3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5

Dincel Construction
System
3S Structural Engineering
Design Manual
Revision 5
COPYRIGHT
Dincel Construction System Pty Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of the information contained in this document may be reproduced or copied
in any form or by any means without written permission from Dincel Construction System Pty Ltd
DISCLAIMER
The information contained in this document is intended for the use of suitably qualified and experienced
structural engineers. This information is not intended to replace design calculations or analysis normally
associated with the design and specification of buildings and their components. The information
contained in this document is not project specific. Structural engineers are required to assess
construction site conditions and provide design/details and appropriate safe work method statements
accordingly. Dincel Construction System Pty Ltd accepts no liability for any circumstances arising from
the failure of a specifier or user of any part of Dincel Construction System to obtain appropriate project
specific professional advice about its use and installation or from failure to adhere to the requirements of
appropriate Standards, Codes of Practice, Worker Health & Safety Act and relevant Building Codes.
Page 1 of 74
3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc
Dincel Construction
System
3S Structural Engineering Design
Manual Revision 5
REVISIONS
Revision 3
February 2007
The 2005 version was certified by the University of New South

Wales following company name change.
Revision 4
July 2012
The information certified in Revision 3 has been maintained. The

following revisions/additions are introduced.
Revision 5
April 2014
AS3600 2001 reference changed to AS3600 2009.
125mm diameter web holes reduced to 115mm holes for

200mm thick walls.
110mm wall axial capacity introduced.
Dincel Design Tool complying with EuroCode2 introduced for

both 200mm and 110mm thick walls.
The information certified in Revision 4 has been maintained. The

following revisions/additions are introduced.
200P-3 Corner Profile introduced.
AS3700 2001 reference changed to AS3700 2011.
In-Plane horizontal shear capacity and In-Plane vertical shear

capacity tables revised.
110mm and 200mm wall axial capacity tables revised.
Page 2 of 74
Introduction
The
is a patented concrete formwork system that combines an extruded rigid
polymer shell as a permanent formwork to accommodate concrete (and reinforcement
if required by design) infill.
The Engineering applications of
can be utilised in the following areas:
Private residences, villas and townhouses.

Basements, lift-stair shafts, party-corridor-faade walls of
apartments, offices, retail, industrial, warehouses, hospitals,
shopping centres.
Building Walls
Excellent corrosion resistance for marine and agricultural
building structures such as poultry, piggeries, fertiliser,
sewerage plants, irrigation, water management channels and
controlling devices.
Replacement of conventional precast, tilt-up and masonry block
walls.
Retaining Walls
Basement walls below permanent water table, earth retaining,

mining, erosion control, river embankment protection, sea walls.
Storage Tanks
Water (detention, retention, stormwater pits), fish farming tanks,

waste water, sewerage, sludge, petrol, manure, grain and
contaminated soil.
Special Uses
Bushfire Prone Areas, mine subsidence areas, sound barriers,

prevent the migration of contaminated ground water,
construction in acid sulphate soils, bund walls to protect islands
against rising ocean levels, protect fresh water lagoons against
sea water invasion, reclaimed lands in coastal areas for
developments, energy free flood levies to protect township or
generate flood free developable lands.
The benefits for engineers specifying Dincel Construction System are:
Reduction or elimination of engineers liability due to wall cracking and durability

related problems.
Load bearing concrete walls which provide:

Simpler slab design and detailing which results in significant reduction in
engineering input.
Page 3 of 74
Superior cost and time effectiveness alternative in comparison to frame
structures with columns and infill walls which in turn results with significant cost
savings hence return business for engineers.
It is recognised by the worlds authorities that the lateral load resistance of a
load bearing concrete wall system is significantly stronger than other

alternatives.
Dincel forms are precise factory manufactured forms. The formworks defective
work tolerances built in the concrete codes for design purposes are not relevant
for Dincel forms.
The DINCEL DESIGN TOOL Zone Method for Dincel Wall/Blade Columns
based on the EuroCode which is a more reliable design methodology in

comparison to AS3600-2009.
The DINCEL DESIGN TOOL calculates the ultimate strength and various fire
ratings for fire on one side or all sides which offer better accuracy and
significantly minimises design time for engineers.
Refer to the Dincel website for Information for Design Engineers for further
information.
Dincel Wall complies with the requirements of the Building Code of Australia,
Australian AS3600-2009, EuroCode 2 and American ACI318.
Dincel Walls are preferred by the industry because they are lightweight, flexibleversatile, easy and fast to install. Eliminates the majority of occupational, health
and safety issues. Refer Dincels website Dincel Solution for Construction
Safety.
Page 4 of 74
Structural Engineering Table of Contents

3S 1.0 Design Manual Use
3S 2.0 Material and Product Specification
2.1 Dincel-Wall Unit
2.2 Reinforcing Steel
2.3 Concrete Infill
3S 3.0 Structural Design

3.1 Structural Analysis for Wall Design
3.2 Design of Axial Loaded Walls Subject to Vertical Loads for Sway
Prevented Structures
3.2.1 Structural Design of Concrete Walls/Blade Columns
3.2.1.1 AS3600 2009 Walls/Blade Column Subject to InPlane Vertical Forces Only and Where Wall
Eccentricity e < tw / 6
3.2.1.2 AS3600-2009 Walls/Blade Column Subject to
Combined Bending and Vertical Forces and where
Wall Eccentricity e > tw / 6
3.2.2 Unreinforced Concrete Wall/Blade Column Design
3.2.2.1 Control Joints
3.2.3 Polymer Reinforced Design
3.2.4 Dincel Wall/Blade Column Fire Design
3.3 200mm Dincel Wall Design for Flexural Bending Strength and Deep
Beams
3.3.1 Dincel Wall Deep Beam Design
3.4 200mm Dincel Wall In-Plane Horizontal Shear Capacity
3.5 In-Plane Vertical Shear Capacity for 200mm Walls
3.6 Earthquake and Ductility Provisions
List of References
Appendices
APPENDIX A Table of Axial Load Capacities for Walls AS3600 2009
APPENDIX B Certification of Dincel Construction System by University of New
South Wales
Page 5 of 74
3S 1.0
Design Manual Use
This manual has been developed as a technical reference for design Engineers and
other similar building professionals. It is not intended to replace the services and
expert advice of suitably qualified structural design Engineers. Whilst care has been
taken in the preparation of this design manual, errors and / or omissions may occur.
Dincel Construction System Pty Ltd will not accept any responsibility for any
consequence arising from the use of this design manual.
This design manual covers the following applications for structural elements within
building structures.
Unreinforced axially loaded walls.

Unreinforced column applications.
Out-of-plane flexural bending capacity of reinforced wall cross sections.
In-plane shear capacities under axial compressive loads.
In-plane bending capacity as a deep beam.
Structural engineers may also refer to the Dincel Construction Manual for Designers
and Builders for typical examples of detailing including steel reinforcement.
3S 2.0
Material and Product Specification
The Dincel Construction System comprises a rigid polymer formwork shell, infill
concrete with steel reinforcement where required by design.
One of the most important building materials in the construction industry is concrete.
Concrete based on Portland cement has the following attributes:
Conventional Concrete
Concrete with
Materials that make up concrete are

abundant and naturally available.
eliminates
formwork
installation
difficulties,
reduces
construction related wastages and
accidents. The relative cost of wall is
reduced by up to 30%.
Used most frequently everywhere.
Most economical
formwork cost.
Most versatile, can be formed to any

shape with some formwork difficulties.
In most cases
walls do not
require reinforcing bars.
Recyclable - the reinforcing bars makes it

difficult.
Durability offered by
reduces the need for higher cement
content.
If perfect durability conditions are

achieved, concrete can last 50,000 years.
Refer
depending
on
its
www.matse1.mse.uiuc.edu/ntw/concrete/concrete.doc
Page 6 of 74
enhances
concrete
performance by eliminating the
inherent limitations of concrete.
The limitations of conventional Portland cement based concrete are low flexural
strength, low failure strain, low ductility, susceptibility to frost damage and low
resistance to chemical attack. These limitations usually result in cracking or
degradation of concrete leading to its deterioration.
To limit the extent of cracking, the important factors are:
Concrete mix-design, curing and quality of materials used.

