3S Structural Engineering Design Manual Revision 5

Dincel Construction
System
3 S S t r u c t u r a l E n g in e e r in g
De s ig n Ma n u a l
R e v is io n 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 88 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

Dincel Construction
System
3S Structural Engineering Design
Manual Revision 5
REVISIONS
Revision 3 The 2005 version was certified by the University of New South
February 2007 Wales following company name change.
Revision 4 The information certified in Revision 3 has been maintained. The

July 2012 following revisions/additions are introduced.
• 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.
Revision 5 The information certified in Revision 4 has been maintained. The

April 2014 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.

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-façade 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.
Bushfire Prone Areas, mine subsidence areas, sound barriers,

prevent the migration of contaminated ground water,
Special Uses 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.

➢ 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 world’s 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 formwork’s 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, flexible-
versatile, easy and fast to install. Eliminates the majority of occupational, health
and safety issues. Refer Dincel’s website “Dincel Solution for Construction
Safety”.

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 In-

Plane 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

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
▪ Used most frequently everywhere. installation difficulties, reduces
construction related wastages and
▪ Most economical depending on its accidents. The relative cost of wall is
formwork cost. reduced by up to 30%.
▪ Most versatile, can be formed to any In most cases walls do not

shape with some formwork difficulties. require reinforcing bars.
▪ Recyclable - the reinforcing bars makes it Durability offered by

difficult. reduces the need for higher cement
content.
▪ If perfect durability conditions are
achieved, concrete can last 50,000 years. enhances concrete
Refer performance by eliminating the
www.matse1.mse.uiuc.edu/ntw/concrete/concrete.doc 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
concrete’s 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
Formwork Movement
The conventional formwork movement ’s formwork is factory
depends on the quality of formwork made, precise dimensions which are
and installation methodology. not reliant on the workmanship
skills.

Settlement ’s high slump concrete
Settlement of the cement pastes with maximum 20mm aggregate
around the reinforcing bars or size, eliminated or minimised
aggregate. The bigger the aggregate reinforcement quantity mainly
and reinforcing bars the more avoids this problem. The tapping of
pronounced settlement cracks are. the formwork with a
rubber mallet or the use of 25Ø
vibrators assists the consolidation of
concrete further.
Plastic Drying Shrinkage Cracking ’s permanent formwork

Cracks are influenced by wind protects concrete paste against all
velocity, low relative humidity, and these factors (particularly sun and
high air temperature resulting in rapid wind) resulting in evaporation rate of
loss of water in concrete paste due to less than 0.5 kg/m² hour, hence
evaporation. 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
▪ The later stages of Drying Dincel Wall has been tested by

Shrinkage. CSIRO under 6m head of water
▪ Thermal contraction for varying pressure and certified as waterproof.
temperature differences.
▪ Moisture movements due to The permanent polymer skin of
wetting and drying. establishes an effective
▪ Chemical reaction: barrier against the ingress of
> Carbonation – It is the chemical chemicals (chlorides, sulphates, and
reaction between cement and carbon dioxide), oxygen and
carbon dioxide in the air. moisture movements, especially
> Acid attack destroys concrete structures subject to periodic wetting
by converting hardened and drying. The permanent polymer
concrete, and its pore system. skin also allows for a reduced
Impermeability of concrete is of water/cement ratio concrete mix
little consequence in this case. along with a continuation of the
> Sulphate attack, in the cement hydration process. This
presence of water causes results in both increased early
expansion of concrete tensile and compressive strength
compound resulting in cracking. capacity as well as at later stages,
> Alkali attacks avoided by not and less porous concrete. This way
using silica containing greatly improved durability of
aggregates. concrete is achieved in comparison
to concrete with conventional
formwork.

(C) CRACKING AS A RESULT OF APPLIED LOADINGS
The vertical reinforcement is provided The monolithic concrete through the

to resist flexural and direct tensile web holes of modules
stresses where the tensile capacity of interlocks the concrete and the
the concrete is exceeded, resulting in polymer for composite action
cracking. 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 increases concrete strength and durability

over conventional concrete by providing:
▪ 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.

PLAN – 200mm DINCEL WALL ASSEMBLY
FIGURE 1

PLAN – 110mm DINCEL WALL ASSEMBLY
FIGURE 1

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
days dead weight of 3 floor slabs, 3 storeys in height dead
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 way,
must be poured prior to placement of precast planks.
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) 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.
(B) Walls for Factory – Warehousing
(a) Walls used for cladding (e.g. similar to steel portals with pre-cast walling)
purposes f’c 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.

CONCRETE QUANTITY
200mm 110mm
Per cubic metre of concrete 5.5m2 of wall area 9.5m2 of wall area
Per square metre of wall area 0.182m3 of concrete 0.105m3 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 3 MPa to 100 MPa (as specified by design engineer).

Compressive Strength:
AS3600 allows up to 80 MPa. Dincel has already successfully
utilised 80 Mpa concrete.
Water/Cement Ratio • Maximum water/cementitious material ratio = as per

at the Time of Concrete manufacturer’s standards.
Batching:
Design Target Slump • Waterproof Walls (minimum 200mm Dincel) (i.e. basement,
and Aggregate Size: water and sewage tanks, etc.):
➢ 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 Nozzle with internal diameter of 75mm maximum. (100mm nozzle
Size: 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.

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/Eurocode’s 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, fibre-
cement 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 Eurocode’s 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

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 façade 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.

