Industry Partners Series: State of the art university built with steel

Estimated read time: 1:20

Summary

John Null, an associate engineer at Arab, shared insights on the construction of a state-of-the-art building for the Australian Catholic University, which is designed considering future growth. The building combines new high-tech structural methods utilizing steel and traditional elements, while maintaining the operational status of existing university facilities. The construction faced various challenges including difficult ground conditions and the need to integrate with existing buildings.

Highlights

John Null from Arab discussed the ACU project focusing on steel construction 🌟.
The project faced complex challenges including upgrading an existing L-shaped historic building ⚙️.
The site had tough ground conditions requiring innovative solutions like grout curtaining 🌊.
The construction integrated intricate steel structural design to accommodate university expansion 📚.
Details on seismic compliance and lateral support designs were explored 🔧.
Audience questions tackled issues like durability, cost-effectiveness, and future steel construction trends.

Key Takeaways

John Null shared a deep dive into building a futuristic university structure with steel 🌟.
The focus was on integrating cutting-edge design with existing historic buildings ⏳.
Innovative solutions were applied to combat tough ground conditions and facilitate quicker construction ⚡.
Steel was chosen for its adaptability, speed of construction, and capability to handle the complex site demands 🏗️.
The project showcased sophisticated engineering processes, balancing tradition and modernity 🤝.
Audience questions explored the durability of steel, construction speed benefits, and future potential for steel structures 📈.

Overview

John Null, an associate engineer from Arab, delivered an engaging webinar about constructing a pioneering university building leveraging state-of-the-art steel designs. He outlined the structural complexities and project ambitions for the Australian Catholic University in Melbourne, highlighting innovative solutions to site and design challenges. The design harmoniously integrates with historical structures, ensuring minimal disruption and maximum efficiency.

The building project was unique due to its challenging constraints, including integrating new, modern structures with a pre-existing heritage building. John detailed the engineering feats employed to maximize the site's potential within planning limitations, utilizing steel for its strength and reliability. Novel approaches like grout curtaining were pivotal in overcoming subsurface water issues, accelerating construction timelines, and reducing costs.

Throughout the webinar, John emphasized the project's forward-thinking approach, balancing contemporary building solutions with sustainability goals. Audience interactions revealed widespread interest in the durability, cost, and long-term advantages of using steel in construction, with experts anticipating increased adoption of such methods for future academic and commercial projects.

Chapters

00:00 - 00:30: Introduction In the chapter titled 'Introduction,' a representative from Engineers Australia extends a warm welcome to the audience.
00:30 - 03:00: Webinar Opening The chapter titled 'Webinar Opening' introduces the host, Amanda, and welcomes attendees to the webinar. The webinar is about a state-of-the-art university built with steel. The host also acknowledges the traditional custodians of the land in Australia, paying respects to their enduring connection to the land and their cultures, including elders past and present.
03:00 - 06:30: Speaker Introduction The chapter introduces the speaker and the context of the webinar, which is hosted with Engineers Australia's industry partner, Blue Scope. It highlights Blue Scope as Australia's largest steel manufacturer, employing around 7,000 people across approximately 100 sites. Their operations include a variety of facilities such as large manufacturing plants, roll forming facilities, and distribution centers, focusing on producing and selling quality steel products mainly for the Australian market.
06:30 - 10:00: Overview of the Project This chapter provides an overview of the construction and building industry, focusing on the use of Blue Scope's weldered beams and columns. These components are produced using a fully automatic submerged arc welding process, ensuring consistent quality and reliability. The chapter highlights the availability of various beam and column sizes across four standard steel grades. Additionally, Blue Scope offers extensive specification and technical support, granting engineers access to steel expertise.
10:00 - 18:00: Structural Challenges and Solutions An introduction is given for a live session featuring an expert speaker on structural design. The topic involves design guidance and material selection. The speaker, John Null, an associate engineer from Arab's building structures team in Melbourne, is introduced. The session includes a live audience Q&A, where attendees can send questions through a chat box.
18:00 - 25:00: Site Context and Building History The chapter 'Site Context and Building History' discusses the influence of geometry and parametric design skills in global projects spanning Australia, Europe, Africa, and the US. The narrative elaborates on collaborations with some of the world's leading architects, emphasizing the conceptual leadership provided by individuals like John. Specific projects highlighted include the early concept work for the Luma Foundation in ALS in conjunction with Frank Gary, and the structural design of the 2016 and 2017 M Pavilions in Melbourne.
25:00 - 41:00: Technical Details of the Build The chapter titled 'Technical Details of the Build' discusses the Australian Catholic University's Melbourne campus expansion, highlighting the collaboration with Lions and Wpack. Additionally, it covers the ongoing design efforts of the new T5 terminal roof at Singapore Changi Airport. John, a key figure in this chapter, leads decarbonization initiatives and the structural engineering sustainability hub in the Australasian region, emphasizing the importance and exploration of low-carbon solutions.
41:00 - 54:00: Geotechnical and Environmental Considerations The chapter begins with a discussion on structural solutions that focus on sustainability and environmental impact reduction. This includes the use of timber options, high Portland cement replacement concrete mixes, and green steel. Structural optimization is also mentioned as a means to achieve minimal emissions. The speaker, John Null, is introduced and begins to guide the audience through the design and construction processes with an emphasis on these innovative approaches.
54:00 - 77:00: Superstructure Overview The chapter titled 'Superstructure Overview' discusses the inception and growth forecast of the Australian Catholic University (ACU) around the years 2012-2015. At the onset of the project, ACU was the fastest-growing university in Australia, anticipating a 30% increase in student enrollment by 2020.
77:00 - 104:00: Complexity of Design and Construction The chapter discusses the challenge of managing growth within a campus and the decision to consolidate operations into a single building due to space limitations. In Melbourne, the St. Patrick's campus faced a shortage of space to house staff and activities, necessitating the construction of a new building to centralize operations and accommodate expansion. This move was intended to bring staff and activities, previously scattered throughout the campus, together under one roof.
104:00 - 125:00: Engineering Workflow and Analysis This chapter discusses the engineering workflow and analysis of a campus development project undertaken by the Australian Catholic University (ACU). The main objective was to design a pedestrian-friendly environment by positioning various buildings strategically within a precinct, which facilitates effective learning and reduces pedestrian congestion. The initiative aimed to enhance the campus experience by minimizing disruptions among the students.
125:00 - 146:00: Advanced Engineering Techniques The chapter "Advanced Engineering Techniques" discusses the various stages and considerations in a complex building project. Initially, the brief specified a 20,000 square meter facility, focusing on new teaching and learning spaces. While there were minor changes during the construction phase, the core objectives and dimensions of the project remained consistent.
146:00 - 186:00: Construction Challenges and Solutions This chapter discusses the various elements included in a construction project on a compact site. The project features a rooftop multicourt, elevated gardens offering views of the city, and various hubs for staff, students, and post-graduates. It also provides 270 car parking spaces and bicycle spaces for staff and students, alongside kitchen facilities, lounge areas, personal group study areas, and a conference facility. All these facilities are integrated on a relatively small site, showcasing efficient space utilization.
186:00 - 215:00: Steelwork and Seismic Considerations This chapter discusses the ambitious vision of ACU for a new building, focusing on the involvement and roles of the project team members, particularly highlighting the contributions of a structural engineer from Arab who served as both the project manager and structural lead. The engineer's responsibilities covered structural, civil, facade, and geotechnical services, marking a comprehensive approach to the project's execution.