Formwork and construction practices (supervision, compaction, etc).
Structural design, reinforcement detailing and concrete cover.
Inadequate attention or allowance for any these factors will result in the concrete
cracking. This cracking is unavoidable in the majority of cases when using concrete
based on Portland cement.
The inevitable fact is that concrete cracks. Cracks allow the ingress of water, oxygen,
carbon dioxide, chloride and sulphate compounds. The ingress of these items can
induce corrosion of the steel reinforcement that in turn leads to spalling of the concrete
and the loss of concrete strength.
Therefore the key concerns are the degradation of the concrete matrix and presence of
steel reinforcement and the cracking of the concrete elements. Concrete has low
tensile strength and low ductility, reinforcement is therefore used to enhance
concretes inherent low tensile strength and ductility. This is especially the case due to
external lateral forces such as wind, earthquake, liquid or earth pressure, flexural
stresses by out-of-plane vertical loads or resultant tensile stress cracks due to
shrinkage and temperature effects during its service life.
The majority of reinforcement is placed at the external faces of concrete slabs and
walls to resist the applied loads. This requirement places the reinforcement closer to
the concrete face in which most of the cracking occurs, hence the corrosion of the
reinforcement. Therefore the quality and permeability of the concrete along with
concrete cover affects the durability and hence service life of the concrete structure.
With the need to reinforce concrete structures, the issue is to control concrete
cracking. This will in turn provide protection to the reinforcement, reduce or eliminate
the risk of water / air leakage to the human living environment and to avoid unsightly
concrete cracking.
Cracking can be divided into three broad categories:
(A) CRACKS OCCURRING BEFORE AND DURING HARDENING
Concrete with
Formwork Movement
The conventional formwork movement
depends on the quality of formwork
and installation methodology.
Page 7 of 74
s formwork is factory
made, precise dimensions which are
not reliant on the workmanship
skills.
Settlement
Settlement of the cement pastes
around the reinforcing bars or
aggregate. The bigger the aggregate
and reinforcing bars the more
pronounced settlement cracks are.
s high slump concrete

with maximum 20mm aggregate
size, eliminated or minimised
reinforcement
quantity
mainly
avoids this problem. The tapping of
the
formwork with a
rubber mallet or the use of 25
vibrators assists the consolidation of
concrete further.
Plastic Drying Shrinkage Cracking

Cracks are influenced by wind
velocity, low relative humidity, and
high air temperature resulting in rapid
loss of water in concrete paste due to
evaporation.
s permanent formwork
protects concrete paste against all
these factors (particularly sun and
wind) resulting in evaporation rate of
less than 0.5 kg/m hour, hence
elimination of plastic shrinkage
cracking.
(www.readymix.com/au/reference/technical/
techbulletin4.htm,
www.boral.com.au/brochures/orders/PDF/
Boral_TN_Curing_concrete.pdf)
(B) CRACKS OCCURRING AFTER HARDENING

Concrete with
Dincel Wall has been tested by

CSIRO under 6m head of water
pressure and certified as waterproof.
The later stages of Drying

Shrinkage.
Thermal contraction for varying
temperature differences.
Moisture movements due to
wetting and drying.
Chemical reaction:
> Carbonation It is the chemical
reaction between cement and
carbon dioxide in the air.
> Acid attack destroys concrete
by
converting
hardened
concrete, and its pore system.
Impermeability of concrete is of
little consequence in this case.
> Sulphate
attack,
in
the
presence of water causes
expansion
of
concrete
compound resulting in cracking.
> Alkali attacks avoided by not
using
silica
containing
aggregates.
Page 8 of 74
The permanent polymer skin of

establishes an effective
barrier against the ingress of
chemicals (chlorides, sulphates, and
carbon
dioxide),
oxygen
and
moisture movements, especially
structures subject to periodic wetting
and drying. The permanent polymer
skin also allows for a reduced
water/cement ratio concrete mix
along with a continuation of the
cement hydration process. This
results in both increased early
tensile and compressive strength
capacity as well as at later stages,
and less porous concrete. This way
greatly improved durability of
concrete is achieved in comparison
to concrete with conventional
formwork.
(C) CRACKING AS A RESULT OF APPLIED LOADINGS

Concrete with
The vertical reinforcement is provided

to resist flexural and direct tensile
stresses where the tensile capacity of
the concrete is exceeded, resulting in
cracking.
The monolithic concrete through the

web holes of
modules
interlocks the concrete and the
polymer
for
composite
action
between the two materials.
The
flexural or direct tension loads that
crack the concrete also create
tension in the polymer because of
this composite action. The net affect
is the polymer encasement providing
additional tensile load carrying
capacity of the concrete.
Refer
Dincel website Earthquake testing
video to see the superior composite
behaviour.
The permanent polymer shell of

over conventional concrete by providing:
increases concrete strength and durability
An effective barrier against chemical attacks.

Ideal curing conditions resulting in increased impermeability and concrete
strength, both in the compression and tension. This is explained further in Section
3.2.2 Unreinforced Concrete Wall Design.
The individual components described are as follows:
3S 2.1
Wall Unit
The
unit is manufactured from rigid polymer composite
material. As described in the product manual, the
unit
components snap together using a patented snap lock mechanism. The
various components that make up the range of
units are
shown in Figure 1.
Page 9 of 74
PLAN 200mm DINCEL WALL ASSEMBLY
FIGURE 1
Page 10 of 74
PLAN 110mm DINCEL WALL ASSEMBLY
FIGURE 1
Page 11 of 74
3S 2.2
Reinforcing Steel
Where required by structural analysis, reinforcement shall be manufactured and supplied

in accordance with AS4671-2001. See Table 3.2.1 of AS3600-2009 (Ref. 1) for the
currently available reinforcement types, strengths and ductility class designations. Refer
Dincel Construction Manual, Item 14 for further steel reinforcement information.
3S 2.3
Concrete Infill
ENGINEERING DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS MAY BE ADOPTED FOR THE CONCRETE

MIX DESIGN
(A)
Walls for multi-storey building structures

(a)
Walls associated with in-situ reinforced or post-tensioned concrete floors poured

on removable formwork.
Floor to floor concreting cycle can be as small as 4 days with
.
Australian construction practice requires up to 3 consecutive floor
formworking/back-propping level to be kept in place for multi storey building
construction. This will exert at any time onto
at 3 x 4 days = 12
dead
days dead weight of 3 floor slabs, 3 storeys in height
weight and construction live load from the floors.
For these reasons
compressive strength of
s concrete to be minimum 3 MPa at 7
days or as required by the design engineer.
(b)
Walls
associated with precast concrete floor systems.

This
must be poured prior to placement of precast planks.
way,
The time of loading in this case may be limited to a minimum of two days after
the concreting of
. The concrete compressive strength to be
specified by the design engineer to suit precast flooring installation.
(c)
(B)
Walls subjected to lateral loads, i.e., earthquake, soil/liquid pressure, high

wind loading (cases where allowable tensile strength is exceeded). Refer
design engineer to specify the design strength for these cases.
Walls for Factory Warehousing

(a)
Walls used for cladding (e.g. similar to steel portals with pre-cast walling)
purposes fc 28 days = 20 Mpa is considered adequate. Design engineer to
check final design stresses on wall panels depending on the panel length/depth
ratios and wind loading.
(b)
Walls replacing tilt-up methodology if roof rafters are propped in such a way that
loadings are not exerted onto wet concrete wall panels, the design criteria of (a)
above will be applicable. Otherwise the concrete strength at the time of load
application as early as 2 days after concrete pouring is to be specified by the
design engineer.
Page 12 of 74
CONCRETE QUANTITY
Per cubic metre of concrete
200mm
110mm
5.5m of wall area
9.5m of wall area
Per square metre of wall area
0.105m3 of concrete
0.182m of concrete
CONCRETE MIX SPECIFICATION

Cement Type:
Type GP in accordance to AS3972. Fly ash in accordance with

AS3582.1 may be used as cement replacement and/or improve
workability.
Characteristic 28 Days
Compressive Strength:
3 MPa to 100 MPa (as specified by design engineer).
Water/Cement Ratio
at the Time of Concrete
Batching:
Maximum water/cementitious
manufacturers standards.
Design Target Slump

and Aggregate Size:
Waterproof Walls (minimum 200mm Dincel) (i.e. basement,

water and sewage tanks, etc.):
AS3600 allows up to 80 MPa.

utilised 80 Mpa concrete.
Dincel has already successfully
material
ratio
as
per
Recommended Slump minimum 140mm; maximum 180mm.

Maximum Aggregate size 20mm.
Non-Waterproof Walls:
Recommended Slump 120mm +/- 20mm.
Maximum Aggregate size 20mm for 200mm Dincel.
Maximum Aggregate size 10mm for 110mm Dincel.
NO WATER TO BE ADDED AT THE POINT OF DISCHARGE

Vibration:
VERY IMPORTANT Refer Item No: 11 Concrete Vibration in the

Dincel Construction Manual.
Concrete Pump Nozzle

Size:
Nozzle with internal diameter of 75mm maximum. (100mm nozzle

size can be considered provided the concrete flow pressure is
controlled).
AS3600/EuroCode has a limitation on the moisture content of a maximum of 3% moisture by