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
Ac , Ag = horizontal area of concrete section; ( mm2 )

e = eccentricity of load measured from centre of member; ( mm )
f ’c = specified compressive strength of concrete at 28 days; ( MPa )
k = effective length factor
(lc) lu (Hwu) = vertical clear distance between supports mm; ( in )
Hwe = effective height of a wall – k x Hwu mm; ( in )
(Pu) Pf (N*) = factored axial load; kN ( lb force )
r = radius of gyration; mm ( in )
(h) t (tw) = thickness of member; mm ( in )

AS3600 Australian Design of Concrete Walls/Blade Columns
For Aspect Radio Greater Than 1 to 4
Non-reinforced plain concrete walls tw tw

not presented in AS3600 e≤ e≥
6 6
Plain Concrete Walls are allowed via AS3600-2009 – Section 11.5 AS3600-2009 – Section 10
Clause 5.3 of AS3600-2009 by For Hwe/tw ≤ 30 with Clause 11.2.1 (a) (ii)
EUROCODE Refer Item 3.2.1.1 and Appendix A of provision
this manual Refer Item 3.2.1.2 of this
manual
Refer Items 3.2.1 and 3.2.4 of this

manual for Dincel Design Tool in
Steel Reinforced Concrete
compliance with the EuroCode
Note
Building Code of Australia requires –
(i) Structural walls functioning as fire walls are to be designed with appropriate fire
rating.
(ii) 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.
Design of Concrete Walls
American ACI Standard 318
`
klc klc kl c kl c kl c
≤ 75 ≤ 75 ≤ 100 ≤ 150 ≤ 200
r r
r r r
lc lc lc lc lc
≤ 24 ≤ 25 ≤ 30 ≤ 50 ≤ 65
h h
h h h
h h h Rebar at Rebar at
e ≤ e > e≤ each centre
6 6 6 face
Pu
≤ 0.06 f”c
Ac
Section Section Section Section Section Section

22.6 22.5 14.5 10.11 14.8 10.10
10.12
Plain Concrete - Steel Reinforced

minimum basement/footing Concrete
wall thickness 190mm

3S – 3.2.1.1 AS3600-2009 Walls/Blade Column Subject to In-
Plane 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:
 Nu =  ( t w - 1.2e - 2e a ) 0.6 f ’c
 : 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).
Unreinforced Axial Wall Capacity
AS3600 Model for ( Hwe / tw ) ≤ 30, Nu = 0.6 ( tw - 1.2e - 2ea ) 0.6 f'c ………………………….. Clause 11.5.1
tw = 187 mm - reduced wall thickness

f'c = 32 Mpa - characteristic design strength ea = ( Hwe )2 / 2500 tw
AS3600 Model ACI Building Code American Model 22.6.5 Eurocode
 Nu ( kN / m)  Pnw ( lb per foot )  Pnw ( kN / m ) Nrd (kN/m)
 = 0.6  (Clause 9.3.5 of ACI Code) = 0.6 Imperial to metric
e = tw / 6 eO = tw / 6 conversion Iw = Floor Clear Height
Hwe = 1.00 Hwu lc = actual height ( in. )
Hwe ( m )  Nu lc ( in )  Pnw lc ( m )  Pnw Iw ( m ) Nrd

1.000 1674.11 39.370 111299.50 1.000 1628.26 1.000 2052.69
1.082 1665.66 42.612 110751.19 1.082 1620.24 1.082 2021.99
1.165 1656.54 45.854 110159.51 1.165 1611.59 1.165 1991.29
1.247 1646.75 49.096 109524.46 1.247 1602.30 1.247 1960.59
1.329 1636.29 52.339 108846.05 1.329 1592.37 1.329 1929.89
1.412 1625.17 55.581 108124.26 1.412 1581.81 1.412 1899.18
1.494 1613.37 58.823 107359.11 1.494 1570.62 1.494 1868.48
1.576 1600.91 62.065 106550.59 1.576 1558.79 1.576 1837.78
1.659 1587.78 65.307 105698.70 1.659 1546.33 1.659 1807.08
1.741 1573.98 68.549 104803.45 1.741 1533.23 1.741 1776.38
1.824 1559.52 71.791 103864.82 1.824 1519.50 1.824 1745.67
1.906 1544.38 75.033 102882.83 1.906 1505.13 1.906 1714.97
1.988 1528.58 78.276 101857.47 1.988 1490.13 1.988 1684.27
2.071 1512.11 81.518 100788.75 2.071 1474.50 2.071 1653.57
2.153 1494.96 84.760 99676.65 2.153 1458.23 2.153 1622.87
2.235 1477.16 88.002 98521.19 2.235 1441.32 2.235 1592.17
2.318 1458.68 91.244 97322.36 2.318 1423.78 2.318 1561.46
2.400 1439.53 94.486 96080.16 2.400 1405.61 2.400 1530.76
2.482 1419.72 97.728 94794.59 2.482 1386.80 2.482 1500.06
2.565 1399.23 100.970 93465.66 2.565 1367.36 2.565 1469.36
2.647 1378.08 104.213 92093.35 2.647 1347.29 2.647 1438.66
2.729 1356.26 107.455 90677.68 2.729 1326.57 2.729 1407.95
2.812 1333.77 110.697 89218.65 2.812 1305.23 2.812 1377.25
2.894 1310.62 113.939 87716.24 2.894 1283.25 2.894 1346.55
2.976 1286.79 117.181 86170.47 2.976 1260.64 2.976 1315.85
3.059 1262.30 120.423 84581.32 3.059 1237.39 3.059 1285.15
3.141 1237.14 123.665 82948.81 3.141 1213.50 3.141 1254.45
3.223 1211.31 126.907 81272.94 3.223 1188.99 3.223 1223.74
3.306 1184.81 130.150 79553.69 3.306 1163.84 3.306 1193.04
3.388 1157.64 133.392 77791.08 3.388 1138.05 3.388 1162.34
3.471 1129.80 136.634 75985.10 3.471 1111.63 3.471 1131.64
3.553 1101.30 139.876 74135.75 3.553 1084.57 3.553 1100.94
ACI Building Code American Model 22.6.5
 Pnw =  0.45 f'c Ag ( 1 - ( lc / 32 h )2 ) ……………………….. Clause 22.6.5.2
 Pnw = lbs. per foot - design axial strength h = 7.36 in - thickness of wall cross-section
f'c = 4800.0 psi - specified compressive strength of concrete
 = ACI Building Code reduction factor Clause 9.3.5  = 0.6
Eurocode Model
Nrd = b × hw × fcd,pl × Ø…………….…..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
Ø = Strength reduction due to eccentricity - Clause 12.6.5.2 (12.11)
Ø = 1.14 x (1 - 2etot/hw) - 0.02 x Io/hw ≤ (1 - 2etot/hw)

