AFS LOGIC WALL STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING …

1 Page 1 of 33 AAFFSS LLOOGGIICC WWAALLLL SSTTRRUUCCTTUURRAALL EENNGGIINNEEEERRIINNGG AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT AAPPRRIILL 22001155** ((RReevviisseedd VVeerrssiioonn)) PPRREEFFAACCEE AFS LOGIC Wall consists of closely spaced metal channels, 6mm fibre cement sheets glued to the metal channels on both faces, conventional steel reinforcement and concrete infill. Refer Detail A on page 6. This assessment originally commenced in the year 2000 and revised many times to incorporate new findings and the changes in the AS3600 Concrete Structures Code. This assessment of AFS LOGIC Wall considers the following: (A) DURABILITY ASSESSMENT (B) FIRE DESIGN ASSESSMENT THE EVIDENCE OF SUITABILITY, BCA, CLAUSE FOR AFS LOGIC WALL HAS BEEN COMMENTED BY: The AFS LOGIC Wall system argues in the (download) Unisearch, UNSW Report dated 5th May 2014 that AFS complies with the Deemed to Satisfy conditions.

2 The previous report by the same (download) Unisearch, UNSW Report dated 20th March 2014 states that AFS LOGIC Wall DOES NOT COMPLY WITH AS3600. The later report by (download) Access-UTS dated 23rd May 2014 states that AFS LOGIC Wall DOES NOT COMPLY WITH AS3600. (Download) Professor Bijan Samali, author of the UTS Report dated 23rd May 2014 stated on 19th December 2014 that AFS LOGIC Wall DOES NOT COMPLY WITH AS3600.* THEREFORE, THE CRITICAL QUESTIONS TO ASK WHEN CONSIDERING USING THE AFS LOGIC WALL SYSTEM ARE: (A)(1) Does AFS LOGIC Wall comply with the Deemed to Satisfy conditions? The answer is NO since AFS LOGIC Wall relies on a protective coating without concrete cover. (A)(2) Does AFS LOGIC Wall qualify to be defined as an ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION with the type of protective coating described in the AFS LOGIC Wall documents?

3 The answer is NO since the protective coating selected by AFS LOGIC Wall cannot be used without concrete cover and the render system cannot be relied upon as a protective system. (A)(3) Why AFS LOGIC Wall must have concrete cover? (B) AFS LOGIC Wall Fire Design Assessment. * Added to August 2014 AFS LOGIC Wall STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Assessment ** August 2014 version of this assessment updated to incorporate newly released commentary AS3600, Supplement 1 : 2014 which replaced the 1994 version. For the subject topic referred in this document, the 1994 and 2014 versions are identical. Page 2 of 33 WHEN CONSIDERING THE USE OF AFS LOGIC WALL THE FOLLOWING SAMPLE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CERTIFICATE SHOULD BE REQUIRED BY CERTIFIERS WHO ASK FOR AS3600 2009 COMPLIANCE Certifying (Company Letterhead) (Date) (Client s Name) (Client s Company) (Client s Address) Dear Sir RE: (Project Title) AT.

4 (Project Address) CERTIFICATE OF DESIGN STRUCTURAL FOR AFS WALL SYSTEM Pursuant to the provisions of Clause of the current Building Code of Australia (BCA) and the Worker Health and Safety Act 2011, I hereby certify that the above design is in accordance with normal ENGINEERING practice and meets the requirements of the Building Code of Australia, Part 7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulations, relevant Australian Standards and relevant conditions of Development Consent. In particular the design is in accordance with the following: (1) Part B1 STRUCTURAL Provisions. (2) AFS LOGIC Wall does not comply with the deemed to satisfy provision of AS3600 2009, concrete cover over the metal C sections is required to be able to comply with the deemed to satisfy conditions.