215:00 - 255:00: Q&A Session This chapter provides an overview of the key players involved in a construction project. It highlights the roles of the architects, project managers, and building service specialists. The architects are referred to as Lions, while Oricon manages the project as the PM. Other contributors include ACOM handling building services and fire aspects, and WT as the cost consultant. The planning consultant and the heritage consultant also play significant roles in the project. The session provides a brief Q&A with these contributors.
255:00 - 260:00: Closing Remarks and Future Events The chapter titled 'Closing Remarks and Future Events' reflects the end of a discussion, primarily focusing on acknowledgments. Key contributors to a building project, specifically the main contractor, Pat E6, and their steelwork fabricator, GVP, are acknowledged. It is noted that many deserving individuals and teams cannot be credited due to time constraints. Additionally, there is a brief mention of the project's lengthy timeline, typical of such endeavors.

Industry Partners Series: State of the art university built with steel Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 Good afternoon. On behalf of Engineers Australia, I'm delighted to welcome you
00:30 - 01:00 all to today's webinar, a state-of-the-art university built with steel. My name is Amanda and I'll be your host for today. Firstly, in keeping with our custom, Engineers Australia acknowledges the traditional custodians of the country throughout Australia and recognizes their continuing connection to land, waters, and community. We pay respects to them and their cultures and to elders past and present. Before we get started, I'd like
01:00 - 01:30 to acknowledge that today's webinar is being hosted with Engineers Australia's industry partner, Blue Scope. Blue Scope is Australia's largest steel manufacturer employing around 7,000 people at approximately 100 sites. Operations are a mix of large manufacturing plants, roll forming facilities and distribution centers, producing and selling quality steel products primarily for the Australian
01:30 - 02:00 build and construction industry. Blue Scopes weldered beams and columns are manufactured from Exa Plate steel using a fully automatic submerged arc welding process that ensures quality and consistency. A wide range of beam and column sizes are available in four standard steel grades. Blue Scope's extensive specification and technical support teams mean that engineers have access to steel experts
02:00 - 02:30 who can assist with design guidance and material selection. Today we will hear from one speaker followed by a live audience Q&A and I encourage you to send questions through to our speaker via the chat box. I'd now like to welcome our speaker, John Null, associate engineer, Arab. John is an associate within Arab's building structures team based in Melbourne. John has developed a complex
02:30 - 03:00 ge geometry and parametric design skills on a broad range of projects in Australia, Europe, Africa, and the US. Collaborating with some of the world's best and most challenging architects. John led the early concept work for the Luma Foundation in ALS with Frank Gary, the design of the 2016 and 2017 M Pavilions in Melbourne, the structural
03:00 - 03:30 delivery of the Australian Catholic University's Melbourne campus expansion flagship with Lions and Wpack and currently co-leads the design of Singapore Chenya Airport's new T5 terminal roof. John is the decarbonization skills leader and chairs the structural engineering sustainability hub for the Australasian region leading the charge in the exploration of lowcarbon
03:30 - 04:00 structural solutions from systematic optionering of timber options through high Portland cement replacement concrete mixes and green steel to structural optimization for minimal emissions. Please welcome John Null. Thank you very much for the introduction. Hi everyone. Um welcome to this webinar. Um I'm going to take you through the design and the construction
04:00 - 04:30 of ACU centuries of Kolkata building. I'll give you a bit of context first. The Australian Catholic University at the time of inception of this project which was around 2012 to 2015 um was the largest growing university in Australia. They were forecasting growth by 2020 of plus 30% uh in terms of student numbers
04:30 - 05:00 and um a little bit over that for staff numbers. And in Melbourne in particular, they were forecasting that they'd run out of space in their St. Patrick's campus and identified a need to consolidate their activities into uh one single building. There were until then scattered around that that campus. Um, so that intended or the the the purpose of that new building was to house that growth, bring people together that were
05:00 - 05:30 otherwise um not bumping into each other on the campus because they were occupying different buildings in a precinct that was um pedestrian friendly and and um promoted uh good good learning. Um so that was the that was the main driver behind the the um the the project from ACU's
05:30 - 06:00 perspective. A little bit about the the what constitutes the building. Um this was the brief early on and it didn't much it didn't change much over the course of the of the development uh of of the design then construction slightly but um broadly it remained about 20,000 square meters of of building which included uh in no particular order new teaching and learning spaces generally
06:00 - 06:30 occupied in the lower uh parts of the building. a rooftop multicourt, elevated gardens with views of the city, um various staff, student and post-graduate post-graduate hubs, 270 car park and bicycle spaces for staff and students. Um and then kitchen facilities, lounge areas, personal group studies and a conference facility. Um all of that on quite a compact site. So, uh, fairly
06:30 - 07:00 ambitious in terms of what ACU wanted to pack into that new building. A word about the project team and the timeline. As was mentioned in the introduction, I'm a structural engineer. I work for Arab and on this project I acted as both the project manager for ARP services which included structural, civil and facade plus geotechnic. Um and I was also the structural lead for the
07:00 - 07:30 uh the structural component of the works. The architects were Lions um and the rest of the project team uh were Oricon as PM and ACOM the building services fire aspect with the landscape architects WT the cost consultant the planning consultant uh Bree heritage consultant um and last but
07:30 - 08:00 not least the uh main contractor what Pat E6 and their steelwork fabricator GVP. Um, and that's not in the full list. So, if I'm forgetting anyone, um, there's there's many more people to credit than I have time for today, but those were the key the the team members listed here with the the key members. Um, little word on timeline. Um, for a building project, it ran for a very long
08:00 - 08:30 time, which is quite unusual. It's sort of the timeline that you'd expect from a for an infrastructure project. We started uh in around the second half of 2016 with concept design followed by design development that ran until um the first quarter of 2017, prepared contract documentation uh which led us to June 2018. We then tended on the DNC tender uh towards the
08:30 - 09:00 end of 2018. Tender was awarded to Watpack B6 in November 2018 and from that point onwards they built it um immobilized in December of that year and it was not until May 2023 that the building was completed. Um there are various reasons for that and we'll touch on those as as we go through the presentation. Um but quite an extended timeline for a reasonably small building. Yes, compact. Yes, very
09:00 - 09:30 complex. Um but time was um an interesting component on this particular project. A word about the site. To the left you see the site in context. Uh I've highlighted some of the buildings that were at the time and are still occupied by the university ACU. And to the right is a focus on the site as basically we uh inherited it so to speak when we started the project and that
09:30 - 10:00 comprised of a L-shaped existing heritage building and I'll touch on that in a second and an atgrade car park um facing Victoria Parade those in Melbourne who um know where the the Victoria Parade ACU campus That's the site in 3D. You can see the L-shaped existing building, the uh different roads there, Nap Street,
10:00 - 10:30 Victoria Parade, and the Argrade car park. I'll say a few words about the existing building first because it gives context to the the the the design of the project generally and also some of the structural moves that we had to um employ on on the project. The existing building is called the Mary Gling um and it started its life at the very end of the um uh 19th century. uh
10:30 - 11:00 by early 202 uh sorry by 1924 um it um you can you can see uh the the shape that it now takes on Victoria parade. It was the common wealth note and stamp printing building facility purpose-built um at that time. And then from that point onwards there were various extensions uh lateral vertical additions brought to that first
11:00 - 11:30 original volume. So this is a series of couple of photos taken in 1932 um when the first expansion happened um sorry the expansion happened in 1932 and the photos here are taken shortly after I think if I pan to the next uh view you'll see the the volume at the back of that original 194 volume has now appeared. So that was added in 1932
11:30 - 12:00 um to fuel growth of the Commonwealth node and stamp printing facility. Then subsequent to that in the early 50s there was a vertical addition to the 1932 lateral edition. So, in other words, they added a couple of levels onto the 1932 extension, um, which I think you can just about make out on those
12:00 - 12:30 photos. That brings us then to the late 80s where part of the existing voids between uh, the 1924 and the 1932 buildings were infilled. And in 1999 when ACU uh acquired the site, they built uh some lifts that you can see highlighted in the image there on the right. And that was to improve vertical circulation in the building.