COMPARE AS3600 AND EUROCODE
AS3600-2009 – Section 11
The design axial strength for per unit length of a braced wall in compression;
ØNu = 0.6 ( tw - 1.2e - 2ea ) 0.6 f'c
ea = the additional eccentricity (Hwe)²/2500tw
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 × Ø – for ultimate strength axial load capacity.
b × hw = cross sectional area
fcd,pl = f'c for plain concrete
Ø = 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.

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.

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
industry is by removable forms that provides very little concrete curing. on
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.

• 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 f’c 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 un-
reinforced 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

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 f’c = 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.

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

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”.

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)… . thickness
• 200mm Dincel Wall = 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

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 Dincel’s website, Item No: 27 of “Common Engineering
Questions”).
(b) Higher Tier Method – AS3600, Clause 5.3.3.1(b) by EuroCode BS EN 1992-1-
1:2004. 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 EuroCode’s Zone Method is developed in an Excel Spreadsheet format named as

the DINCEL DESIGN TOOL which is available for the engineer’s 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

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-of-
plane 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):
 Mu =  A st f sy d ( 1 - 0.6 A st f sy / b d f ’c )
 : 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
d : 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.

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. Ø 115 holes @ 150 cts vertical). Refer to “Section 3S – 3.5 Vertical
Shear Capacity for 200mm Wall” of this manual.

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:
 τu where -
τu = μ (Asf f sy / sbf + gp / bf) + kco f ’ct
≤ lesser of (0.2 f ’c , 10MPa)
 : 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
μ = 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 = 187mm.
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.

200mm Concrete Wall Design - AS3600 - 2009
In-Plane Horizontal Shear Capacity for Reinforced
and Unreinforced Walls
τu = μ (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. Ast - mm 2 / m
bf = 187 mm f'ct f'c = 0.36 f'c 1/2 at 28 days …. …..Clause 3.1.1.3 N12 - 384 286.00
- characteristic tensile strength of concrete at 28 days N12 - 288 382.00
N12 - 192 573.00
f'ct 25 MPa = 1.80 Mpa f'ct 32 MPa = 2.04 Mpa f'ct 40 MPa = 2.28 Mpa N16 - 384 520.00
N16 - 288 694.00
fsy = 500 Mpa d= length of section adopted under horizontal shear - 1000mm N16 - 192 1042.00
2 2; 2
Asf = area of single reinforcement bar - N12 = 110mm ; N16 = 200mm N20 = 310mm
f'c = characteristic design strength of concrete in MPa as listed below = 0.7 - for shear
μ= 0.90 ….. Table 8.4.4 kco = 0.50 ….. Table 8.4.3 Calculation checks
(a) (b) (a) (b)
25.0 25.0 32.0 32.0
Equivalent concrete shear interface area per metre length of wall at wall base-to-floor interface 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2
based on 187mm width × 1000mm length / metre = 187000 mm / metre 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
s = …. reinforcement spacing, see reinforced
wall tables below
 Vuf ( kN per metre length of wall ) …….. Unreinforced
f'c Unreinforced
25.0 117.81
32.0 133.29
40.0 149.02
 Vuf ( kN per metre length of wall ) …….. Reinforced
Reinforced - N12 - 333 Reinforced - N12 - 166

25.0 221.76 25.0 325.71
Horizontal Shear Face
32.0 237.24 32.0 341.19
40.0 252.97 40.0 356.92

25.0 306.81 25.0 495.81
32.0 322.29 32.0 511.29
40.0 338.02 40.0 527.02

25.0 410.76 25.0 654.50
32.0 426.24 32.0 719.19
40.0 441.97 40.0 734.92

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:
 τu where -
τu = μ (Asf f sy / sbf + gp / bf) + kco f ’ct
≤ lesser of (0.2 f ’c , 10MPa)
 : 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).
μ = 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 = 115Ø at 150mm centres = area ÷ length
(i.e. 1m) = 6.67 x (π 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.

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 f’c.
• 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 f’c.
• 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 Dincel’s
configuration.

200mm Concrete Wall Design - AS3600 - 2009
In-Plane Vertical Shear Capacity for Reinforced
τu = μ (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 = 69.2 mm 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
f'ct 25 MPa = 1.80 Mpa f'ct 32 MPa = 2.04 Mpa f'ct 40 MPa = 2.28 Mpa
fsy = 500 Mpa d= height of section adopted under longitudinal shear - 1000mm
Asf = area of single reinforcement bar - N12 = 110mm 2 ; N16 = 200mm 2; N20 = 310mm 2
f'c = characteristic design strength of concrete in Mpa as listed below = 0.7 - for shear
μ= 0.90 ….. Table 8.4.4 kco = 0.50 ….. Table 8.4.3
Equivalent concrete shear interface area per metre height of wall based
2
on 6.67 x 115mm diameter holes at 150mm centres - ( b f d ) eqv. / metre = 69245 mm / metre

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

25.0 159.01 25.0 242.36
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

25.0 242.36 25.0 242.36
32.0 310.22 32.0 310.22
40.0 380.36 40.0 387.77

FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5 (CONTINUED)

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 German Building Code Requirements
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

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.