weight.
Page 13 of 74
COMPLIANCE OF CONCRETE MIX DESIGN TO SATISFY AS3600 2009, SECTION 5

FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY
Dincel adopts the Eurocode2 Zone Method which is a higher tier and more accurate method in
accordance with Eurocode2 than Table 5.7.2 of AS3600 which is also a table adopted from the
Eurocode.
AS3600/Eurocodes fire design is based on the spalling values of conventional concrete under a
cellulosic fire curve, with 3% moisture by weight (as recommended by BS EN 1992 1 2 : 2004
Clause 4.5.1).
At the time of a fire, if the moisture content is greater than this recommended value by the
Eurocode, the spalling will be excessive under cellulosic fire conditions hence premature buckling
and structural failure can happen even under small loads. This is why AS3600 2009, Clause
B2.3 states that if any alternative solution is to be verified by fire testing, the test load shall be
100% equivalent of the design load (i.e. no product as an alternative solution can be used above
the fire test load).
Can a structural design engineer rely on a fire test report of an alternative solution for the
determination of the fire resistance period for structural adequacy? The answer is NO. This is
because firstly, AS3600, Appendix B, Clause B2.3 and secondly, under real life conditions all
conventional building walls are porous and absorb moisture from the ambient unless they are
protected by impervious membrane type paints having ongoing maintenance. Relative Humidity
(RH) of 90% represents 3% moisture content by weight in any concrete wall, including in-situ,
precast, proprietary concrete walls with porous cladding systems (i.e. magnesium oxide, fibrecement or gypsum). Refer Moisture in Concrete by the Cement, Concrete & Aggregates Australia
(http://www.concrete.net.au/publications/pdf/Moisture.pdf - Moisture in Concrete). This means that
the moisture exceeding RH of 90% plus the moisture that already exists in the concrete wall itself
exceeds the limitation given by the Eurocode (BS EN 1992 1 2 : 2004 Clause 4.5.1) hence
AS3600, Table 5.7.2 is adopted from the Eurocode.
The Dincel concrete mix design (as shown in the above table) aims to have 3% water or slightly
more content where the excess water not required by hydration will be further reduced by capillary
actions of the floor slabs where Dincel walls are placed on. During the life of the structure,
impervious/waterproof Dincel walls (refer CSIRO waterproof Dincel Wall certification) installed in
accordance with the Dincel Construction Manual will avoid any quantity of relative humidity related
moisture entering through the Dincel polymer formwork protection; hence Dincel walls will always
satisfy the Eurocodes fire spalling design control criteria during the life span required by AS3600.
However, this will be impossible for any other non-Dincel wall unless they are protected by true
membranes with ongoing maintenance so that they are not affected by conditions of RH > 90%.
Engineers need to be aware that all commercial paints, except for true membranes, are porous, i.e.
breathable which are not membranes.
The Building Code of Australia defines the Deemed to Satisfy condition if the concrete structure
can be designed in accordance with AS3600 Concrete Structures Code. Dincel Wall can be
designed in accordance with AS3600, EuroCode and American Code as verified by the report from
the University of New South Wales. It is an obvious fact that if the Dincel polymer is removed from
its concrete infill, the remaining concrete wall is identical to the prototype defined by the
Eurocode/AS3600.
Structural design engineers should refer to the Dincel website The Use of AS3600 2009
Eurocode for Dincel Walls for further information on this very important topic. (Refer Common
Engineering Questions, Item No: 27)
http://www.dincelconstructionsystem.com/documents/Common%20Engineering%20Questions.pdf
Page 14 of 74
3S 3.0
Structural Design
Australian construction standards are regulated by the Building Code of Australia,

which refers to Australian Standard as AS-3600-2009 for Concrete Structures.
However alternative design methods and material usage are not limited to Engineers
provided that their design is based on other recognised building standard such as
EuroCode as specifically referenced in Clause 5.3 of AS3600-2009.
3S 3.1
Structural Analysis For Wall Design
For earthquake loading of a building structure, it is necessary to consider the

horizontal component of earthquake loading as well as the vertical component of
earthquake loading. The resultant component can be of sufficient magnitude to be a
reason for progressive collapse of non-braced walls or columns if the floor plates are
not connected to at least the top of the walls / columns.
For earthquake design a building structure can accommodate shear walls at stair and
lift shaft locations. These elements are designed by the Structural Engineer to resist
the lateral loads induced by an earthquake event. The remaining major walls within
the building structure including perimeter faade walls and party walls between sole
occupancy units may be designed to support the vertical gravity loads only i.e.; not for
lateral loads. The concrete floors act as diaphragm plate elements to transfer the
lateral forces to the shear walls.
If the floor plate elements experience significant lateral movement during an
earthquake event, the load bearing walls carrying gravity loads only, may loose
stability and/or experience increased load eccentricity due to floor displacements
which may effect the walls axial load carrying capacity therefore resulting in possible
progressive collapse. For this reason,
recommends for buildings in
Australia to use the detailing as shown in Figure 3 as a minimum standard for building
heights which exceed 4 storeys above foundation level for structural walls of a braced
building.
As detailed in Figure 3, depending upon the reinforcement detailing of
, the
design engineer can have the following design models for wall elements with
compression upon the full cross-section of the wall as shown in Figure 2.
The design engineer can then adopt the appropriate slenderness k value depending
upon the adopted design model in relation to AS3600-2009 (Ref. 1). As further
reference, the designer may consider the slenderness values in accordance to
AS3700-2011 (Ref 2) for the determination of effective wall heights also.
Page 15 of 74
Page 16 of 74
Page 17 of 74
3S 3.2
Design of Axially Loaded Walls Subject to Vertical Loads

for Sway Prevented Structures
The following design methodologies are available for engineers to follow for the design
of concrete wall elements using
:
1. Steel reinforced concrete wall design.
2. Plain concrete wall design (i.e.; unreinforced concrete walls).
3. Polymer reinforced concrete wall design.
3S 3.2.1 Structural Design of Concrete Walls/Blade Columns

General
In accordance with AS3600 2009 a column can be designed as a wall if the longer
dimension of a member of a member is minimum 4 times than the shorter dimension.
It is therefore:
Wall = Blade Column = a vertical element where the minimum cross sectional
wall length is not less than 4 x tw (wall thickness) AS3600-2009 Clause 5.6.2.
The structural design of concrete walls must be carried out in conformance with local
building codes and the applicable concrete design standard. However, Australian
design engineers are not limited to the use of Australian Concrete Structures Code
AS3600 provided their design is based on other recognized building standards.
Notation
Imperial
Metric
Definition
(lc)
Ac , Ag
e
f c
k
lu (Hwu)
Hwe
Pf (N*)
r
t (tw)
= horizontal area of concrete section; ( mm2 )

= eccentricity of load measured from centre of member; ( mm )
= specified compressive strength of concrete at 28 days; ( MPa )
= effective length factor
= vertical clear distance between supports mm; ( in )
= effective height of a wall k x Hwu mm; ( in )
= factored axial load; kN ( lb force )
= radius of gyration; mm ( in )
= thickness of member; mm ( in )
(Pu)
(h)
Page 18 of 74
AS3600 Australian Design of Concrete Walls/Blade Columns

For Aspect Radio Greater Than 1 to 4
Non-reinforced plain concrete walls

not presented in AS3600
tw
Plain Concrete Walls are allowed via

Clause 5.3 of AS3600-2009 by
EUROCODE
AS3600-2009 Section 11.5

For Hwe/tw 30
Refer Item 3.2.1.1 and Appendix A of
this manual
Refer Items 3.2.1 and 3.2.4 of this

manual for Dincel Design Tool in
compliance with the EuroCode
tw
AS3600-2009 Section 10
with Clause 11.2.1 (a) (ii)
provision
Refer Item 3.2.1.2 of this
manual
Steel Reinforced Concrete
Note
Building Code of Australia requires
(i)
(ii)
Structural walls functioning as fire walls are to be designed with appropriate fire
rating.
Structural walls not functioning as fire walls but are however carrying a fire
rated building element such as a floor above, the walls must be designed for
minimum appropriate fire rating for the element it is supporting.
For the purposes of fire wall design, wall load limitations are governed by the wall
slenderness in accordance to AS3600, Clause 5.7.2 as a lower tier approach which
is adopted from the EuroCode.
AS3600-2009, Clause 5.3 recommends the use of EuroCode (Zone Method) as a
higher tier approach.
AS3600, Clause 5.6.2 (b) and its following footnote about double face reinforcement
and vertical bars being restrained can be ignored when EUROCODE ZONE METHOD
is adopted.
The fire wall design is governed by slenderness, load, concrete grade and design
eccentricities.
(a)
AS3600-2009, Table 5.7.2 is a lower tier approach which ignores design

eccentricities, concrete grade and only allows two load cases with very high
slenderness ratio of 40. This approach is conservative however in cases of low
grade concrete, low load, high eccentricity and slenderness ratio it can be very
dangerous.
(b)
AS3600-2009, Clause 5.3 allows the use of EuroCode which is a higher tier
approach and takes into account all design parameters, i.e. slenderness, applied
load, concrete grade and design eccentricities.
This is a more reliable approach adopted by the Dincel Design Tool.
Page 19 of 74
Design of Concrete Walls

American ACI Standard 318
klc
klc
75
r
lc
h
e >
25
kl c
kl c
100
lc
24
75
lc
r
lc
30
150
kl c
50
lc
Rebar at
each
face
Pu
65
200
Rebar at
centre
0.06 fc
Ac
Section
22.6
Section
22.5
Section
14.5
Section
10.11
10.12
Section
14.8
Section
10.10
Steel Reinforced
Concrete
Plain Concrete minimum basement/footing

wall thickness 190mm
Page 20 of 74
3S 3.2.1.1
AS3600-2009 Walls/Blade Column Subject to InPlane Vertical Forces Only and where Wall
Eccentricity e tw / 6
The following design methodology only apply to the wall details as shown on Figure 3
Details A/1, A/2, A/3 ,A/4, A/6, A/7 and A/8.
For the design of
utilising the polymer shell as a formwork with infill
concrete, the design axial strength per metre length of a braced concrete wall in
accordance with section 11.5 of AS3600 is:
f Nu = f ( t w - 1.2e - 2e a ) 0.6 f c
f :
capacity reduction factor = 0.6
e :
vertical load eccentricity:

- tw / 6 with floor slab over discontinuous ( end walls ) Detail A/1 and A/3 of
Figure 3
- tw / 20 with floor slab over continuous ( internal walls ) Detail A/2, A/4, A/6,
A/7 and A/8 of Figure 3
ea : additional eccentricity due to slenderness ( H we ) 2 / 2500 t w

f c : characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days
H we : effective height of braced wall as defined by Clause 11.4:
- both ends having rotational restraint .... 0.75 H wu
H wu : wall height between lateral supports

t w : concrete wall thickness
REFER APPENDIX A FOR DESIGN CHARTS
3S 3.2.1.2
AS3600-2009 Walls/Blade Column Subject to

Combined Bending and Vertical Forces and where
Wall Eccentricity e > tw / 6
The following design methodology can only apply to the wall detail as shown on
Figure 3 Details A/5 where the applied load wall eccentricity e > t / 6.
The design of these walls follows Clause 11.2.1(a)(ii) of AS3600. It states:
Walls subject only to in-plane vertical forces may be designed as columns in
accordance with Section 10 if vertical reinforcement is provided in each face, except
that Clause 11.7.4 shall override the requirements of Clause 10.7.4.
Alternatively, these walls may be designed in accordance with EuroCode2 (Dincel
Design Tool).
Page 21 of 74
Unreinforced Axial Wall Capacity