12:30 - 13:00 And the final piece of this puzzle is the 2014 2015 uh refurbishment of the ground level that also included the addition of a staircase uh appended to that 1999 core um which you can see an external view there to the left and some internal views of the finished product. And that's effectively the um the canvas of existing uh features that uh make up
13:00 - 13:30 this existing L-shaped building that we're seeing on the first views of the site. So quite a complex uh puzzle. So the ambition for the project as set out by ACU was to maximize the the volume um or actually the the floor area the GFA within the planning envelope. In other
13:30 - 14:00 words, build pack this site and this volume as permitted by council, pack it to the to the brim um and really maximize the return on on that building investment which practically meant that um the architecture and therefore the engineering had to closely follow the tiered planning envelope to the east which you can just see there to the left of that of the existing building on those early massing models.
14:00 - 14:30 It forced us or uh required to unlock some volume to overhang the existing Marlary building by about 12 mters to the east. that was permitted by the by the um heritage and by the planning overlays um and maximize the built volume over the existing Mary Larry building which again you can see on the those original massing um volumes to the northwest of the of the site. And an additional
14:30 - 15:00 requirement that ACU were particularly keen for us to or for the project team and and and later the builder to enforce was for the Merl Larry building to remain operational throughout the construction and if that wasn't possible to absolutely minimize downtime to that operational building. Um it throughout the course of the construction it was intended to serve its purpose as a learning and teaching building. the ACU were very keen to have no downtime or
15:00 - 15:30 absolutely minimize that downtime. Um, and that became a key driver for the design and later the construction program. So, I need to start the technical story in the basement. There's 270 car park spaces naturally led themselves to be um located in the ground. 270 car park spaces over a footprint of
15:30 - 16:00 about 40 m by 40 m essentially requires you to go down seven stories. Um so that's that was a a direct interpretation of the brief requirements. The challenge when we got the first uh geotech reports back was that to go down those 22 meters and we knew that 17 m of those would be below the water table. The challenge as as
16:00 - 16:30 reported back by the ground investigation was that um the the and and it's probably clear if you look at the image to the right there um which shows a volume that encompasses the basement volume over which you can then see the geological um representation. So in green fill residual soils over felick dyke and the felick
16:30 - 17:00 dyke then overlays the silt stone. And the felic dyke is the challenge on this particular project because it's bad news in terms of ripability. It's extremely competent, therefore hard and difficult to excavate. It's also very porous. Um, and below the water table, if you try to dig that hole, the hole literally fills with water faster than you can deal with it. The original estimates uh were coming in at 125 L/s and that would just make the
17:00 - 17:30 the basement unbuildable with conventional uh systems. So that had the whole team um scratching their heads a little bit. And then we um our geotechnical team based in Sydney had employed a a a technique borrowed from um mining and dam construction and uh started to toy with the idea of of uh grout curtain and I'll
17:30 - 18:00 explain what that is in a second. Um but to do that essentially it involved modeling the basement, modeling the geology from interpreted ge geological sections and then simulating the fractures uh in the rock as reported from the the various logs that were coming through from the the ground investigation. So looking at fracture orientations,
18:00 - 18:30 persistence, shape of aperture, etc. to get a picture of where the voids or the cracks in the rock were in the dyke with a view to then surgically insert grout to fill up those voids and to effectively reduce uh water ingress than when you dig the hole. So the grout curtain is a temporary work solution. We put forward that as a very credible having done uh some work to prove it up
18:30 - 19:00 as a very credible alternative to uh a diaphragm wall construction which would have been the alternative. So had we not done proposal grout curtain, we knew that a typical soldier pier um plus shot infill basement construction which is your your typical sort of retaining work in Melbourne. Um that retention system would not we we wouldn't be able to use that given the
19:00 - 19:30 the um water flows that we were anticipating. The issue with the diaphragm wall was that the kit involved was one quite expensive and two was at the time being mobilized around the country for Melbourne Metro. So that put a bit more focus on the grow curtain. We approached the client. The client said, "Look, this is really interesting. It can save some time. It can save some dollars, but I absolutely want to have uh I want to have more certainty. So, I'm game if you
19:30 - 20:00 can prove it up with a grout trial, which is what we did over the course of a few months. Injected grout, got some readings out of the the um ball holders that that um I won't have time to go into the the technical detail too much. That's probably the subject of a an entirely different presentation. But the the the readings that we were getting uh proved the concept that we could we could uh um basically improve the permeability of the ground uh to the
20:00 - 20:30 point that we could dig the hole and manage the water inflow. So that was proven up through the grout trial and then we went out to market for the proper grout curtain um with essentially this drawing that shows where to introduce your primary your primary um um ground infill tubes. Then come back with your secondaries. You get your readings and then you keep going, you know, closing the spacings basically
20:30 - 21:00 where you need to. Um so quite a a simple principle. Um in terms of material we ended up injecting about 50 cubic meters of of grout which pales in is insignificant compared to the volume of concrete that otherwise would have been mobilized for a diaphragm wall alternative. So from a from a program perspective it was a win. From a cost perspective, it was a win. But also
21:00 - 21:30 environmentally, we used far less material than we would have otherwise. And what that grout curtain then enabled us to do was to default back to the shockrete RC shockrete soldier peers infield panel construction and then RC lining wall as we as we come back up and and you'll see illustrations of that shortly. This is the uh the dyke fractured dyke which is the gold colored material in context. You
21:30 - 22:00 can see it could not have been in the worst position for the location of the of the basement and then magnified uh you can see the volume of grout that was inserted at different locations. It's uh and and I say magnify because otherwise you wouldn't be able to read it on this on this view given so little concrete was injected. As I said 50 cubic m overall so we keep going with the
22:00 - 22:30 construction sequence. Once we've got the grout curtain in, we can put the board board peers in and that takes me to uh the superructure. So I'll come back to the construction sequence later in the presentation but I just want to jump to what I think is the focus well what I know is the focus of this presentation which is the the upper levels and the uh the steelwork uh
22:30 - 23:00 superructure. So once you're out of the ground, it's essentially quite a a simple system that comprises composite steel floor floor plates and a combination of core walls and vertical steel bracing for the lateral stability system. The columns are concrete filled steel tube. So that's the that basically defines the superructure. I need to say a few words about seismic compliance to explain the lateral stability system for the new building. Um but I'll do that very
23:00 - 23:30 briefly. The existing building was shown to be inadequate compared to the current seismic code. So we couldn't prove up the existing building to the current seismic standard. We couldn't even prove it up to some of the dispensations that building surveyors permit. Um so we came to the conclusion that or the building surveyor came to the conclusion for us that we could do two things. We could strengthen the
23:30 - 24:00 building. So basically treat the existing building as standalone and then add some lateral stability to that building to bring it up to standard or which is the route that we went down stitch that existing building back to the new building through the floor plates. Um and luckily or that was the intention that the existing floor plates and the new floor plates lined up because effectively it became one super
24:00 - 24:30 building. That meant that we could stitch those existing building back sorry existing floor plates back to the new floor plates and drag the seismic loads out of the existing building into the new building. And that was the way we effectively made that existing building compliant. But the price to pay was then um quite a substantial lateral stability system. You can see the two components here, the core in gray and then the additional steel bracing in red. And those were the
24:30 - 25:00 consequence of not only having to resist the lateral loads of the new building itself, but we also as we were dragging the loads from the existing um we effectively had to we had an enhanced lateral stability system compared to the size of the existing building. Um, but that meant that we could avoid having to retrofit within the existing building, which was always the least preferred option from the client's perspective. If I rotate slightly, we
25:00 - 25:30 can then see the the the volume um that was permitted to build over the existing building to the west. And we did that by can levering off the core and then extending that till that steel bracing. We didn't we we did that um uh we didn't take that too lightly because there's a there's a fair bit of steel in those gestures. There's about 35 tons of steel to unlock that volume which I recall is about 1,200 square
25:30 - 26:00 meters of GFA and and that's basically to create this 12 m can lever across four levels. Um, so you smear that across the floor plate, that particular floor plate, that's an extra over 30 kg of steel per square meter to unlock those that that volume. Um, we took that back to the client to the cost consultant and it was deemed to be an effective way of creating that GFA. So that's the solution that was adopted. Um, a word about
26:00 - 26:30 the the Mary Glar building overbuild. to the overbuild proper the two or three levels that were intended to be added on top of the existing building to the on the northwest corner. We did some early studies to show that the existing building didn't have enough capacity both in the columns or in the foundations and looked at various options. You know, what was the sweet spot? Was it one level, two levels? What happened if we put three? Stretched it
26:30 - 27:00 to four if we could in the planning envelope. um eventually bringing it down to a simple uh three-way scenario. The first was to strengthen the existing columns and footings without meant having to surgically insert at every level and in the foundations through as as the building was operational which um was the least preferred option from from the client's perspective.