200mm Concrete Wall Design - AS3600 - 2009 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 = 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;
 Nu ( kN / m)  Nu ( kN / m)
e min = 0.05 tw e = tw / 6
f'c 25.0 32.0 40.0 25.0 32.0 40.0
Hw 1.000 1560.36 1997.26 2496.58 1324.74 1695.67 2119.59
(m) 1.125 1554.61 1989.90 2487.38 1318.99 1688.31 2110.38
1.250 1548.18 1981.67 2477.09 1312.56 1680.08 2100.10
1.375 1541.07 1972.57 2465.72 1305.45 1670.98 2088.73
1.500 1533.29 1962.61 2453.26 1297.67 1661.02 2076.27
1.625 1524.83 1951.78 2439.73 1289.21 1650.19 2062.74
1.750 1515.69 1940.09 2425.11 1280.07 1638.49 2048.12
1.875 1505.88 1927.53 2409.41 1270.26 1625.93 2032.42
2.000 1495.39 1914.10 2392.62 1259.77 1612.50 2015.63
2.125 1484.22 1899.80 2374.75 1248.60 1598.21 1997.76
2.250 1472.38 1884.64 2355.80 1236.76 1583.05 1978.81
2.375 1459.86 1868.62 2335.77 1224.24 1567.02 1958.78
2.500 1446.66 1851.72 2314.65 1211.04 1550.13 1937.66
2.625 1432.78 1833.96 2292.46 1197.16 1532.37 1915.46
2.750 1418.23 1815.34 2269.17 1182.61 1513.74 1892.18
2.875 1403.01 1795.85 2244.81 1167.39 1494.25 1867.82
3.000 1387.10 1775.49 2219.36 1151.48 1473.89 1842.37
3.125 1370.52 1754.26 2192.83 1134.90 1452.67 1815.84
3.250 1353.26 1732.17 2165.22 1117.64 1430.58 1788.22
3.375 1335.32 1709.22 2136.52 1099.70 1407.62 1759.53
3.500 1316.71 1685.39 2106.74 1081.09 1383.80 1729.75
3.625 1297.42 1660.70 2075.88 1061.80 1359.11 1698.89
3.750 1277.46 1635.15 2043.93 1041.84 1333.55 1666.94
3.875 1256.82 1608.72 2010.90 1021.20 1307.13 1633.91
4.000 1235.50 1581.43 1976.79 999.88 1279.84 1599.80
4.125 1213.50 1553.28 1941.60 977.88 1251.69 1564.61
4.250 1190.83 1524.26 1905.32 955.21 1222.66 1528.33
4.375 1167.48 1494.37 1867.96 931.86 1192.78 1490.97
4.500 1143.45 1463.62 1829.52 907.83 1162.02 1452.53
4.625 1118.75 1432.00 1790.00 883.13 1130.40 1413.00
4.750 1093.37 1399.51 1749.39 857.75 1097.92 1372.40
4.875 1067.31 1366.16 1707.70 831.69 1064.56 1330.70
5.000 1040.58 1331.94 1664.92 804.96 1030.34 1287.93
5.125 1013.17 1296.85 1621.06 777.55 995.26 1244.07
5.250 985.08 1260.90 1576.13 749.46 959.31 1199.13
5.375 956.31 1224.08 1530.10 720.69 922.49 1153.11
5.500 926.87 1186.40 1483.00 691.25 884.80 1106.00
5.625 896.76 1147.85 1434.81 661.14 846.25 1057.82
5.750 865.96 1108.43 1385.54 630.34 806.84 1008.54
5.875 834.49 1068.15 1335.18 598.87 766.55 958.19
6.000 802.34 1027.00 1283.75 566.72 725.40 906.75
 Nu = 0.6 ( tw - 1.2e - 2e a ) 0.6 f'c ………………………………………….. Clause 11.5.1
e = eccentricity of load in accordance to Clause 11.5.2 in mm
ea= ( 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 vertical voids

- Clause 5.7.1.b, 5.7.4.3.b and 5.7.4.2.a.
Effective Heights: Both ends of wall restrained against roatation; 0.75 Hw
Hw = actual wall height in metres Hwe = 0.75 Hw

110mm Concrete Wall Design - AS3600 - 2009 Table A2
Axial Wall Capacity
tw = 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; 2.800
 Nu ( kN / m)  Nu ( kN / m)
e min = 0.05 tw e = tw / 6
Hw f'c 25.0 32.0 40.0 25.0 32.0 40.0
1.000 849.73 1087.65 1359.57 717.43 918.31 1147.89
1.100 841.63 1077.28 1346.61 709.33 907.94 1134.93
1.200 832.76 1065.93 1332.41 700.46 896.59 1120.73
1.300 823.11 1053.59 1316.98 690.81 884.24 1105.30
1.400 812.70 1040.26 1300.32 680.40 870.91 1088.64
1.500 801.51 1025.94 1282.42 669.21 856.59 1070.74
1.600 789.56 1010.63 1263.29 657.26 841.29 1051.61
1.700 776.83 994.34 1242.93 644.53 825.00 1031.25
1.800 763.33 977.06 1221.33 631.03 807.72 1009.65
1.900 749.06 958.79 1198.49 616.76 789.45 986.81
2.000 734.01 939.54 1174.42 601.71 770.19 962.74
2.100 718.20 919.30 1149.12 585.90 749.95 937.44
2.200 701.61 898.07 1122.58 569.31 728.72 910.90
2.300 684.26 875.85 1094.81 551.96 706.51 883.13
2.400 666.13 852.64 1065.81 533.83 683.30 854.13
2.500 647.23 828.45 1035.57 514.93 659.11 823.89
2.600 627.56 803.27 1004.09 495.26 633.93 792.41
2.700 607.11 777.11 971.38 474.81 607.76 759.70
2.800 585.90 749.95 937.44 453.60 580.61 725.76
2.900 563.91 721.81 902.26 431.61 552.47 690.58
3.000 541.16 692.68 865.85 408.86 523.34 654.17
3.100 517.63 662.56 828.21 385.33 493.22 616.53
3.200 493.33 631.46 789.33 361.03 462.12 577.65
3.300 468.26 599.37 749.21 335.96 430.03 537.53
3.400 442.41 566.29 707.86 310.11 396.95 496.18
3.500 415.80 532.22 665.28 283.50 362.88 453.60
3.600 388.41 497.17 621.46 256.11 327.83 409.78
3.700 360.26 461.13 576.41 227.96 291.79 364.73
3.800 331.33 424.10 530.13 199.03 254.76 318.45
3.900 301.63 386.08 482.61 169.33 216.74 270.93
4.000 271.16 347.08 433.85 138.86 177.74 222.17
4.100 239.91 307.09 383.86 107.61 137.75 172.18
4.200 207.90 266.11 332.64 75.60 96.77 120.96
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: Both ends of wall restrained against roatation; 0.75 Hw or 0.75 L l