AS3600 Model for ( Hwe / tw ) 30,
tw =
fNu = 0.6 ( tw - 1.2e - 2ea ) 0.6 f'c .. Clause 11.5.1
187 mm - reduced wall thickness
f'c =
ea = ( Hwe )2 / 2500 tw
32 Mpa - characteristic design strength
AS3600 Model
ACI Building Code American Model 22.6.5
f Nu ( kN / m)
f = 0.6
e = tw / 6
Hwe = 1.00 Hwu
Hwe ( m ) f Nu
lc ( in )
f Pnw
lc ( m )
39.370
42.612
45.854
49.096
52.339
55.581
58.823
62.065
65.307
68.549
71.791
75.033
78.276
81.518
84.760
88.002
91.244
94.486
97.728
100.970
104.213
107.455
110.697
113.939
117.181
120.423
123.665
126.907
130.150
133.392
136.634
139.876
111299.50
110751.19
110159.51
109524.46
108846.05
108124.26
107359.11
106550.59
105698.70
104803.45
103864.82
102882.83
101857.47
100788.75
99676.65
98521.19
97322.36
96080.16
94794.59
93465.66
92093.35
90677.68
89218.65
87716.24
86170.47
84581.32
82948.81
81272.94
79553.69
77791.08
75985.10
74135.75
1.000
1.082
1.165
1.247
1.329
1.412
1.494
1.576
1.659
1.741
1.824
1.906
1.988
2.071
2.153
2.235
2.318
2.400
2.482
2.565
2.647
2.729
2.812
2.894
2.976
3.059
3.141
3.223
3.306
3.388
3.471
3.553
1.000
1.082
1.165
1.247
1.329
1.412
1.494
1.576
1.659
1.741
1.824
1.906
1.988
2.071
2.153
2.235
2.318
2.400
2.482
2.565
2.647
2.729
2.812
2.894
2.976
3.059
3.141
3.223
3.306
3.388
3.471
3.553
1674.11
1665.66
1656.54
1646.75
1636.29
1625.17
1613.37
1600.91
1587.78
1573.98
1559.52
1544.38
1528.58
1512.11
1494.96
1477.16
1458.68
1439.53
1419.72
1399.23
1378.08
1356.26
1333.77
1310.62
1286.79
1262.30
1237.14
1211.31
1184.81
1157.64
1129.80
1101.30
Eurocode
f Pnw ( kN / m )
Imperial to metric
conversion
f Pnw ( lb per foot )

f (Clause 9.3.5 of ACI Code) = 0.6
eO = tw /
6
lc = actual height ( in. )
Nrd (kN/m)
Iw = Floor Clear Height
f Pnw
1628.26
1620.24
1611.59
1602.30
1592.37
1581.81
1570.62
1558.79
1546.33
1533.23
1519.50
1505.13
1490.13
1474.50
1458.23
1441.32
1423.78
1405.61
1386.80
1367.36
1347.29
1326.57
1305.23
1283.25
1260.64
1237.39
1213.50
1188.99
1163.84
1138.05
1111.63
1084.57
Iw ( m )
Nrd
1.000
1.082
1.165
1.247
1.329
1.412
1.494
1.576
1.659
1.741
1.824
1.906
1.988
2.071
2.153
2.235
2.318
2.400
2.482
2.565
2.647
2.729
2.812
2.894
2.976
3.059
3.141
3.223
3.306
3.388
3.471
3.553
2052.69
2021.99
1991.29
1960.59
1929.89
1899.18
1868.48
1837.78
1807.08
1776.38
1745.67
1714.97
1684.27
1653.57
1622.87
1592.17
1561.46
1530.76
1500.06
1469.36
1438.66
1407.95
1377.25
1346.55
1315.85
1285.15
1254.45
1223.74
1193.04
1162.34
1131.64
1100.94
ACI Building Code American Model 22.6.5

f Pnw = f 0.45 f'c Ag ( 1 - ( lc / 32 h )2 ) .. Clause 22.6.5.2
f Pnw = lbs. per foot - design axial strength
f'c =
4800.0
h =
7.36
in - thickness of wall cross-section
psi - specified compressive strength of concrete
f = ACI Building Code reduction factor Clause 9.3.5
f =
0.6
Eurocode Model
Nrd = b hw fcd,pl ...BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 12.6.5.2
Wall Ultimate Axial Load
b=
1000 mm
fck =
32 Mpa
hw =
187 mm
fcd,pl = (0.8/1.5) x fck =
17.07 Mpa - for Ultimate Strength of unreinforced wall
Replace 0.8 factor with 1.0 in fcd,pl formula if the wall consists reinforcement.
eo =
31.17 mm First Order Eccentricity (hw/6)
Beta =
0.85 Clause 12.6.5.1 (4) and Table 12.1
lo = Beta x Clear Height
ei = Io/400
mm BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 Clause 5.2(9)
etot = eo + ei
= Strength reduction due to eccentricity - Clause 12.6.5.2 (12.11)
= 1.14 x (1 - 2etot/hw) - 0.02 x Io/hw (1 - 2etot/hw)
Page 22 of 74
COMPARE AS3600 AND EUROCODE

AS3600-2009 Section 11
The design axial strength for per unit length of a braced wall in compression;
Nu = 0.6 ( tw - 1.2e - 2ea ) 0.6 f'c
ea = the additional eccentricity (Hwe)/2500tw
This eccentricity is to account for defects related to workmanship issues which require
codes to allow additional eccentricity for the safety factory. Dincel being factory
manufactured with precise dimensions eliminates the defects related to workmanship
issues resulting imperfections in formwork.
e = is the eccentricity allowance because of the applied load.
It is commonly adopted that for an edge condition, the e = tw/6

For cast-in-situ floor continuous over the wall, zero, but not less than e = tw/20
EuroCode BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
Nrd = b hw fcd,pl for ultimate strength axial load capacity.
b hw = cross sectional area
fcd,pl = f'c for plain concrete
= the equation for eccentricity including second order effects and normal effects of
creep which is based on the:
ei = effective length/400 similar to ea of AS3600 to account for normal execution
deviations associated with conventional formworks.
eo = first order eccentricity (Mwall/Nwall) determined by a frame analysis. This
is adopted as tw/6 or tw/20 in AS3600-2009 which can be significantly over
conservative depending on the load and span configuration. There needs to be
a small load and big moment on a wall under consideration to have e =
moment/load = tw/6. This is one reason why AS3600-Section 11 is considered
as a conservative approximation in comparison to the EuroCode based Dincel
Design Tool.
The following graph is developed having first order eccentricity equal to tw/6 for all
comparisons. Engineering codes for the EuroCode provides the highest load carrying
capacity because the first order eccentricity is calculated from frame analysis and is
most likely much smaller than the e = tw/6 adopted for comparison purposes in the
following graph.
Page 23 of 74
Page 24 of 74
3S 3.2.2 Unreinforced Concrete Wall/Blade Column Design

The permanent, polymer shell of
is used as a formwork only for holding the
infill wet concrete; the strength of the wall is provided by the concrete in its cured, final
hardened state.
Conventional concrete walls of a braced structure under axial compression loading
only, have no reason to have reinforcement other than for crack control purposes.
The following is an explanation that Dincel Walls can be engineered without
reinforcement.
The following design methodology for unreinforced walls as described in the
Australian Concrete Code AS3600 applies to walls carrying vertical compressive loads
in sway prevented structures. Walls subject to horizontal loadings, including tension
by flexural action or walls as part of a non-sway prevented structure will need to be
designed accordingly with reinforcement.
The design of concrete walls to Section 11 of AS3600 requires minimum flexural,
shrinkage and temperature reinforcement to be placed within the concrete wall. Other
recognised building codes throughout the world waiver this requirement and allow
concrete walls under certain loading conditions to be designed without reinforcement.
Refer reference (3), (4), (5), (7) and (8).
AS3600, Section 11, Clause 11.7.1 states Walls shall have a reinforcement ratio ... in
the vertical direction, of not less than the larger of either 0.0015 and the value required
for strength. It should be noted that the wall design equation of AS3600 Clause
11.5.1 does not include steel reinforcement for strength calculations i.e. the wall
strength is evaluated by the concrete only. This design is conditional to the applied
loads acting within the middle third of the wall thickness / bearing area. This loading
condition is typical to load-bearing type buildings designed in Australia and is
.
applicable to the design of
In the internationally recognised American ACI Building Code (Ref 3), Chapter 22.6
states that walls can be designed as plain concrete elements with no reinforcement
provided the wall load(s) are located within the middle third ( emax tw / 6 ) of the
overall wall thickness tw in the same manner as stated above for AS3600. In the
same manner, both the Canadian (Ref 4) and German Code (Ref 5 and 7) and
EuroCode2 (Ref 8) adopt a similar methodology for the design of concrete walls also.
It will be advisable for the designer to read the commentary about unreinforced
wall design by the University of New South Wales located in Appendix B of this
Manual.
The wall construction details as shown on Figure 3, with the exception of Detail A/5 of
Figure 3, ensure the same maximum eccentricity requirement are not exceeded i.e.
emax tw / 6. As the ACI Building Code, German Building Code and EuroCode allow
for the design of concrete walls without vertical reinforcement with the same
eccentricity conditions for AS3600, it would be deemed acceptable to adopt the same
wall design principal and have no vertical reinforcement.
Further to the above, Section 3.2.4 of this manual also show designs of
unreinforced walls/blade columns by EUROCODE.
Page 25 of 74
Shrinkage / Thermal Reinforcement