27:00 - 27:30 Um, a variant to that was to add or basically thread through new columns to strengthen the existing and then create new foundations in the basement, which again would have severely disrupted the operation of the building. Or option three, which is the one that was preferred, which was to literally span over the top of the existing building and bring the columns and the loads down the face of that existing building. And that's effectively what you see here is the adopted solution.
27:30 - 28:00 Um, it's about 30 m long. Uh, about 20, no, must be 20 m wide by 40 or 50 m long. Um, that came at the expense of about 200 tons of steel, but that un to unlock about 4 4,000 square meters of GFA. So again, if you smear that per uh per square meter of overbuild, that's an extra over in terms of steel of about 50 kg per square meter. So we're doing this
28:00 - 28:30 knowingly that's, you know, significant, but it had value to the client and um the reasons that I I have explained was a preferred solution. Um and effectively that's what we adopted. I'll take you through very quickly now the just to show you some of the complexity of the floors. Starting at ground level one, two, three. Sort of see the building tearing
28:30 - 29:00 the all the floor plates are different. Level six where we connect back to the overbuild in the background. level seven followed by level eight which is the again in the background over the over the top of the overbuild which is the sports court that I mentioned earlier and then it's at this level also that we can deliver off the back of the core towards the west to then create the floor plates from eight all the way up to the roof or level 12 that's just to give you a flavor of the
29:00 - 29:30 complexity of the building so if I summarize some of the design challenges for the superruct for the structure engineering theme 10 geometrically unique superructure floor plates with very little repetition. Um there were for reasons of positioning the columns with respect to the floor plate with respect to the basement um we ended up with quite a quite a large number of cantal levers some were reasonably small um and I'll
29:30 - 30:00 explain why that was a a challenge in a second and just by virtue of the geometry there was some serious comp complexity sorry in the steel to steel or the steel to concrete connections um so that those were the challenges that the team faced. Um a word on the workflows that we developed to um work around some of those challenges. We effectively identified the need for four different
30:00 - 30:30 sets of analysis models. One EABS and we use that to model the lateral stability system. Um we then use RAM steel for composite steel calculations and and design. So analysis and design. We then use GSA which is an Arab internal software to model global deflections and truss behaviors. So the trusses that I was showing earlier can off the back of the core or for the MGB
30:30 - 31:00 overbuild. And then the same GSA model with modified parameters to look at vibration um and the basically the serviceability performance of some of those long span flaws um with a view to synthesize and summarize all that information in a Revit model. Now typically Revit is the final step. So we'll we'll get information from the architects maybe in Revit form
31:00 - 31:30 or we'll take that very quickly out of Revit into our analysis models, work our magic and eventually send that information back to Revit. Um we wanted to change that slightly for this project because of the potential for um these four different models to not line up. Uh room for error, room for misalignment with the architecture. So we decided to embed all our processes in Revit for Revit to be not only the end point but
31:30 - 32:00 also the starting point of our analysis. So we put a lot of rigor and structure into setting out our setting up our our Revit models that we took from the architect's Revit model um which involved a lot of cleaning up of lines setting up purpose um views etc. But basically putting a lot of rigor that you would typically not do. But that gave us a a clean geometry. It gave us a
32:00 - 32:30 two-way system between um starting geometry from the architects and the end product from those four various uh an analytical models. That was reasonable reasonably successful. Um there was a bit of gymnastic using uh Revit scripting or or Dynamo. Um the second challenge was the small cantal levers that I mentioned earlier. Ram steel at the time, so this goes back a few years, didn't have the ability to
32:30 - 33:00 look at a um a cantalie section uh in isolation to its backspan. So even if you had a very small cantal lever and it could be 200 mil 500 mil in other words insignificant with respect to the back span ram would switch off the back span and design that whole line as non-composite which would have been very inefficient for our floor design given the number of canal levers that we had.
33:00 - 33:30 So we wrote a little C script that enabled us to create a system model which we call the backspan model to look at the performance of those those um partic those those instances and and validate that for those small can levers. you could indeed design most of the backspan compositly and that saved not only time um but it also reduced the designing them composite compositly
33:30 - 34:00 meant that we're using far less steel than we would have otherwise. So at the expense of a bit of scripting and a fair bit of geometry wrangling um we ended up with as as efficient a composite steel floor design as possible. that same geometry in RAM which to the left looks like a a building but effectively every level every floor plate is looked is considered in
34:00 - 34:30 isolation. So the RAM model does not give you a global picture and it doesn't give you uh the the behavior of trusses that might be connecting those levels. So again a bit of uh data and geometry magic uh involving Grasshopper and Python we took that across to GSA. So the same information that had been so basically the beam sizes that had been validated in RAM on a floor byfloor basis we took those across where they
34:30 - 35:00 were interfacing through uh trusses or indeed inclined columns. Um we basically ran that through our global model looking at overall deflections and um eventually the final step looking at vibrations. So if I summarize the workflows, uh they were pretty novel at the time, Revit ccentric, which was I guess the the big win for us because it meant that eventually when everything came back from
35:00 - 35:30 EABS, GSA or RAM, um that we were pushing geometry back basically to the place where it started and a lot of the cleaning up of drawings etc. was was unnecessary. but also we set up views in the Revit model that meant that at any point in time you could get a reading and that was particularly useful for me as the structural lead and the project manager on the project. Not necessarily I wasn't necessarily involved in the day-to-day running of the of the
35:30 - 36:00 modeling, but I could get a reading on for any beam in the in the Revit model that had been processed. I could understand whether that had come from whether sizing had come from a vibration model overlay. So we had to increase the size for vibration reasons for example or whether you know the the size that we'd pushed through from rand concept um had been validated then through the global model or the deflection the global deflection model
36:00 - 36:30 or the the vibration model. Um so that was a not only was it an efficient workflow, it also uh had value in the QA process. Keep work going. Uh I think this is my final slide on the sort of design aspect of of the of the project. So the geometry was such well two things. the geometry. If you recall those little vignettes, 10 different floor plates, no repetition, but also if
36:30 - 37:00 you recall the um lateral stability strategy, which was to drag loads from existing floor plates through the new floor plates and back to our lateral stability system, the new lateral stability system that involves a fair bit of horizontal load transiting through the floor plates. So we've got geometrically complexity and quite high loads uh in those diaphragms. We had to think quite carefully about the the connections. Um and it all sort of crystallized at the
37:00 - 37:30 at the column heads um where laterally you want to take the load round the column to the the the wall or the the steel bracing. So you need to sort of circumn the column head but vertically you want to dump that load into the column. Complexity is also that the the columns are still um tubes filled with concrete and in the fire case we ignore the the outer tube.