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.

ADDENDUM
This Addendum incorporates capacity tables for 155mm Dincel Concrete
Wall and 275mm Dincel Concrete Wall in accordance with AS3600 –
2009 for the following:
• The design axial strength of a braced wall in compression.
• The design for in-plane horizontal shear under lateral loads for a
braced wall.
• The design for in-plane vertical shear under lateral loads for a
braced wall.
• The design flexural bending strength of a wall subjected to out-of-
plane horizontal forces.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
Dincel Construction System Pty Ltd (“DCS”) notes that the certification by the University of New South Wales (“UNSW”) on the
Dincel Construction System 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual (hereafter referred to as “3S Manual”) is dated prior to this
Addendum. To address any concerns of application, DCS purports that the UNSW certification nevertheless remains relevant and
applicable to this Addendum which contains the same principles with respect to the Dincel formwork system within the 3S
Manual, the only difference being the addition of new profile thicknesses. At the time of the UNSW certification the new profile
thicknesses, 155mm and 275mm were not available, these were introduced to the market at a later date. Nonetheless as DCS
has applied the same engineering design principles in developing the Addendum to those which were used in preparing the 3S
Manual, DCS further purports that there has not been any significant departure on the assessment principles adopted for the
subject matter which may warrant any doubts on the application of the UNSW certification. Essentially, the underlying engineering
design principles have been applied consistently between the 3S Manual and this Addendum.

155mm Dincel Concrete Wall Design - AS3600 - 2009
Axial Wall Capacity
tw = 150 mm - concrete thickness = 0.6 6.000 metres
maximum effective height to thickness ( Hwe / tw ) ≤ 30
k= 0.75 Effective design heights: 0.75 Hw for rotational restraint at end of walls;
 Nu ( kN / m)  Nu ( kN / m)
e min = 0.05 tw e = tw / 6
f'c 25.0 32.0 40.0 25.0 32.0 40.0
Hw 1.000 1242.00 1589.76 1987.20 1053.00 1347.84 1684.80
(m) 1.125 1234.83 1580.58 1975.73 1045.83 1338.66 1673.33
1.250 1226.81 1570.32 1962.90 1037.81 1328.40 1660.50
1.375 1217.95 1558.98 1948.73 1028.95 1317.06 1646.33
1.500 1208.25 1546.56 1933.20 1019.25 1304.64 1630.80
1.625 1197.70 1533.06 1916.33 1008.70 1291.14 1613.93
1.750 1186.31 1518.48 1898.10 997.31 1276.56 1595.70
1.875 1174.08 1502.82 1878.53 985.08 1260.90 1576.13
2.000 1161.00 1486.08 1857.60 972.00 1244.16 1555.20
2.125 1147.08 1468.26 1835.33 958.08 1226.34 1532.93
2.250 1132.31 1449.36 1811.70 943.31 1207.44 1509.30
2.375 1116.70 1429.38 1786.73 927.70 1187.46 1484.33
2.500 1100.25 1408.32 1760.40 911.25 1166.40 1458.00
2.625 1082.95 1386.18 1732.73 893.95 1144.26 1430.33
2.750 1064.81 1362.96 1703.70 875.81 1121.04 1401.30
2.875 1045.83 1338.66 1673.33 856.83 1096.74 1370.93
3.000 1026.00 1313.28 1641.60 837.00 1071.36 1339.20
3.125 1005.33 1286.82 1608.53 816.33 1044.90 1306.13
3.250 983.81 1259.28 1574.10 794.81 1017.36 1271.70
3.375 961.45 1230.66 1538.33 772.45 988.74 1235.93
3.500 938.25 1200.96 1501.20 749.25 959.04 1198.80
3.625 914.20 1170.18 1462.73 725.20 928.26 1160.33
3.750 889.31 1138.32 1422.90 700.31 896.40 1120.50
3.875 863.58 1105.38 1381.73 674.58 863.46 1079.33
See Note 4.000 837.00 1071.36 1339.20 648.00 829.44 1036.80
See Note 4.125 809.58 1036.26 1295.33 620.58 794.34 992.93
See Note 4.250 781.31 1000.08 1250.10 592.31 758.16 947.70
See Note 4.375 752.20 962.82 1203.53 563.20 720.90 901.13
See Note 4.500 722.25 924.48 1155.60 533.25 682.56 853.20
See Note 4.625 691.45 885.06 1106.33 502.45 643.14 803.93
See Note 4.750 659.81 844.56 1055.70 470.81 602.64 753.30
See Note 4.875 627.33 802.98 1003.73 438.33 561.06 701.33
5.000 594.00 760.32 950.40 405.00 518.40 648.00
5.125 559.83 716.58 895.73 370.83 474.66 593.33
5.250 524.81 671.76 839.70 335.81 429.84 537.30
5.375 488.95 625.86 782.33 299.95 383.94 479.93
5.500 452.25 578.88 723.60 263.25 336.96 421.20
5.625 414.70 530.82 663.53 225.70 288.90 361.13
5.750 376.31 481.68 602.10 187.31 239.76 299.70
5.875 337.08 431.46 539.33 148.08 189.54 236.93
6.000 297.00 380.16 475.20 108.00 138.24 172.80
f'c = characteristic design strength of concrete - Mpa
tw = concrete thickness in mm
Effective Heights: Both ends of wall restrained against rotation; 0.75 Hw