The minimum reinforcement stated in Section 11.7 of AS3600 2009 apply to a
braced wall construction is for crack control due to concrete shrinkage and thermal
actions. This minimum reinforcement is deemed necessary so that crack widths that
may develop do not affect structural performance and serviceability of the wall in its
final state.
When crack control can be provided to within an acceptable structural and
serviceability limit, the concrete wall can be designed to either the German Code,
American Code or EuroCode. In the case of
, it provides both an ideal
curing of the concrete element that helps minimises shrinkage along with crack control
inducers.
References (7) and (8) state that concrete walls subject to compressive stresses can
be designed as unreinforced concrete walls where crack limitation is guaranteed by
improved curing. The general practice of concrete wall construction in the building
on
industry is by removable forms that provides very little concrete curing.
the other hand has a permanent, impervious polymer membrane that provides the
ideal curing conditions. Following the pre-requisite of AS3600-2009, the crack widths
that develop within the
can be controlled and kept within reasonable
limits as a result of the improved curing along with crack controllers. It is therefore
important to understand the following explanation on extended concrete curing.
The Effect of Impervious Permanent Membrane by
On Concrete Curing
The object of curing is to keep the concrete as nearly as saturated as possible until
the original water-filled space in the fresh cement paste has been filled to the desired
extent by the products of cement hydration.
The necessity of curing arises from the fact that cement hydration takes place only in
water-filled capillaries within the concrete. This is why loss of water by evaporation
from these water-filled capillaries must be prevented. In the case of conventionally
formed wall construction, due to early formwork removal, active curing stops nearly
always long before the maximum possible hydration has taken place because of the
above described water evaporation.
If however the water-filled space in fresh concrete is greater than the volume that can
be filled by the products of hydration, greater hydration will occur that will lead to both
a higher compressive and tensile concrete strength along with lower permeability.
It is a known fact that maximum rate hydration can only proceed under conditions of
relatively high saturation - this is why the surrounding air relative humidity of 85% is
vital for the late hardening of concrete. This can only be achieved if the concrete is
protected against evaporation by an impervious membrane that is provided
permanently by
.
Therefore,
Retains the water within the wet concrete wall that promotes hydration of
cement and increase of concrete strength.
Page 26 of 74
Delays the effects of drying shrinkage until the concrete is strong enough to
resist shrinkage cracking.
Dincel polymer, unlike the other porous formwork does not absorb water from
wet concrete. The absence of this capillary action eliminates the friction
between concrete and formwork which is one of the main reasons for formwork
uplift during concreting and the occurrence of honey combing.
The reader can refer to Table 9.2 of reference (6) where the crack width of 0.2mm
covers the most stringent of general building conditions for exposed concrete
members, i.e. unprotected members without applied membrane or polymer
membranes. In the case of extreme conditions the designer may use additional
reinforcement for specific crack control requirements. The crack control mechanism
offered by Dincel is explained as follows:
Crack Controllers
In addition to
providing a permanent polymer shell for ideal curing, it also
provides in plan, crack controllers at maximum 125mm length of the wall. The
triangular service spaces on each face of the polymer wall are interconnected by a
web-joiner with a 115mm diameter hole at 150mm centres for the height of the wall
module. This one-fourth reduction in cross-section in the vertical plane is adequate to
ensure that the cracks occur at this weakened plane location.
The most extreme design shrinkage strain after 30 years for 100mm thickness
(minimum concrete thickness for
at control joint is 150mm) in accordance
with AS-3600-2009 table 3.1.7.2 is 800 microstrain for the worst condition represented
by fc 25MPa, the 50 and arid environment. Based upon this value the calculated
minimum crack size is as follows;
Crack width = Strain multiplied by the distance between crack inducers.
Maximum shrinkage = 800 x 10-6 x 125mm = 0.1mm
The assumptions such as 800 microstrain, hypothetical wall thickness of 150mm and
ignoring the permanent presence of the polymer skin indicates to us that the maximum
crack width within an
will not exceed 0.2mm at the crack inducers.
It is therefore considered that the above calculated crack width in conjunction with
having the polymer shell as a permanent curing measure, satisfies the requirements
for the design of the walls as unreinforced. This is also the basis for design of unreinforced walls as allowed by Eurocode and the German Din Code 1045-1.
When considering thermal effects, (i.e. thermal expansion), for Australian conditions it
would not be unreasonable to consider a total thermal variation of 40 C (i.e., +/- 20
C). In accordance with AS3600 2009, the coefficient of thermal expansion is 10 x
10-6 / C. Based upon the above noted values over a length of 125mm which is the
maximum spacing of the crack controllers, the maximum total thermal expansion is as
follows;
Thermal expansion =
Coefficient of thermal expansion x temperature

variation x length
= 10 x 10-6 / C x 40 C x 125 = 0.049 = 0.05mm
Page 27 of 74
Considering the worst case of combined shrinkage and thermal expansion i.e. the
smallest possible shrinkage with the largest possible thermal expansion using a
design shrinkage strain after 30 years for 200mm thickness (maximum concrete
thickness for
at any cross section is 196mm), the calculated shrinkage in
accordance with AS-3600 2009, Table 3.1.7.2 of 500 microstrain for minimum
shrinkage fc = 32 MPa, the 200mm for tropical, near coastal and coastal environment
follows:
Shrinkage = Strain multiplied by the distance between crack inducers.
= 500 x 10-6 x 125mm = 0.0625 = 0.06mm
Therefore the combined worst case effects for combined shrinkage and thermal
expansion is as follows:
Total relative movement = Shrinkage - Expansion = 0.06mm 0.05mm = 0.01mm
It can be seen from the above shrinkage and thermal expansion calculations
that for the worst possible case of combined shrinkage / thermal effects, there
is no resultant expansion and therefore no need for any special expansion joint
provisions.
Based on the above, one could interpret the Australian Concrete Code requirement for
minimum reinforcement for crack control because of the less than ideal curing
conditions that are typically associated with conventional formwork concrete wall
construction.
by contrast offers ideal curing by providing a permanent polymer shell with
regularly spaced crack controllers that hide any cracks developed within the concrete.
After all, any crack, irrespective of how small the crack width is unsightly. The
aesthetic issues due to the use of common brittle wall materials and their wall finishes
are another reason why minimum reinforcement is required. In the case of
,
the polymer shell has the necessary flexibility to hide any cracks.
supports this type of engineering methodology because the omission
of wall reinforcement ensures that the concrete and polymer wall materials of
can be re-cycled when the building structure is demolished at the end
of its useful life to assist our environment.
3S 3.2.2.1
Control Joints
The enclosed environment of

polymer keeps the water within the concrete
mix during its curing process. This results in much more controlled shrinkage of the
concrete filling within the polymer encasement in comparison to
conventionally formed walls. Further to permanent polymer membrane shrinkage
control, the voids for services shown in Figure 4, together with the polymer web link in
between the service voids, significantly weaken the concrete cross section hence
shrinkage cracking occurs at these controlled locations. Therefore, there is no need to
provide additional shrinkage control joints since this provision is provided within every
module. Refer to previous Section 3S - 3.2.2.
Page 28 of 74
It should however be noted that typical building movement expansion joints within the
floor slabs will need to be followed through and incorporated in the
system.
FIGURE 4
Page 29 of 74
3S 3.2.3 Polymer Reinforced Design

and columns are composed of interlocking components that are
filled with concrete to create a monolithic wall. The two faces of the components
consist of services spacers which are held together by webs.
The webs of the components are cored at 150mm centres to horizontally align with
each other during on-site assembly. Approximately 50% of the concrete is monolithic
at the corings of each component. The concrete occurring through the cores of the
component webs interlocks the concrete fill and the polymer component thus creating
composite action between the two materials.
Dincel Construction System Pty Ltd however does not recommend the use of polymer
reinforced design in the case of walls subject to fire unless the polymer is covered by
a non-combustible material. Even though
has excellent fire characteristics,
the polymer shell will burn if it is subjected to externally applied fire sources (the
material does not support its own combustion, it requires an externally on going fire
source for itself to burn) resulting in a significant loss of strength provided by the
polymer / concrete composite actions, unless the polymer is protected from fire
sources.
recommends Engineers to design fire walls (such as sole occupancy
corridors, stair walls) and shear walls ignoring the additional capacity provided by the
polymer unless it is covered by a non-combustible material. However where reserve
capacity is required for earthquakes or extreme winds, the contribution of the polymer
design may be included as an additional factor of safety given the extreme
remoteness of a structure experiencing an earthquake or extreme winds at the same
time as a fire. Engineers are to check load combinations provided by codes such as
AS1170 which do not show fire plus earthquake, or wind plus fire, or wind plus
earthquake plus fire load combinations together.
The tensile forces on the composite structural member for uplift loads (i.e.: wind,
earthquake) or horizontal loads (i.e.: shrinkage and thermal effects on concrete) or
impact loads or static loads (i.e.: earth pressure or water pressure) creating flexural
action within a cross-sectional plane of the member are expected to be significantly
resisted by the high tensile capacity of the polymer skin, webs and the additional
stiffness contributed by the services spacers at each face of each module.
This reserve strength, because of the composite action, is demonstrated by various
research studies including flexural-beam, earthquake shake table and push over tests
in the laboratories of the University of Technology, Sydney. The composite action
provides a semi elasto-plastic action by improving the ductility of the concrete
element. Further information and test results are available on the Dincel website.
Refer BUILDING SOLUTION FOR EARTHQUAKE PRONE REGIONS and Video for
DINCEL EARTHQUAKE TESTING.
Page 30 of 74
3S 3.2.4 Dincel Wall/Blade Column Fire Design