37:30 - 38:00 So you have to get the load out of the floor plate through this collar into the concrete so that you can justify that load path from floor plate to column both in the normal case but but more importantly in the fire case where you've lost that outer shell and there was a lot of complexity there. Um, we use Grasshopper to push that to strand 7, effectively looking at finite
38:00 - 38:30 element analysis of or stress analysis of those those connections. Um, and this is some of those columns in context. So this is in GVP's fabrication yard inspecting the So you can see the outer shell, you can see the reinforcement. So it's effectively a reinforced column. Well, you also see there the uh it's on its side obviously. You can see the fin plates that will then pick up the incoming beams going through the outer shell into
38:30 - 39:00 the center of the column. You have to imagine that gets filled with concrete and then there's a load path between the shear studs. So you can see on those plates and the concrete. So that's uh reasonably simple to comprehend as a as a strategy. It's not novel. This gets employed quite regularly for concrete filled tube columns. The complexity was in some of the geometries. The image to the left there, we'll see that um as we go up the building with some of the construction photos in in a second.
39:00 - 39:30 Um the a lot of complexity in some of those inclined columns and or beams coming in at various angles on plan. Um things kinking. So you can that's just it gives you a flavor of some of the complexity of that fabrication and shout out to GVP for uh working through the whole project actually really effectively and and smartly. So they were a great ally on this
39:30 - 40:00 project and this is one of those two of those collars in context just to get a flavor of how they what they do. Um I think it's self-explanatory. I'll just let you ponder on that for a second before we jump onto um the next point. I've touched on fire and the fact that the columns effectively um um the steel is sacrificial in the
40:00 - 40:30 um the floors. Uh typically the steel work is hidden. So we're looking at vermiculite spray to to give us the fire rating that was required. We also did an exercise for WPAC to optimize some of that actually remove some of that fire proofing where we could. So our fire team did a continuary assessment uh looking at what happens in the event of a fire. So you heat up the floor plate
40:30 - 41:00 your um and and where we could justify continu action in in the floor we were able to uh permit the fireproofing. So we offered that that up as a time and and uh dollar saving for W pack which I believe was well received. Okay, onto the construction. So back in the ground which is where we started. We put the grout curtain in which I mentioned
41:00 - 41:30 earlier. Next thing we did was uh probe existing footings. We were building this basement and this new building as close as possible to the existing. So we had to we had existing drawings but we had to do some probing to make sure that we were as close as possible and not fouling. Um and in fact there were instances where we had to shave justify and then shave off a little bit of those existing footings for the existing uh staircore lift core or the 1932 building
41:30 - 42:00 which you see highlighted in red there. We then put the board peers in once we knew that we weren't fing those those um existing footings. And this is where you're going to see this construction sequence which is in sequence jump. So at the same time as we're doing that or we I said the Royal Wii WAC V6 building the winter garden. So it's probably the only suspended new
42:00 - 42:30 suspended structure that we could justify sitting on the existing. So that was built as a standalone thing quite early on the project. Uh we then put in the plunge columns which you see in the foreground. I'll explain what those are in a second. And then tucked behind the core. You can probably just make out the base of uh one of the tower cranes. So that went in and it was as tight as it gets. You could not have packed this more closely. So you can see the reinforcement
42:30 - 43:00 sticking out of those four piles to pick up that tower column. And then the reinforcement cage for the pile cap. You can probably just make out the existing footings there. So, could not have been tighter. Um, that's then in context with the crane being erected and the column coming down that went early for the uh Mary Larry overbuild. I'll explain that in a second. But yeah, my message here is it was pretty tight. Plunge columns. Uh so these were
43:00 - 43:30 vertical supports for the temporary platform that basically allowed construction off the road. Um whilst there were they were building the basement. I have an image of that in a second. The steel profiles were plunged as the name indicates through the board peers. Um and and then as we dug the basement exposed and eventually became columns to support the um the platform
43:30 - 44:00 in sequence at the same time I rotate the building. What's happening on the other side? We're putting the foundations in. And you can probably just make out how it's bridging across and around those existing footings. But these are the new foundations to pick up the mega columns on the outside of the building that support the MGB overbuild. Put the columns in. And here's an image of those columns. They're not circular tubes, but
44:00 - 44:30 they're still hollow steel profiles that uh are reinforced. So they're effectively a a steel shell in the temporary case and a concrete column in the permanent case. And you can probably just see that we stitch them back for lateral stability uh every second level back to the existing building. So those were the mega columns supporting the overbuild the overbuild which we saw earlier in vignette. Um, for that to
44:30 - 45:00 happen, the GVP had to install some temporary bracing, which you see on the left image there, and that was propped back to the existing column positions. So, we could justify some load being applied in the temporary case to the existing building. Um, but there wasn't that much that that we could justify. So that that was done to then uh temporary brace those truss levels which you can see being grained into
45:00 - 45:30 position. Aerial view of uh you know part of the about a quarter of the of the trusses uh maybe not even in place. The trusses were mostly if not exclusively WC and so welded column profiles. some welded beam profiles. Um so the blue scope welded uh products just by virtue of the amount of load that was transiting through that system. Um we
45:30 - 46:00 needed to go to those uh heavily plated welded sections. And then on this job you can never escape a can lever. So even you know the this is the eastern end of that overbuild there are still some cantalie sections um just that's just a consequence of lion's architecture um and um yeah it sort of comes to life um once you understand the all the volumes
46:00 - 46:30 in the building but at the time it's one headache after the other for the designers and the the fabricators but there's a method to the madness this um and hopefully you'll see that when I show you some images of the finished product. So there's the MGV over build view from the inside. You can see the bolted connections. There's a lot to see on this image. You can see the Bondic uh profiles going in shear studs for the composite behavior. You can probably
46:30 - 47:00 also just make out the uh vermiculite spray paint on the beams. So that typically would go in afterwards except that at this location we're just hovering above the existing building effectively then creating there's a there's a space underneath that becomes non-accessible. Um so it's the one location where they had to put in the fire protection prior to installing the deck and and pouring the concrete. You can also see some temporary bracing in the roof plane there um which was there
47:00 - 47:30 for only for temporary reasons. and the the um bolted splices which I've zoomed in on here and you can see the complexity of some of these connections. uh full full strength penetration but weld stiffness and then the complexity of the node is done is is handled in the shop through welding and then as soon as
47:30 - 48:00 you're away from the node uh a bolted splice and that's typical across the project um this is the MGB overbuilt trusses but we'll see that in the T- bracing basically a moment splice so flange plate double web plates um and slip critical altered connections. And that's the same uh looking from the outside, but the this image shows the readiness then to pick
48:00 - 48:30 up eventually when this gets when the rest of the project catches up. So remember that we're at level six or seven and this is the only bit that's been built. So we we fasttrack the build of the overbuild and this is to suit ACU's academic program because the the activities on that roof uh preparing a crash deck to receive the trusses for the MGB overbuild forced a brief shutdown and that brief shutdown was