155mm Dincel Wall Strength to AS3600-2009, Section 11
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.
e min = 0.05 tw; k = 0.75 rotational restraint

2500
2000
40 Mpa
1500
32 MPa
Page 77 of 88
1000
25 MPa
500
Strength (  Nu ) - kN per m
0
0 00 2 50 5 00 7 50 0 00 2 50 5 00 7 50 0 00 2 50 5 00 7 50 0 00 2 50 5 00 7 50 0 00 2 50 5 00 7 50 0 00
1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. 4. 5. 5. 5. 5. 6.
Actual Wall Height ( Hw ) - mm
tw (concrete thickness) = 150mm
3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

e = tw / 6; k = 0.75 rotational restraint
1800
1600
1400
40 MPa
1200
Page 78 of 88
1000
32 MPa
800
25 MPa
600
400
200
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 25 50 75 00 25 50 75 00 25 50 75 00 25 50 75 00 25 50 75 00
1. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 2. 2. 3. 3. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. 4. 5. 5. 5. 5. 6.


Axial Wall Capacity
tw = 270 mm - concrete thickness = 0.6 8.000 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; 7.200
 Nu ( kN / m)  Nu ( kN / m)
e min = 0.05 tw e = tw / 6
Hw f'c 25.0 32.0 40.0 25.0 32.0 40.0
1.000 2269.20 2904.58 3630.72 1929.00 2469.12 3086.40
1.219 2261.92 2895.26 3619.07 1921.72 2459.80 3074.75
1.438 2253.20 2884.10 3605.13 1913.00 2448.65 3060.81
1.656 2243.05 2871.11 3588.88 1902.85 2435.65 3044.56
1.875 2231.47 2856.28 3570.35 1891.27 2420.82 3026.03
2.094 2218.44 2839.61 3549.51 1878.24 2404.15 3005.19
2.313 2203.99 2821.10 3526.38 1863.79 2385.65 2982.06
2.531 2188.09 2800.76 3500.95 1847.89 2365.30 2956.63
2.750 2170.76 2778.58 3473.22 1830.56 2343.12 2928.90
2.969 2152.00 2754.56 3443.20 1811.80 2319.10 2898.88
3.188 2131.80 2728.70 3410.88 1791.60 2293.25 2866.56
3.406 2110.16 2701.01 3376.26 1769.96 2265.55 2831.94
3.625 2087.09 2671.48 3339.35 1746.89 2236.02 2795.03
3.844 2062.58 2640.11 3300.13 1722.38 2204.65 2755.81
4.063 2036.64 2606.90 3258.63 1696.44 2171.45 2714.31
4.281 2009.26 2571.86 3214.82 1669.06 2136.40 2670.50
4.500 1980.45 2534.98 3168.72 1640.25 2099.52 2624.40
4.719 1950.20 2496.26 3120.32 1610.00 2060.80 2576.00
4.938 1918.52 2455.70 3069.63 1578.32 2020.25 2525.31
5.156 1885.40 2413.31 3016.63 1545.20 1977.85 2472.31
5.375 1850.84 2369.08 2961.35 1510.64 1933.62 2417.03
5.594 1814.85 2323.01 2903.76 1474.65 1887.55 2359.44
5.813 1777.42 2275.10 2843.88 1437.22 1839.65 2299.56
6.031 1738.56 2225.36 2781.70 1398.36 1789.90 2237.38
6.250 1698.26 2173.78 2717.22 1358.06 1738.32 2172.90
6.469 1656.53 2120.36 2650.45 1316.33 1684.90 2106.13
6.688 1613.36 2065.10 2581.38 1273.16 1629.65 2037.06
6.906 1568.76 2008.01 2510.01 1228.56 1572.55 1965.69
7.125 1522.72 1949.08 2436.35 1182.52 1513.62 1892.03
7.344 1475.24 1888.31 2360.38 1135.04 1452.85 1816.06
7.563 1426.33 1825.70 2282.13 1086.13 1390.25 1737.81
7.781 1375.98 1761.26 2201.57 1035.78 1325.80 1657.25
8.000 1324.20 1694.98 2118.72 984.00 1259.52 1574.40
f'c = characteristic design strength of concrete - Mpa
tw = concrete thickness in mm
Effective Heights: Both ends of wall restrained against rotation; 0.75 Hw

e min = 0.05 tw; k = 0.75 rotational restraint
4000
3500
40 MPa
3000
32 MPa
2500
25 MPa
Page 80 of 88
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 8 5 3 0 8 5 3 0 8 5 3 0 8 5 3 0
. 00 . 43 . 87 . 31 . 75 . 18 . 62 . 06 . 50 . 93 . 37 . 81 . 25 . 68 . 12 . 56 . 00
1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8
Actual Wall Height (Hw) - mm


e = tw / 6; k = 0.75 rotational restraint
3500
3000
40 MPa
2500
32 MPa
2000
25 MPa
Page 81 of 88
1500
1000
500
0
0 8 5 3 0 8 5 3 0 8 5 3 0 8 5 3 0
00 43 87 31 75 18 62 06 50 93 37 81 25 68 12 56 00
1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 3. 3. 4. 4. 4. 5. 5. 6. 6. 7. 7. 8.