In accordance with Australian Standard AS3600 Concrete Structures Code, all
structural walls, whether they have a fire separating function or not, need to account
for the effect of fire if they are supporting fire rated members such as floors.
AS3600-2009, Clause 5.6.2(b): A column can be designed in accordance with Clause
5.7.2 as a wall provided that the longer cross section dimension of the column is 4
times greater than the shorter dimension. Therefore, the minimum dimensions for
Dincel blade walls to be designed as columns are:
200mm Dincel 195mm (net concrete thickness) x 4 = 780mm
110mm Dincel 105mm (net concrete thickness) x 4 = 420mm
components have the following fire resisting characteristics in
accordance with AS3600 Concrete Structures Code:
Insulation for Walls/Blade Columns

Clause 5.7.1(b) and 5.7.4.3(b) .
200mm Dincel Wall
thickness
= Deff = (1000 x 196.4 12 x 748)/1000 = 187mm or

alternatively by definition in Appendix B
Deff = 189mm > AS3600-2009 Table 5.7.1.175mm
> 240 minutes Fire Resistance Period
110mm Dincel Wall
= Deff = 105mm > AS3600-2009

Table 5.7.1.100mm
> 90 minutes Fire Resistance Period for insulation
Page 31 of 74
Structural Adequacy for Walls/Blade Columns

Structural adequacy fire rating is no longer based on the wall thickness alone as
referred earlier in the Australian concrete code versions such as AS1480 and
AS3600-2001. The designer is now required to consider slenderness, applied
load, load eccentricities and concrete grade under the AS3600-2009 version.
AS3600-2009 allows two methodologies.
(a)
Lower Tier Method AS3600, Table 5.7.2 which is an adaptation from the
EuroCode for conservative approximation. This table only provides values for
minimum 120mm walls which do not cover 110mm Dincel Walls (refer detailed
explanation in Dincels website, Item No: 27 of Common Engineering
Questions).
(b)
Higher Tier Method AS3600, Clause 5.3.3.1(b) by EuroCode BS EN 1992-11:2004. This methodology calculates the ultimate and fire design capacities for
walls less than 120mm and thicker walls/blade columns as well.
The higher tier EuroCode Zone Method adopted by the Dincel Design Tool is a
calculation method to determine the appropriate fire resistance period for a given wall
thickness, wall height, concrete grade, concrete spalling values and first order
eccentricity which is much more reliable than Table 5.7.2 of AS3600-2009.
The EuroCodes Zone Method is developed in an Excel Spreadsheet format named as
the DINCEL DESIGN TOOL which is available for the engineers use upon request
from Dincel Construction System Pty Ltd.
The DINCEL DESIGN TOOL allows:
Slenderness check.
Ultimate strength and fire limit state strengths for:
One or all sides of the wall/blade column subjected to fire.
All load combinations including first order eccentricity allowance.
Varying concrete grades.
The water/cement ratio is critical for the concrete spalling values adopted by
AS3600 and EuroCode). It is highly recommended that the structural
engineer review the document The Use of AS3600 2009/Eurocode for
Dincel Walls and Common Engineering Questions, Item No: 27
available on the Dincel website.
THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE EXAMPLES FROM THE

DINCEL DESIGN TOOL
Page 32 of 74
Page 33 of 74
Page 34 of 74
3S 3.3
200mm Dincel Wall Design for Flexural Bending Strength

and Deep Beams
The design flexural bending strength per metre length of a wall subjected to out-ofplane horizontal forces is in accordance to Clause 11.1(i) & (ii). The concrete wall is
designed as a slab to section 9 of AS3600. The design flexural strength of a concrete
flexural element by first principles (reference Reinforced Concrete 3rd Edition Warner,
Rangan and Hall):
f Mu = f A st f sy d ( 1 - 0.6 A st f sy / b d f c )
f
: capacity reduction factor = 0.8
A st : area of tensile reinforcement steel mm2 per metre

f sy : minimum yield strength of reinforcement - 500 MPa
D
: Net concrete thickness without polymer skin 196.4 mm
Deff : Concrete thickness accounting voids = 192 mm
: effective depth of reinforcement
beff : effective width of wall section, with allowance for wall recesses 1000 mm
f c : characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete at 28 days
The design table gives ultimate flexural bending capacities for a various reinforcement
arrangements and concrete grades.
Page 35 of 74
Page 36 of 74
3S 3.3.1 Dincel Wall Deep Beam Design

The 200mm thick Dincel Wall offers the opportunity to utilise the element as a deep
beam. Deep beam action can be achieved by utilising the Dincel Wall alone or by
engaging floor slab at the top and bottom edges of the wall as flanges to create an I
beam.
Deep beams are advantageous where there is a need to transfer high loads from floor
levels above or to utilise the depth of the wall to span large distances.
The principles of deep beam design are in accordance with AS3600 2009, Section
12 Design of Non-Flexural Members, End Zones and Bearing Surfaces.
When designing deep beams utilising strut tie action it is important to consider the
following:
Check bearing stresses at the supports (refer AS3600 2009, Clause 12.6).
Calculate tension tie force in bottom of beam and provide necessary tension zone
reinforcement (refer AS3600 2009, Clause 2.2.4).
Calculate compression strut forces note that typically for an applied UDL at the
top of the wall the maximum compression strut stress will occur above the
support element bearing surface. The compression strut shall be checked in
accordance with AS3600 2009, Clause 7.2.3.
Check vertical shear capacity giving consideration to shear plane at Dincel web
element (i.e. 115 holes @ 150 cts vertical). Refer to Section 3S 3.5 Vertical
Shear Capacity for 200mm Wall of this manual.
Page 37 of 74
3S 3.4
200mm Dincel Wall In-Plane Horizontal Shear Capacity
The design for in-plane horizontal shear under lateral loads for a braced concrete wall
where Dincel Wall is placed on a concrete slab or footing is as follows:
The design for in-plane horizontal shear stress will be reduced if the Dincel Guide
Track (PG) is used at the base of Dincel Wall. Dincel does not recommend the use of
PG for this reason. Therefore, we design accounting for the full cross section.
The below formulas can be used in a similar way for future Dincel walls thicker than
200mm.
The design in-plane horizontal shear stress strength of the concrete wall per metre
length of wall is calculated as follows:
f u where u = (Asf f sy / sbf + gp / bf) + kco f ct

lesser of (0.2 f c , 10MPa)
f
: capacity reduction factor for shear = 0.7
gp = permanent distributed load normal to the shear interface per unit length,
newtons per millimetre (N/mm). For a conservative result gp = 0 is adopted
= coefficient of friction. Refer Table 8.4.3.
kco = cohesion coefficient. Refer Table 8.4.3.

bf
= average width of the shear plane (mm) for 200mm Dincel Wall = 192mm.
Asf = area of fully anchored shear reinforcement crossing the interface (mm2).
f sy = minimum yield strength of reinforcement - 500 MPa
s
= spacing of anchored shear reinforcement crossing interface (mm)
f ct = characteristic principal tensile strength of the concrete

Refer to Figure 5 for typical shear wall configuration and construction arrangement.
Page 38 of 74
200mm Concrete Wall Design - AS3600 - 2009

In-Plane Horizontal Shear Capacity for Reinforced
and Unreinforced Walls
u = (Asf fsy / sbf + gp / bf) + kco f ct lesser of (0.2 f c , 10MPa) Clause 8.4.3
- design horizontal / longitudinal shear strength per metre length of wall
- model adopted to calculate in-plane shear at the interface of base wall-to-floor.
- it is not possible to produce the tabulated value below if gp = 0 is not adopted.
Designer may adopt gp = 0 for a conservative result or calculate the values below manually for a given gp value.
bf =
fsy =
1/2
f'ct f'c = 0.36 f'c at 28 days . ..Clause 3.1.1.3
- characteristic tensile strength of concrete at 28 days
192 mm
f'ct
25 MPa
1.80 Mpa
500 Mpa
d=
Asf =
f'c =
f'ct
32 MPa
2.04 Mpa
f'ct
0.90 .. Table 8.4.4
40 MPa
2.28 Mpa
length of section adopted under horizontal shear - 1000mm

2
area of single reinforcement bar - N12 = 110mm ; N16 = 200mm
characteristic design strength of concrete in MPa as listed below
Ast - mm 2 / m
kco =
f=
2;
N20 = 310mm
N12 - 384
286.00
N12 - 288
N12 - 192
382.00
573.00
N16 - 384
520.00
N16 - 288
N16 - 192
694.00
1042.00
0.7 - for shear
0.50 .. Table 8.4.3
Calculation checks
Equivalent concrete shear interface area per metre length of wall at wall base-to-floor interface
2
based on 192mm width 1000mm length / metre =
192000 mm / metre
s =
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
25.0
25.0
32.0
32.0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
. reinforcement spacing, see reinforced

wall tables below
f Vuf ( kN per metre length of wall ) .. Unreinforced

f'c
25.0
Unreinforced
120.96
32.0
136.85
40.0
153.00
f Vuf ( kN per metre length of wall ) .. Reinforced

Reinforced - N12 - 333
25.0
224.91
25.0
328.86
32.0
240.80
32.0
344.75
40.0
256.95
40.0
360.90
Horizontal Shear Face