48:30 - 49:00 made to coincide with uh in part with the one of the um summer breaks and in the It it it basically forced this area of the of the building to be constructed first. Um, and you see some images. It is a little bit back to front, but that's what the program uh drivers were were enforcing. The irony is that pretty much at the time when this was this was completed, this part of the of the
49:00 - 49:30 project, COVID hit and suddenly the building was empty anyway. Um so yeah with hindsight would have been a very different program but um that's um yes co okay moving on uh jumping ahead this is what the finished product then looks like. So you're looking at the those same trusses in the mgp overbuild. That's just to give give you a flavor of how they they then got architecturally integrated in corridors and doorways so
49:30 - 50:00 that um you know they're obviously an imposition but they work architecturally. The client actually loves those and some of the volumes in away from those trust lines. Um still some bracing in the elevations but otherwise some really nice volumes. Um this is where they put the conference facility and that's one of the conference rooms. Okay, whilst this is happening, I'll go back to the uh other side of the building. So now looking from Victoria
50:00 - 50:30 Parade, looking from the souththeast vantage point, um you can see the columns, the mega columns in the background going up for the MGP overbuild that we've just discussed. When that's happening, the ground beam, so we haven't dug the hole in this vignette might be a little bit misleading. So we're just putting in the the capping beam rest of the columns to support the overbuild and now the overbuild. And it's only at this point and back to what I was saying about the program that we
50:30 - 51:00 start digging the the hole. So you've got this suspended level uh at level six and seven is there um precariously suspended up there. What I haven't drawn on that image is the the temporary bracing. You'll see that in a second. In the foreground is the temporary loading platform um off the street that I mentioned earlier with images of that in a second. So this is as we start digging the hole. You can see the temporary bracing for the
51:00 - 51:30 overbuild. Continue digging. Notice how dry it is. Um grout curtain is holding up effectively. And you can see the temporary platform there with the plunge columns. Um, and a better view from this angle where you can clearly see the the platform functioning as a as a temporary works platform. Um, as part of that excavation exercise and then throughout the the the the construction of the
51:30 - 52:00 basement, dig the hole, get to B7. Um, you can see the water table there, 17 m down to B7. Significant hydrostatic pressures. Uh so that basement needed some uh tension anchors which you can just about see if you squint going in. Um this is basically the the hole dug anchors going in plunge plunge columns brace back to the retention wall. You can see the jump form core that's
52:00 - 52:30 already started and that's at this point we start building back up whilst the MGB is delicately balanced on the capping beam and so is the um existing lift core and that new stair that was added in in 2015. Basement construction is relatively straightforward. It's a split level basement, car park, um, reinforced concrete floors, the banded RC banded
52:30 - 53:00 system with blade walls. Uh, you can see the shape of the ramp there. Make it's sort of made out with the with with the couplers. Uh, as the guys are forming up those walls, it's relatively straightforward. Once we're got to B7 and building back up, that's the column cage. The only well it wasn't simple but um one of the complexities was the the we help WPA pack with an early distressing
53:00 - 53:30 of the retention anchors um so as not to wait for the entire half split level to be uh poured and cured to de-stress the anchors. We we did a an assessment for them on a level by level, poor by poor to justify some and sometimes all the the early distressing of of anchors and that was a big win for them in terms of
53:30 - 54:00 program. Okay, so we've now built the basement. Uh we're coming out of the ground. That's the lower ground stroke ground where a lot of the um architectural how you come into the building um how you ramp down into the car park all of that sort of collides at that at that level. You can see the core always ahead of any other activity. And this is where we start to bring in the first bits of steel work. So in that interim between the MGB overbuild and and and now um there's a
54:00 - 54:30 number of months that have that have happened. We've dug the hole and built the basement. But GVP haven't been twiddling their thumbs. They've basically been uh preparing the steel work uh in readiness for effectively lower ground to be to be ready so they can start bringing this in. This is the T- bracing. Uh so the steel bracing that complements the concrete core, the vertical bracing in the uh in their fabrication yard or shop, sorry, and
54:30 - 55:00 then brought to site. So you can see that sort of craned into position, bolted down, and then it's if from that point onwards, it's a it's a macano. The columns that I mentioned earlier, you can see a lift there of three. You can see the collars. Uh so it's basically it was typically a twotory or threetory column lift with the reinforcement there sticking out ready to be uh connected and then uh infilled with concrete.
55:00 - 55:30 T- bracing seen from the inside just to give give you a sense of perspective. Um with the bondic and the shear studs um and some of the penetration stiffened penetrations through the through the beams we try to justify as much as possible unstiffened penetrations but given the demand on the steel work both vertically and laterally when it was part of the diaphragm systems um we weren't always successful. So we ended up with quite large for those make
55:30 - 56:00 penetrations in particular quite large stiffened penetrations from the inside. Very similar to the MGB overbuilt trusses complexity at the node fully welded and then a bolted splice away from the node in assemblies large enough to be transported and craned into position. And this this image on the left is at the point on level seven where the tea bracing sort of juts out towards the
56:00 - 56:30 west to pick up the cantalie volume. Um and on the right very similar uh splices to what we'd seen previously on the mgb overbuild. So level two just to give you a sense of the then the the moano set going up that's roughly what activity would have looked like uh around that time level one level two so the lower level steel work is going in you can see the columns
56:30 - 57:00 you can see the the inclined columns uh on that corner that I'll show you in a second um the collar we saw in the fabrication yard uh a few slides back. So my point earlier around the complexity of the geometry including the inclination of the columns uh I think you can appreciate on this view and that's that's the one of the hero moments in terms of steel work where um we have two of the inclined
57:00 - 57:30 columns meeting in a node and then picking up a vertical line of column. Um and that was a quite a challenge if you think of the fabrication the sequence of slotting in the reinforcement lapse etc. So that kept uh quite a few of us busy for a little while trying to figure out how best to design and then fabricate this. Okay. So I'll keep going. It's very much uh it's much of the same now as we go up to level four um sort of mid
57:30 - 58:00 level up up the building. inclined columns. Again, some stiffened uh penetrations for some of the mech. And what you see here is some reasonably long spans. And typically, we were on a 9ish by 11ish grid. I say is because there's no, you probably saw from those floor plates earlier that there's there's very little repetition and there's dancing columns left, right, and center. Um in addition there were
58:00 - 58:30 quite large teaching volumes that we had to bridge over. So the biggest span we had internal to the building over the lecture theater at level three was 18 m. And again we had to employ some pretty deep welded beam sections from blue scope uh to get to get across the line in those instances. So throughout the building there's a mix of uh UBS where we could get away with them jumping up to WBS if we had to um and then if
58:30 - 59:00 things were working axilly quite hard in a diaphragm and potentially UC's or even WC's. So we sort of employed most of the catalog on this job all the same. So typically your columns ahead by two, three levels and then bits of steel being craned into position. Image to the left there shows part of the T- bracing going up. Um and then what's interesting is whatever photo there's never it's very rarely a