Designer may adopt gp = 0 for a conservative result or calculate the values below manually for a given g p value.
bf = 150 mm f'ct f'c = 0.36 f'c 1/2 at 28 days …. …..Clause 3.1.1.3 N12 - 384
- characteristic tensile strength of concrete at 28 days N12 - 288
N12 - 192
f'ct 25 MPa = 1.80 Mpa f'ct 32 MPa = 2.04 Mpa f'ct 40 MPa = 2.28 Mpa N16 - 384
N16 - 288
fsy = 500 Mpa d= length of section adopted under horizontal shear - 1000mm N16 - 192
(a)
25.0
Equivalent concrete shear interface area per metre length of wall at wall base-to-floor interface 0.00
2
based on 150mm width × 1000mm length / metre = 150000 mm / metre 0.00
0.00
wall tables below
f'c Unreinforced
25.0 94.50
32.0 106.91
40.0 119.53
Vertical Steel - N12 - 333 Vertical Steel - N12 - 166

25.0 198.45 25.0 302.40
Vertical Steel Across
32.0 210.86 32.0 314.81 Horizontal Shear Face
40.0 223.48 40.0 327.43
Vertical Steel - N16 - 333 Vertical Steel - N16 - 166

25.0 283.50 25.0 472.50
32.0 295.91 32.0 484.91
40.0 308.53 40.0 497.53
Vertical Steel - N20 - 333 Vertical Steel - N20 - 166 (*) (*) - At least one value in this table is
25.0 387.45 25.0 525.00 limited by (0.2 f ’c , 10MPa)
32.0 399.86 32.0 672.00
40.0 412.48 40.0 705.43

bf = 69.2 mm f'ct f'c = 0.36 f'c 1/2 at 28 days …. …..Clause 3.1.1.3

μ= 0.90 ….. Table 8.4.4 kco = 0.50 ….. Table 8.4.3
2
on 6.67 x 115mm diameter holes at 150mm centres - ( b f d ) eqv. / metre = 69245 mm / metre

wall tables below
f'c Unreinforced
25.0 43.62
32.0 49.36
40.0 55.18
Horizontal Steel - N12 - 300 Horizontal Steel - N12 - 150 (*)

25.0 159.01 25.0 242.36
32.0 164.74 32.0 280.47
40.0 170.57 40.0 286.30 Horizontal Steel Across

Vertical Shear face
Horizontal Steel - N16 - 300 (*) Horizontal Steel - N16 - 150 (*)
25.0 242.36 25.0 242.36
32.0 259.15 32.0 310.22
40.0 264.97 40.0 387.77
Horizontal Steel - N20 - 300 (*) Horizontal Steel - N20 - 150 (*) (*) - At least one value in this table is
25.0 242.36 25.0 242.36 limited by (0.2 f ’c , 10MPa)
32.0 310.22 32.0 310.22
40.0 380.36 40.0 387.77

Designer may adopt gp = 0 for a conservative result or calculate the values below manually for a given gp value. Ast - mm 2 / m
1/2
bf = 270 mm f'ct f'c = 0.36 f'c at 28 days …. …..Clause 3.1.1.3 2N12 - 384 572.00
- characteristic tensile strength of concrete at 28 days N12 - 288 764.00
N12 - 192 1146.00
f'ct 25 MPa = 1.80 Mpa f'ct 32 MPa = 2.04 Mpa f'ct 40 MPa = 2.28 Mpa N16 - 384 1040.00
N16 - 288 1388.00
f'ct 50 MPa = 2.55 Mpa N16 - 192 2084.00
fsy = 500 Mpa d= length of section adopted under horizontal shear - 1000mm
(a) (b)
25.0 25.0
Equivalent concrete shear interface area per metre length of wall at wall base-to-floor interface 0.00 0.00
2
based on 270mm width × 1000mm length / metre = 270000 mm / metre 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
wall tables below
f'c Unreinforced
25.0 170.10
32.0 192.45
40.0 215.16
50.0 240.56
Refer to Figure 1.0 Refer to Figure 2.0

Vertical Steel: N12 - 275 Vertical Steel: 2N12 - 275
25.0 296.23 25.0 422.35
Figure 1.0 - Central Vertical Steel
32.0 318.57 32.0 444.70 Across Horizontal Shear Face
40.0 341.29 40.0 467.41
50.0 366.68 50.0 492.81

25.0 399.42 25.0 628.74
32.0 421.77 32.0 651.09
40.0 444.48 40.0 673.80
50.0 469.88 50.0 699.20

25.0 525.55 25.0 880.99
32.0 547.89 32.0 903.34

Figure 2.0 - Vertical Steel Each Face
40.0 570.61 40.0 926.05 Across Horizontal Shear Face
50.0 596.00 50.0 951.45

1/2
tw = 94.5 mm f'ct f'c = 0.36 f'c at 28 days …. …..Clause 3.1.1.3
f'ct 50 MPa = 2.55 Mpa
μ= 0.90 ….. Table 8.4.4 kco = 0.50 ….. Table 8.4.3
2
on 6.67 x (2 x 95mm) holes at 150mm centres - ( b f d ) eqv. / metre = 94510 mm / metre

wall tables below
f'c Unreinforced
25.0 59.54
32.0 67.36
40.0 75.31
50.0 84.20
Horizontal Steel: 2N12 - 300 Horizontal Steel: 2N12 - 150 (*)

25.0 290.31 25.0 330.78
32.0 298.13 32.0 423.40 Horizontal Steel Across

Vertical Shear Face
40.0 306.08 40.0 529.25
50.0 314.97 50.0 546.43
Horizontal Steel: 2N16 - 300 (*) Horizontal Steel: 2N16 - 150 (*)
25.0 330.78 25.0 330.78
32.0 423.40 32.0 423.40
40.0 494.89 40.0 529.25
50.0 503.78 50.0 661.57
Horizontal Steel: 2N20 - 300 (*) Horizontal Steel: 2N20 - 150 (*) (*) - At least one value in this table is
25.0 330.78 25.0 330.78 limited by (0.2 f ’c , 10MPa)
32.0 423.40 32.0 423.40
40.0 529.25 40.0 529.25
50.0 661.57 50.0 661.57