309.96
25.0

498.96
25.0
32.0
325.85
32.0
514.85
40.0
342.00
40.0
531.00

413.91
25.0

672.00
25.0
32.0
429.80
32.0
722.75
40.0
445.95
40.0
738.90
Page 39 of 74
3S 3.5
In-Plane Vertical Shear Capacity for 200mm Walls
The design for in-plane vertical shear stress when designing deep beams shall
account for the reduced direct vertical shear capacity which occurs at the polymer
cross webs which interlink the services voids. As shown in Figure 1, the interlinking
polymer webs have 115mm diameter holes at 150mm centres for 200mm Dincel
Walls. The in-plane vertical shear capacity shall therefore be calculated based upon
the cross-sectional area of the 115mm diameter holes at 150mm centres in
accordance with the provisions for longitudinal shear strength in beams Clause 8.4 of
AS3600 2009. The same formula is adopted for the design of in-plane vertical shear
stress of the concrete wall.
The below formulas can be used in a similar way for future Dincel Walls thicker than
200mm and with different size of web holes.
The shear stress capacity per metre height of wall is calculated as follows:
f u where u = (Asf f sy / sbf + gp / bf) + kco f ct

lesser of (0.2 f c , 10MPa)
f
: capacity reduction factor for shear = 0.7
gp = permanent distributed load normal to the shear interface per unit length,
newtons per millimetre (N/mm). In case of vertical shear gp = 0 (e.g. no
prestressing force).
= coefficient of friction. Refer Table 8.4.3.
kco = cohesion coefficient. Refer Table 8.4.3.

bf
= For 200mm Dincel Wall, equivalent width of the shear plane (mm)
accommodating Dincel web holes = 115 at 150mm centres = area length
(i.e. 1m) = 6.67 x ( x1152 4) 1000 = 69.2mm
Asf = area of fully anchored shear reinforcement crossing the interface (mm2).
f sy = minimum yield strength of reinforcement - 500 MPa
s
= spacing of anchored shear reinforcement crossing interface (mm)
f ct = characteristic principal tensile strength of the concrete

Refer to Figure 5 for typical shear wall configuration and construction arrangement.
Page 40 of 74
3S 3.6
Earthquake and Ductility Provisions
The basic structural model that is considered for analysis utilising Dincel Wall under
earthquake design is outlined in Section 3S 3.1 Structural Analysis for Walls of this
manual.
This model relies on shear wall elements being sufficiently located throughout the
building structure to resist earthquake induced loads.
The earthquake actions to be considered are clearly defined in AS1170, Part 4, 2007
Earthquake Actions in Australia.
The Dincel shear wall elements are designed in accordance with AS3600 2009,
Section 11 Design of Walls and in accordance with Section 3S 3.4 and 3.5 of this
manual.
All other vertical loads carrying elements that do not resist lateral earthquake loads
must be designed to satisfy the requirements of AS1170.4, Section 5, Earthquake
Design and in particular Clause 5.2.4 Walls, which requires walls to be restrained at
all floors and anchored at the roof.
Most importantly AS3600 2009, Appendix C, Requirements for Structures Subject to
Earthquake Action, Section C5 Ductile Shear Walls has specific requirements
outlined as follows:
Boundary elements to be provided at discontinuous edges of shear walls and

around openings.
In the case of a single length of wall, each end is considered a boundary element.
In the case of a 4 sided wall element such as lift shaft or stair well there are no
boundary elements with the exception of the opening.
Boundary elements shall be provided where the reinforcement within the storey
height is not restrained in accordance with Clause 10.7.4 and the calculated
extreme fibre compressive stress in the wall exceeds 0.15 fc.
For buildings not more than 4 storeys in height, the above condition is deemed to
be satisfied if additional edge reinforcement consisting of 2N16 bars are provided
at the ends of single length walls (i.e. boundary elements). This would also be
provided around all free sides of an opening.
For buildings greater than 4 storeys we recommend that 4 sided lift shafts/stair
wells be adopted as the primary earthquake lateral load resisting system
eliminating discontinuous edges and minimising extreme fibre compressive
stresses to maximum 0.15 fc.
The reinforcement ratio pw in the vertical direction shall be not less than 0.0025.
As the theoretical wall thickness for Dincel Wall is 192mm (<200mm), only central
reinforcement is required.
For Dincel Wall, this percentage of reinforcement equates to 0.0025 x 192 x
1,000 = 480mm2/m = N16 416mm central minimum. We therefore recommend
N16 333 central vertically and N16 300 central horizontally to suit Dincels
configuration.
Page 41 of 74

In-Plane Vertical Shear Capacity for Reinforced
and Unreinforced Walls
u = (Asf fsy / sbf + gp / bf) + kco f ct lesser of (0.2 f c , 10MPa) Clause 8.4.3
- design longitudinal shear strength per metre height of wall
- gp = 0 for vertical shear
bf =
f'ct
fsy =
f'ct f'c = 0.36 f'c 1/2 at 28 days . ..Clause 3.1.1.3

- characteristic tensile strength of concrete at 28 days
69.2 mm
25 MPa
1.80 Mpa
500 Mpa
d=
Asf =
f'c =
f'ct
32 MPa
2.04 Mpa
0.90 .. Table 8.4.4
40 MPa
2.28 Mpa
height of section adopted under longitudinal shear - 1000mm

area of single reinforcement bar - N12 = 110mm 2 ; N16 = 200mm 2; N20 = 310mm 2
f=
characteristic design strength of concrete in Mpa as listed below
f'ct
kco =
0.7 - for shear
0.50 .. Table 8.4.3
Equivalent concrete shear interface area per metre height of wall based
on 6.67 x 115mm diameter holes at 150mm centres - ( b f d ) eqv. / metre =
2
69245 mm / metre
s =
. reinforcement spacing, see reinforced

wall tables below
f Vuf ( kN per metre height of wall ) .. Unreinforced

f'c
25.0
Unreinforced
43.62
32.0
49.36
40.0
55.18
f Vuf ( kN per metre height of wall ) .. Reinforced

159.01
25.0

242.36
25.0
32.0
164.74
32.0
280.47
40.0
170.57
40.0
286.30
25.0
242.36
25.0
242.36
32.0
259.15
32.0
310.22
40.0
264.97
40.0
387.77
Vertical Shear face

242.36
25.0

242.36
25.0
32.0
310.22
32.0
310.22
40.0
380.36
40.0
387.77
Page 42 of 74
FIGURE 5
Page 43 of 74
FIGURE 5 (CONTINUED)
Page 44 of 74
List of References
Reference 1
AS 3600 2009
Australian Standard Concrete Structures
Reference 2
AS 3700 2001
Australian Standard Masonry Structures
Reference 3
ACI Standard 318
American Building Code Requirements
Reference 4
CSA Standard A23.3 Canadian Building Code Requirements
Reference 5
DIN 1045-1
Reference 6
Concrete Structures (1998)., Warner R.F., Rangan B.V., Hall A.S.,

Faulkes K.A.
Reference 7
Simplified Non- Linear Design of Unreinforced Walls., Darmstadt,

Concrete 18 (2003).,Christian Glock, Carl-Alexander Graubner.
http://www.darmstadt-concrete.de/2003/simplified.html
Reference 8
EuroCode2
German Building Code Requirements
Page 45 of 74
APPENDIX
Tables of Axial Capacities
APPENDIX A
Table A1
200mm Axial Wall Capacity : Charts A1 1 and A1 2.
Table A2
110mm Axial Wall Capacity : Charts A2 1 and A2 2.
APPENDIX B
Certification by the University of New South Wales.
Page 46 of 74
Table A1
Axial Wall Capacity

- this table provides compressive strength in accordance with AS3600-2009, Section 11 and does not include
FRL considerations (i.e AS3600-2009, Section 5). Refer to section 3.2.4 of this manual for FRL requirements.
- for walls subject to in-plane vertical forces only
tw =
187 mm - wall thickness
f=
0.6
6.000 metres - maximum wall height
maximum effective height to thickness ( Hwe / tw ) 30
k=
0.75
Effective design heights: 0.75 Hw for rotational restraint at end of walls;