59:00 - 59:30 right angle for those lower levels which I think illustrates my point around complexity. Get to about level eight. That's what it looks like from the outside. You can see the facade starting to go up. And this is where we uh start to create that volume that's can levering off the west of the core. So towards towards the left over the existing building on this view. And that was done by uh canvering trusses between so they're double height trusses between
59:30 - 60:00 levels 7 8 and 9 and then pre-stressing those back to the core. So got VSSL there working hard uh effectively stressing those um bars through ducts that literally go through the core. So they sort of come out on the other side and then um typical sort of PT technology grout filled corrugated tube then grout infilled to create that bond. Um that sort of control some of the
60:00 - 60:30 serviceability uh requirements for those trusses. You can see then once the trusses were in the connecting steel to form part of that caner leaving volume. Another view of the same the core always is jumping ahead. Then we get to the upper levels uh levels 9 through to 12 where finally there's a bit of restbite from the geometrical gymnastics and you start to
60:30 - 61:00 get some more rational grids and you can see that in the size of the beams there you back to uh UB sections um on a quite an orthogonal grid grid. So, uh that was where you know some of the economy sort of happened then in in in the job in terms of repetition and using um less heavy steelwork sections. You can see the concrete pump there going through the building. Um was there were given the
61:00 - 61:30 the how compact the site was. Um there was forever this tension between temporary works and permanent works and we had to work very closely with WPAC to um and their temporary works engineers to enable uh those things. For example, so penetrations through every floor to let the concrete pump through. Um, and this is just one of many, many examples. So, we get to the roof. Um, and this is this is not typical of
61:30 - 62:00 the roof, but it happened throughout where there was slight concrete levels, change levels in the concrete. Um, to do with, you know, upstairs here at level 12. uh might be to do with with recesses internally for some of the um some of the different finishes. But what we tried to to avoid was an over thickness to deal with those steps which meant that we as soon as we
62:00 - 62:30 could we would try to change the the level and bring the level of steel the steel work up or down. So that increased a fair bit of of comp that introduced some complexity in in connections uh in our diaphragm load path, but it meant that we weren't carrying uh too much additional weight or over thickness to to deal with these uh step changes. And there's quite a bit of work
62:30 - 63:00 that went into that. But um it meant that overall uh despite some of the sizes that you see for the steel work that uh overall we had quite an efficient floor plate at that sort of grid level. As I said 9 by1 11 we're hovering anywhere between 40 to 70 kgs per square meter uh for the steel which at 40 is reasonably efficient. at 70, you know, would have been pushed up by some of the gymnastics. Okay. Facade um going up
63:00 - 63:30 sort of, you know, could be a whole other presentation on the facade. There's actually many other uh subjects that I haven't touched on, but that's probably where I'll um I'll close um and open up for questions. So, thank you very much. Um and um yeah, happy to take your questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, John, for a great
63:30 - 64:00 and comprehensive presentation. That was brilliant. Um, this afternoon we're talking about a state-of-the-art university built with steel. And as always, it's now your turn to get involved. Um, please ask our speakers questions via the chat box and who your question is directed to. And thank you to everyone who put questions in whilst registering. I'd like now like to welcome Spirus Dallas who is the national engineering manager at Blue Scope and he'll be joining the Q&A
64:00 - 64:30 session. So without further ado, we have a question coming to you John from ALP watching you John. How does the building steel design contribute to long-term durability and maintenance, especially since the challenges of steel corrosion and thermal movement? Thanks, Al. Thanks, Amanda. Uh, great question, and it actually touches on a topic that I I didn't mention in the presentation, and
64:30 - 65:00 that's um uh longevity or or durability and the protection to the steel work. Um, so the I I I think it's apparent from the material that you saw that uh all the steelwork is internal. A lot of the photos you saw during the presentation um were showing steel work exposed to the elements only because the facade hadn't been installed. So during
65:00 - 65:30 the construction the steelwork uh could have been exposed to the elements but as soon as the building was enclosed the steelwork was then exclusively in an internal environment um which meant in in terms of the protection to the steelwork and the future prospects or the you know the durability of that material um it's in a a low aggression environment. So we just primed the steel work, painted it where it was visible,
65:30 - 66:00 which is in actually very few locations. Um, and then not that it adds much to the or anything to the the durability, but then that's all covered with uh vermiculite spray. So in terms of uh longevity, you you know, you design a building for a 50-year design life regardless of whether it's steel and concrete. And but still you just have to watch out you know basically what is your period to first maintenance for those those coatings. Um you're not
66:00 - 66:30 going to get 50 years out of that out of you know whatever system. Um but it's um you know it's part and parcel with a with a steel building. Thank you. Thank you for that question. I'll just stay with you John for now that's coming in from way home watching from Queensland and then Spirus maybe you can jump in. Um you're being asked John what are the costs and benefits of constructing a university using steel compared to traditional building
66:30 - 67:00 methods. Thanks John. So the the pros and cons of steel um specifically for university building uh I think it's hard to answer that question generically. I think you have to anchor that to a specific set of of uh criteria or conditions. And in our case I think as was demonstrated in the presentation it's a very constrained site. uh you
67:00 - 67:30 know the size of the site, the presence of the um the heritage building and the gymnastics that had to be carried out by the structure sort of led us to a a more stick build um type of typology and and steel was was uh the the obvious choice. um the program considerations, the speed at which the overbuild could be erected was a clear
67:30 - 68:00 advantage. So if on other projects you encounter similar conditions, so there might be to do with difficult ground conditions, you might want to uh limit the weight of your building. You might need to build certain areas particularly fast or simply which was the case for a lot of our hang overhanging uh or cantalvered conditions. it's very difficult to build them in another form. Um then obviously steel is is a candidate and those points are true of whether it's an education building, it
68:00 - 68:30 could be part of a hospital, it could be you know a number of other typologies in Melbourne. Uh we we have you know examples of commercial buildings that we built in steel uh for some of those reasons. Thank you. Thank you for that. John Sperris, do you want to comment also? Uh, sure Amanda, thanks for the question. I think John pretty much touched on it. Um, I I would just highlight that the um time factor and
68:30 - 69:00 speed of construction would be a a main cost benefit uh particularly on the uh complexity of steel that we've seen here with say John on example the concrete field tube columns, the trusses, the long span can delivered members. I mean they all have been offsite fabricated so they um um um made uh quickly and don't actually um um waste any time on site um and and
69:00 - 69:30 works can just continue as uh as scheduled. Thanks be thank you for that and just staying with you for now we've had a question from Kondani who is watching from somewhere in Africa. Good afternoon to you. Asking you Sparis, do you envision more steel construction projects for buildings such as universities, hospitals, etc. in the future, or was this project more of an
69:30 - 70:00 exception? Great question, Spirus. Uh, thanks uh Amanda and u um Wani um for the question. Um well in in Australia we've actually had a lot of uh steel composite construction buildings uh build. Um another example that um John was involved in airborne involved was the 17 story 217 spring street um here in Melbourne. There's been others
70:00 - 70:30 like um um 40s story uh four or five Burk Street um in Sydney big towers like the Salesforce towers and the uh at circle key plus both Greenfield and Brainfield size. So yes there's been a lot of other um types of building construction not necessarily universities but uh commercial buildings with a similar loads. Thank you for that. and staying across the globe. We've got a question from
70:30 - 71:00 Chelandra who's watching from somewhere overseas asking you Spirus, how could we access sample drawings for steel frame buildings or works for design for universities meeting the engineering standards? Spar um that's a um difficult one but there is I'd say the the first point of call would be the um checking into the steel industry like the steel institute I know they have some documentation on multi-story commercial
71:00 - 71:30 office uh framework um again of similar laws so the floor framing could be similar there um and Um yeah, not necessarily a um university but um uh similar commercial buildings. So I'd approach the steel industry um some of the manufacturers um I know have got some multi-level um car park uh designs uh up to eight stories
71:30 - 72:00 um with all the steel frame. So um that's where I would actually go and get some more sample drawings or give the mills a call. Thank you. Um John, we've had a question from David who is saying, "Hi from Vancouver." We've had a lot of international people watching today, which is fabulous. Asking you, John, can you comment on the seismic assessment and the design of the lateral support system? Did you have s significant
72:00 - 72:30 torsional issues? And if so, how did you modify the design? Thanks, John. Um yeah, that's a that's a really good question. It touches on the integration of the new build with the existing. Um I did mention that in the presentation, the fact that we couldn't justify the existing building uh to to uh the current seismic standards. Um we couldn't even justify them to some of
72:30 - 73:00 the dispensations that that at the time were permitted by the the um BCA, the building surveyors. Um, we chose to stitch the existing building back to the new and in doing so that opened up a whole can of worms effectively. Um, because you're suddenly stitching floor plates of the lower levels that with a a new core that is eccentric to that new uh or to the the um the floor plate that is made up of the new floor plus the existing. So,
73:00 - 73:30 torsional modes were definitely uh something that we were tracking early on. We thought that we could get away with just a concrete core. Um, and we we really struggled to get that to work at effective well cost effective thicknesses. Um, I think we got to 450 mil thick in in the final arrangement. I think that's where we landed on the on the thickest core walls. Um, and we
73:30 - 74:00 would have been well in excess of that had we not added the the steel bracing that I mentioned in the presentation. And part of the the role of that seal bracing was to uh enable the horizontal cantal leaves can levers around levels eight, seven, eight and nine that I mentioned, but also to control the twist um as a basically a a response to to the that um seismic performance.
74:00 - 74:30 Thank you. Thank you for that, Spiros. Uh we're back on Australian shores. A question from Trevor watching from Queensland asking you spirus, how does this development rate in terms of cost effectiveness compared to green field development? Thanks for that. Um I would say to that that a greenfield site would almost always be more cost effective than a brand site. um as it's
74:30 - 75:00 designed uh without can levers uh transfer floors you can actually um get all your vertical loads lying down so to avoid all that complexity so you won't be using a um um heavier members so um and also the complex connections that John actually showed in his presentation thank you spiros just got time to squeeze in a couple more questions And John, one for you that's come in from
75:00 - 75:30 Bruno asking, "What was the resulting natural frequency of the slab? Were there any vibration sensitive equipment in the building? And if if so, any vibration isolation?" Thanks Bruno for that question. Uh yeah, thanks Bruno. I didn't touch on the the the design criteria for the for the various areas in in the building. Um I did mention though that we did some
75:30 - 76:00 vibration analysis or or checks. Effectively what what we were doing um was checking the response factors for the the various floors typically limiting those to eight um and four in some of the more sensitive locations and that's to do with basically perception of of uh footfall induced vibration. So people walking adjacent to someone working in a in an office for example and making sure that um that that
76:00 - 76:30 perception of vibration isn't um to isn't distracting that worker. Um so that was a lot of the work that was done when I mentioned the when I mentioned vibration that was the nature of the the work or the checks that we were doing in terms of equipment sensitive equipment um very little in the building and if it was it's some of the um MEP kit that was mounted on isolators um as is relatively standard. So nothing
76:30 - 77:00 out of the ordinary for for the um larger, heavier, more vibrating um kit. There was one uh area in particular above the uh conference facility and I showed a photo of that facility earlier above which was the sports court. I think that appeared in um some of the renders or or photos early in the presentation. The sports court um was built on a suspended isolated slab. So
77:00 - 77:30 effectively built on springs to mitigate the transmission of vibration and noise down to the conference center below. In addition, the acoustic engineers requested that the steel beams that spanned the distance above the the conference facility that we would limit the first mode to 10 hertz for those particular elements. So there was a double um double measure if you like the suspended isolated slab plus a stiffer
77:30 - 78:00 structure that would ensure that you know in terms of vibration transmission um or noise transmission that there wouldn't be any issues. Thank you. Thank you for that John. Um Spiros a question that's come in should probably be our last question asking with all the steel plate welding into the steel members were there any Z grade requirements and can you comment on availability testing minimum order and requirement etc. Thanks Beerus.
78:00 - 78:30 Right. Oh jeez. Um that's a question we uh we get almost every week. Um and that's to do with uh uh lamela tearing in in in the steel plate which um which occurs due to the manganese sulfide in the uh center line of the plate. Um that's what leads to lamala tearing. That's why there's uh the engineers and in the standards who actually specify a ZR grade uh plate uh which is a uh
78:30 - 79:00 different chemistry um as specified in the Australian standards uh with some very low sulfur um so so that's how you get your different Z grades um requirements to the engineer specification and the plate thicknesses. Um lead time um lead time can be up to approximately 8 weeks. Um and the minimum order on that uh could be just a few members like six tons uh could be like a minimum order on it. Uh
79:00 - 79:30 could I also just add on the uh the welded uh beams that we actually make manufacture um it's best to specify grade 400 because that's a similar chemistry to the grade 350 plate when you actually do a builtup member instead of grade 350. Um so, um yeah, so instead of specifying grade 300, specify grade 400 cuz it's a similar um um uh sulfur
79:30 - 80:00 in the 350 as it is in the 400. Um and um and we have a lot of questions about uh can can this be um tested? Can can they use normal steel and just test it to comply with their grade? Uh that that's a also um hot question that comes um uh to our desks. Um the answer short answer to that is no. No, you cannot. Um you can't just do ultrasonic test uh before you uh weld it
80:00 - 80:30 together because it just defeats the purpose. Um it's when you actually weld it that the damage can actually happen to the steel plate. And if you haven't got the uh uh specially uh Z grade, then um doing all your ultra tests um um and and you find a failure, it's just a um if it's a purpose doesn't make any sense. So that's why um put it in uh your documentation and um ask the mules for a uh Z grade to avoid any of those
80:30 - 81:00 uh issues that may may occur at a later stage after fabrication. Thanks Amanda. Thank you. Thank you for that. It is all the time we have for today. So please join me once again in thanking John Null and Spurs Dallas for their time and input. I'd also like to thank Engineers Australia's industry partner Blue Scope for their support. It's been all about engineering excellence this afternoon and we're pleased to share that the
81:00 - 81:30 Engineers Australia Excellence Awards 2025 nominations are now open. Help us recognize the people and projects driving innovation. Nominate yourself, a peer, or a standout team by scanning the QR code. Please, as always, take a couple of minutes to complete a short feedback form linked in the description box below. It helps us to improve and plan the future sessions. Thank you again for joining us and I look forward to seeing you at our next industry partners event. Thank you
81:30 - 82:00 and good afternoon.