In-Plane Vertical Shear Capacity for
Reinforced 275mm Dincel Corner
tw = 94.5 mm f'ct f'c = 0.36 f'c 1/2 at 28 days …. …..Clause 3.1.1.3

f'ct 50 MPa = 2.55 Mpa
μ= 0.90 ….. Table 8.4.4 kco = 0.50 ….. Table 8.4.3
2
on 6.67 x (2 x 95mm) holes at 150mm centres - ( b f d ) eqv. / metre = 94510 mm / metre

wall tables below
Horizontal Steel Across

Vertical Shear Face
 Vuf ( kN per metre height of wall ) -

Reinforced with 2 × N12 'Hairpin' bars (4 shear legs of N12 steel)
Horizontal Steel: Horizontal Steel:

2 × N12 'Hairpin' bars 2 × N12 'Hairpin' bars
(4 shear legs of N12 steel) (4 shear legs of N12 steel)
at 300mm centres (*) at 150mm centres (*)
f'c f'c (*) - At least one value in this table is
25.0 330.78 25.0 330.78 limited by (0.2 f ’c , 10MPa)
32.0 423.40 32.0 423.40
40.0 529.25 40.0 529.25
50.0 545.74 50.0 661.57

Flexural Bending Capacity
tw = Concrete Thickness = 150mm (155mm - 2 × 2.4mm external polymer skin thickness)
Ф= 0.8 fsy = 500 Mpa
Ф Mu = 0.8 × fsy × Ast × d × (1 - 0.6(p × fsy / f'c)) p = Ast / (bd)

beff = 1000 mm
f'c = Characteristic compressive strength - Mpa

Note: Design strength f'c for 25, 32, and 40 Mpa shown only
Ф Mu ( kNm per metre strip)

20mm concrete cover 45mm concrete cover
Area of
reinforcement
Tensile Vertical (mm2 per metre
Reinforcement strip) f'c 25 32 40 25 32 40 d (20mm cover) d (45mm cover) p (2
N12 @ 333mm 339 16.26 16.38 16.47 12.87 12.99 13.08 124 99 0
N16 @ 333mm 603 27.68 28.06 28.34 21.65 22.03 22.31 122 97 0
N20 @ 333mm 942 40.96 41.89 42.55 31.54 32.47 33.13 120 95

Flexural Bending Capacity
tw = Concrete Thickness = 270mm (275mm - 2 × 2.4mm external polymer skin thickness)
Ф= 0.8 fsy = 500 Mpa
Ф Mu = 0.8 × fsy × Ast × d × (1 - 0.6(p × fsy / f'c)) p = Ast / (bd)

beff = 1000 mm
f'c = Characteristic compressive strength - Mpa

Note: Design strength f'c for 25, 32, and 40 Mpa shown only
Ф Mu ( kNm per metre strip)

35mm concrete cover 50mm concrete cover
Area of
reinforcement
Tensile Vertical (mm2 per metre
Reinforcement strip) f'c 25 32 40 25 32 40 d (35mm cover) d (50mm cover) p (
N16 @ 275mm 731 63.81 64.37 64.77 59.42 59.98 60.39 227 212 0
N20 @ 275mm 1,142 96.52 97.89 98.87 89.67 91.04 92.02 225 210 0
N24 @ 275mm 1,645 133.75 136.59 138.62 123.88 126.72 128.75 223 208 0
2×N20 @ 275mm 2,284 180.52 186.00 189.91 166.82 172.29 176.21 225 210 0

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual Revision 5

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

3S Structural Engineering Design Manual Revision 5

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dincel Construction

© Dincel Construction System Pty Ltd

Page 1 of 88 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

Revision 4 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

Revision 5 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.

Page 2 of 88 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

The is a patented concrete formwork system that combines an extruded rigid

The Engineering applications of can be utilised in the following areas:

Private residences, villas and townhouses.

Basements, lift-stair shafts, party-corridor-façade walls of

Replacement of conventional precast, tilt-up and masonry block

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:

➢ Simpler slab design and detailing which results in significant reduction in

Page 3 of 88 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

➢ It is recognised by the world’s authorities that the lateral load resistance of a

Page 4 of 88 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

3S – 1.0 Design Manual Use

3S – 2.0 Material and Product Specification

2.1 Dincel-Wall Unit

3S – 3.0 Structural Design

3.2.1 Structural Design of Concrete Walls/Blade Columns

3.2.1.1 AS3600 – 2009 Walls/Blade Column Subject to In-

3.2.1.2 AS3600-2009 Walls/Blade Column Subject to

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

3.3.1 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

APPENDIX A Table of Axial Load Capacities for Walls – AS3600 – 2009

Page 5 of 88 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

• Unreinforced axially loaded walls.

3S – 2.0 Material and Product Specification

Conventional Concrete Concrete with

▪ Materials that make up concrete are

▪ Most versatile, can be formed to any In most cases walls do not

▪ Recyclable - the reinforcing bars makes it Durability offered by

Page 6 of 88 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

To limit the extent of cracking, the important factors are:

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

Cracking can be divided into three broad categories:

(A) CRACKS OCCURRING BEFORE AND DURING HARDENING

Conventional Concrete Concrete with

Page 7 of 88 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

Plastic Drying Shrinkage Cracking ’s permanent formwork

(B) CRACKS OCCURRING AFTER HARDENING

Conventional Concrete Concrete with

▪ The later stages of Drying Dincel Wall has been tested by

Page 8 of 88 3S Structural Engineering Design Manual - Revision 5.doc

Conventional Concrete Concrete with

The vertical reinforcement is provided The monolithic concrete through the