f Nu ( kN / m)
e min = 0.05 tw
f'c
Hw
(m)
1.000
1.125
1.250
1.375
1.500
1.625
1.750
1.875
2.000
2.125
2.250
2.375
2.500
2.625
2.750
2.875
3.000
3.125
3.250
3.375
3.500
3.625
3.750
3.875
4.000
4.125
4.250
4.375
4.500
4.625
4.750
4.875
5.000
5.125
5.250
5.375
5.500
5.625
5.750
5.875
6.000
25.0
1560.36
1554.61
1548.18
1541.07
1533.29
1524.83
1515.69
1505.88
1495.39
1484.22
1472.38
1459.86
1446.66
1432.78
1418.23
1403.01
1387.10
1370.52
1353.26
1335.32
1316.71
1297.42
1277.46
1256.82
1235.50
1213.50
1190.83
1167.48
1143.45
1118.75
1093.37
1067.31
1040.58
1013.17
985.08
956.31
926.87
896.76
865.96
834.49
802.34
32.0
1997.26
1989.90
1981.67
1972.57
1962.61
1951.78
1940.09
1927.53
1914.10
1899.80
1884.64
1868.62
1851.72
1833.96
1815.34
1795.85
1775.49
1754.26
1732.17
1709.22
1685.39
1660.70
1635.15
1608.72
1581.43
1553.28
1524.26
1494.37
1463.62
1432.00
1399.51
1366.16
1331.94
1296.85
1260.90
1224.08
1186.40
1147.85
1108.43
1068.15
1027.00
40.0
2496.58
2487.38
2477.09
2465.72
2453.26
2439.73
2425.11
2409.41
2392.62
2374.75
2355.80
2335.77
2314.65
2292.46
2269.17
2244.81
2219.36
2192.83
2165.22
2136.52
2106.74
2075.88
2043.93
2010.90
1976.79
1941.60
1905.32
1867.96
1829.52
1790.00
1749.39
1707.70
1664.92
1621.06
1576.13
1530.10
1483.00
1434.81
1385.54
1335.18
1283.75
f Nu ( kN / m)
e = tw / 6
25.0
32.0
40.0
1324.74
1318.99
1312.56
1305.45
1297.67
1289.21
1280.07
1270.26
1259.77
1248.60
1236.76
1224.24
1211.04
1197.16
1182.61
1167.39
1151.48
1134.90
1117.64
1099.70
1081.09
1061.80
1041.84
1021.20
999.88
977.88
955.21
931.86
907.83
883.13
857.75
831.69
804.96
777.55
749.46
720.69
691.25
661.14
630.34
598.87
566.72
1695.67
1688.31
1680.08
1670.98
1661.02
1650.19
1638.49
1625.93
1612.50
1598.21
1583.05
1567.02
1550.13
1532.37
1513.74
1494.25
1473.89
1452.67
1430.58
1407.62
1383.80
1359.11
1333.55
1307.13
1279.84
1251.69
1222.66
1192.78
1162.02
1130.40
1097.92
1064.56
1030.34
995.26
959.31
922.49
884.80
846.25
806.84
766.55
725.40
2119.59
2110.38
2100.10
2088.73
2076.27
2062.74
2048.12
2032.42
2015.63
1997.76
1978.81
1958.78
1937.66
1915.46
1892.18
1867.82
1842.37
1815.84
1788.22
1759.53
1729.75
1698.89
1666.94
1633.91
1599.80
1564.61
1528.33
1490.97
1452.53
1413.00
1372.40
1330.70
1287.93
1244.07
1199.13
1153.11
1106.00
1057.82
1008.54
958.19
906.75
f Nu = 0.6 ( tw - 1.2e - 2e a ) 0.6 f'c .. Clause 11.5.1

e =
ea=
f'c =
tw =
eccentricity of load in accordance to Clause 11.5.2 in mm

( Hwe ) 2 / 2500 tw - Hwe being effective design wall height in mm
characteristic design strength on concrete - Mpa
reduced wall thickness in mm - to account for vertical voids
- Clause 5.7.1.b, 5.7.4.3.b and 5.7.4.2.a.
Effective Heights:
Hw =
Both ends of wall restrained against roatation; 0.75 Hw
actual wall height in metres
Hwe = 0.75 Hw
Page 47 of 74
Page 48 of 74
Page 49 of 74
Table A2
Axial Wall Capacity

- this table provides compressive strength in accordance with AS3600-2009, Section 11 and does not include
FRL considerations (i.e AS3600-2009, Section 5). Refer to section 3.2.4 of this manual for FRL requirements.
- for walls subject to in-plane vertical forces only
tw =
f=
105 mm - wall thickness
0.6
4.200 metres - maximum wall height
Maximum effective height to thickness ( Hwe / tw ) / 30

k=
0.75
Effective design heights: 0.75 Hw for rotational restraint at end of walls;

f Nu ( kN / m)
e min = 0.05 tw
Hw
f'c
1.000
1.100
1.200
1.300
1.400
1.500
1.600
1.700
1.800
1.900
2.000
2.100
2.200
2.300
2.400
2.500
2.600
2.700
2.800
2.900
3.000
3.100
3.200
3.300
3.400
3.500
3.600
3.700
3.800
3.900
4.000
4.100
4.200
2.800
f Nu ( kN / m)
e = tw / 6
25.0
32.0
40.0
849.73
841.63
832.76
823.11
812.70
801.51
789.56
776.83
763.33
749.06
734.01
718.20
701.61
684.26
666.13
647.23
627.56
607.11
585.90
563.91
541.16
517.63
493.33
468.26
442.41
415.80
388.41
360.26
331.33
301.63
271.16
239.91
207.90
1087.65
1077.28
1065.93
1053.59
1040.26
1025.94
1010.63
994.34
977.06
958.79
939.54
919.30
898.07
875.85
852.64
828.45
803.27
777.11
749.95
721.81
692.68
662.56
631.46
599.37
566.29
532.22
497.17
461.13
424.10
386.08
347.08
307.09
266.11
1359.57
1346.61
1332.41
1316.98
1300.32
1282.42
1263.29
1242.93
1221.33
1198.49
1174.42
1149.12
1122.58
1094.81
1065.81
1035.57
1004.09
971.38
937.44
902.26
865.85
828.21
789.33
749.21
707.86
665.28
621.46
576.41
530.13
482.61
433.85
383.86
332.64
25.0
717.43
709.33
700.46
690.81
680.40
669.21
657.26
644.53
631.03
616.76
601.71
585.90
569.31
551.96
533.83
514.93
495.26
474.81
453.60
431.61
408.86
385.33
361.03
335.96
310.11
283.50
256.11
227.96
199.03
169.33
138.86
107.61
75.60
32.0
40.0
918.31
907.94
896.59
884.24
870.91
856.59
841.29
825.00
807.72
789.45
770.19
749.95
728.72
706.51
683.30
659.11
633.93
607.76
580.61
552.47
523.34
493.22
462.12
430.03
396.95
362.88
327.83
291.79
254.76
216.74
177.74
137.75
96.77
1147.89
1134.93
1120.73
1105.30
1088.64
1070.74
1051.61
1031.25
1009.65
986.81
962.74
937.44
910.90
883.13
854.13
823.89
792.41
759.70
725.76
690.58
654.17
616.53
577.65
537.53
496.18
453.60
409.78
364.73
318.45
270.93
222.17
172.18
120.96
f Nu = 0.6 ( tw - 1.2e - 2e a ) 0.6 f'c .. Clause 11.5.1

e =
ea=
eccentricity of load in accordance to Clause 11.5.2 in mm

( Hwe ) 2 / 2500 tw - Hwe being effective design wall height in mm
f'c =
characteristic design strength on concrete - Mpa
tw =
reduced wall thickness in mm - to account for the pvc parts

- Clause 5.7.2.b, 5.12.3.b and 5.12.2.a.
Effective Heights:
Hw =
Both ends of wall restrained against roatation; 0.75 Hw or 0.75 L l
actual wall height in metres
Hwe = 0.75 Hw
Page 50 of 74
Page 51 of 74
Page 52 of 74
APPENDIX B
Certification of Dincel Construction System by Professor

Mark Bradford, University of New South Wales UNSW
Global Pty Limited, July 2014
WALL JOINTS ?
NOT REQUIRED WITH DINCEL-WALLS
CRACK CONTROL
JOINTS AT 125MM
CENTRES
EUROCODE, AMERICAN, BRITISH, GERMAN AND OTHER

INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING CODES ALL ALLOW
UNREINFORCED PLAIN CONCRETE WALLS PROVIDED
CRACK CONTROL MEASURES ARE ADOPTED.
Page 53 of 74
Page 54 of 74
Page 55 of 74
Page 56 of 74
Page 57 of 74
Page 58 of 74
Page 59 of 74
Page 60 of 74
Page 61 of 74
Page 62 of 74
Page 63 of 74
Page 64 of 74
Page 65 of 74
Page 66 of 74
Page 67 of 74
Page 68 of 74
Page 69 of 74
Page 70 of 74
Page 71 of 74
Page 72 of 74
Page 73 of 74
Page 74 of 74

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dincel Construction

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

The 2005 version was certified by the University of New South

The information certified in Revision 3 has been maintained. The

AS3600 2001 reference changed to AS3600 2009.

125mm diameter web holes reduced to 115mm holes for

110mm wall axial capacity introduced.

Dincel Design Tool complying with EuroCode2 introduced for

The information certified in Revision 4 has been maintained. The

200P-3 Corner Profile introduced.

AS3700 2001 reference changed to AS3700 2011.

In-Plane horizontal shear capacity and In-Plane vertical shear

110mm and 200mm wall axial capacity tables revised.

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

can be utilised in the following areas:

Private residences, villas and townhouses.

Basement walls below permanent water table, earth retaining,

Water (detention, retention, stormwater pits), fish farming tanks,

Bushfire Prone Areas, mine subsidence areas, sound barriers,

The benefits for engineers specifying Dincel Construction System are:

Reduction or elimination of engineers liability due to wall cracking and durability

Load bearing concrete walls which provide:

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

Superior cost and time effectiveness alternative in comparison to frame

load bearing concrete wall system is significantly stronger than other

based on the EuroCode which is a more reliable design methodology in

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

Structural Engineering Table of Contents

3S 3.0 Structural Design

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

Design Manual Use

Unreinforced axially loaded walls.

Material and Product Specification

Materials that make up concrete are

Used most frequently everywhere.

Most versatile, can be formed to any

Recyclable - the reinforcing bars makes it

If perfect durability conditions are

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

Concrete mix-design, curing and quality of materials used.

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

s high slump concrete

Plastic Drying Shrinkage Cracking

(B) CRACKS OCCURRING AFTER HARDENING

Dincel Wall has been tested by

The later stages of Drying

The permanent polymer skin of

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

(C) CRACKING AS A RESULT OF APPLIED LOADINGS

The vertical reinforcement is provided

The monolithic concrete through the

The permanent polymer shell of

increases concrete strength and durability

An effective barrier against chemical attacks.

The individual components described are as follows:

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

PLAN 200mm DINCEL WALL ASSEMBLY

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

PLAN 110mm DINCEL WALL ASSEMBLY

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc