University of Western Sydney
QUALIFICATIONS: (Degrees, University/College, Subject, Professional Membership)
BE (Hons 1), PhD UNSW CPEng, CEng, PE, MIEAust, (NPER), MIStructE, MICE, MASCE, MAICD

Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering with First Class Honours
Doctor of Philosophy, University of New South Wales
BRIEF CAREER SUMMARY:
Professor Brian Uy is the Head of School of Engineering and the Director of the Civionics ResearchCentre at the University of Western Sydney. He was also a member of the Australian ResearchCouncil College of Experts for Engineering and Environmental Sciences from 2007 - 2009, which
provides advice on research funding and excellence to the Australian Government. Brian was
Professor of Structural Engineering and Head of the School of Civil, Mining and Environmental
Engineering at the University of Wollongong from 2004-2007. He has also held positions at the
University of New South Wales, Sydney; Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine,
London; National University of Singapore; Ove Arup and Partners (now ARUP); Wholohan Grill
and Partners (now WorleyParsons) and Wargon Chapman and Partners (now Hyder). Brian iscurrently the Engineers Australia, College of Structural Engineers representative of the Standards
Australia Committee BD32 on Composite Structures and a member of the Standards Australia
Committee BD02 on Concrete Structures. In 2008, he was elected Vice-Chair of the Australia
Division of the Institution of Structural Engineers, United Kingdom. Brian is a chartered engineer
in Australia, the UK and USA and regularly provides higher level consulting advice for certificationand forensic purposes.
SPECIAL AWARDS/PRIZES, DECORATIONS etc:
MEMBERSHIP OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEES:
Brian serves on the editorial boards of seven international journals for structural engineering and isa significant contributor to international codes of practice in steel and composite construction. He

currently serves on the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Task Committee 5 on
Composite Construction and the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering(IABSE), Working Commission 2 on steel, timber and composite structures. Brian also serves as amember on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) – Structural Engineering Institute(SEI), Technical Committee on Composite Construction. Brian is a chartered engineer in Australia,
the UK and USA, regularly providing higher level consulting advice for certification and forensic
purposes.
PUBLICATIONS (Number and any relevant examples):Brian has been involved in research in steel-concrete composite structures for 20 years and has
published over 400 articles. Much of this research has been underpinned by competitive grantfunding from the ARC and industry totalling over $9 million. Brian serves on the editorial boards ofseven international journals for structural engineering and is a significant contributor tointernational codes of practice in steel and composite construction.

ACECC TC-8 Special Forum on
Harmonization of Design Codes in the AsianRegionSPEAKER’S DETAILSNAME OF SPEAKER:

Professor Dennis Lam
Chair in Structural Engineering
School of Engineering, Design & Technology
University of Bradford
UK

TITLE OF PRESENTATION:

Future Developments of the Eurocode 4
BRIEF SUMMARY OF YOUR PRESENTAION:The Eurocode 4 has now been implemented in the UK since April 2010. In thispresentation, an overview of the Eurocode structures is presented together with its
treatments regarding the design of composite structures. In addition, the future
developments of the Eurocode 4 will be discussed in detail especially in the areas currently
being worked on by my research group.

CURRENT EMPLOYER/ORGANISATION & POSITION:
Chair in Structural Engineering
School of Engineering, Design and Technology
University of Bradford
UK

QUALIFICATIONS: (Degrees, University/College, Subject, Professional Membership)
BEng (Hons), MPhil, PhD, CEng, EurIng, FIStructE, MICE, MASCE, MIMgt
Bachelor of Engineering in Civil & Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK
Master of Philosophy, University of Sheffield, UK
Doctor of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, UK

BRIEF CAREER SUMMARY:
Professor Dennis Lam is the Chair of Structural Engineering at the University of Bradford.
He was formerly a Reader in Structural Engineering and Steel Design at the University ofLeeds and Chief Structural Engineer for the City of Wakefield. He is a Chartered Engineer,
Fellow of the Institution of Structural Engineers and Member of the Institution of Civil
Engineers. Dennis is currently the president of the Association for International
Cooperation and Research in Steel – Concrete Composite Structures (ASCCS); vice chair of
the research panel and member of the academic qualification panel for the Institution of
Structural Engineers.

SPECIAL AWARDS/PRIZES, DECORATIONS etc:
MEMBERSHIP OF TECHNICAL COMMITTEES:
Dennis serves on the editorial boards of five international journals for civil and structural
engineering and is a member of the European Committee on Standardization
CEN/TC250/SC4 and the British Standard Institute Committee B525/4 responsible for thecomposite construction in Europe and in the UK. He is currently a member on theAmerican Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) – Structural Engineering Institute (SEI),
Disproportionate Collapse Standards and Guidance Committee and was previously servedon the technical committee on composite construction.
PUBLICATIONS (Number and any relevant examples):Dennis main research interests are in the area of steel and composite structures, including
the use of stainless steel, precast concrete and fibre reinforced polymers. He has
published more than 90 refereed papers and is the lead author of one of the most popular
textbooks on structural steel design for students and practising engineers.

Opening greetings by Dr. Sakata

Prof. Honjo

Dr. Horikoshi