5 Protective coatings cannot be relied upon without concrete cover. (3) AFS LOGIC Wall can be considered as an Alternative Solution provided the conditions given in AS3600 Appendix B which requires: (i) Durability testing for a period of 50 years, +/- 20% = 60 years. (ii) The Fire Resistance Level determination test for AFS LOGIC Wall for the design applied loads, load eccentricities, wall height, wall thickness and concrete (commercially available not purpose design concrete) strength. AFS LOGIC Wall as an Alternative Solution cannot be used above and beyond the Fire Resistance Level Test Limitations. As STRUCTURAL Engineers for the above referenced project, I have reviewed the testing and certification provided for the AFS LOGIC Wall and certify that: AFS LOGIC Wall is structurally adequate to satisfy the Durability requirements for a design life of 50 years, +/- 20%.

6 AFS LOGIC Wall will not be loaded in excess of the Fire Resistance Level test limitation (including load, height, thickness and eccentricity). I am an appropriately qualified and competent person in this area and as such can certify that the design and performance of the AFS Wall system complies with the above and which are detailed on the following drawings, Nos:.. I possess indemnity insurance to the satisfaction of the building owner or my principal. Full Name of Designer: Qualifications: Company: Address of Company: Yours faithfully (Company Name) (Certifying Person s Signature) (Certifying Person s Name) Page 3 of 33 ((AA)) AAFFSS LLOOGGIICC WWAALLLL DDUURRAABBIILLIITTYY AASSSSEESSSSMMEENNTT IINN AACCCCOORRDDAANNCCEE WWIITTHH AASS33660000--22000099 SSEECCTTIIOONN 44 (A)(1) DOES AFS LOGIC WALL COMPLY WITH THE DEEMED TO SATISFY CONDITIONS?

7 The prevention of concrete cancer ( corrosion of metals within the concrete) is one of the most important requirements of AS3600 Concrete Structures Code. Concrete cancer or corrosion of metals occurs when CO2 and chlorides attack the metal. These contaminants are available from ambient conditions or using inappropriate concrete ingredients, such as aggregates containing salt and/or water containing salt ( chlorides), CO2 is available in the atmosphere. For these reasons, AS3600 provides guidance for the concrete mix design specification and requires any metallic embedments to have minimum concrete cover as per AS3600 Clause (refer Appendix No: 7 for the Japanese Code). Concrete s own chemical reaction together with having adequate cover on the metallic embedments is the only protection mechanism accepted by AS3600 for durability compliance.

8 AS3600 excludes the prevention of corrosion by protective coating (including galvanising, epoxy coating) of any kind. AS3600 excludes the use of protective coatings because there are too many conditions that are relevant to using protective coatings. For this reason, the current and legal commentary, AS3600 Supplement 1 : 2014, states that protective coating is outside of the scope of AS3600 (refer Appendix No: 6). Therefore, any concrete wall system having metallic embedments without concrete cover falls outside of AS3600 hence cannot be defined as complying with the DEEMED TO SATISFY conditions of the Building Code of Australia. This is the failure of the Unisearch, UNSW Report dated 5th May 2014 for not recognising this fundamental AS3600 requirement of concrete cover.

9 (A)(2) DOES AFS LOGIC WALL WITH THE SPECIFIED PROTECTIVE COATING SYSTEM QUALIFY TO BE DEFINED AS AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION? The answer is NO for the following reasons. (a) The fundamental requirement of AS3600 is that CO2 and chlorides must be prevented from getting in contact with metallic embedments. Assuming that appropriate concrete mix is used, the only remaining alternative for the source of CO2 and chlorides is the atmospheric condition. Therefore, this necessitates AFS LOGIC Wall to have an impervious protective coating to be qualified as an ALTERNATE SOLUTION. Appendix Item 5: AS3600 commentary states No concession is given in the standards for coatings on the steel such as galvanising or epoxy coating.

10 The same reference also states that corrosion can be initiated by carbonation or grossly inadequate cover . (b) The life of a durable structure is up to 50 years +/- 20% = 60 years as per AS3600. Therefore, the impervious protective coating must have 60 years life or must be renewed (maintained) at regular intervals of 7 to 10 years. There is no Australian law that requires that building owners must maintain their protective coating for durability compliance purposes. This is another reason why AS3600 Appendix B requires an alternative solution to demonstrate by testing of the required STRUCTURAL life of 60 years condition. Therefore, for any alternative solution the protective coating must be totally impervious and 100% reliable for all conditions.