Seismic Report

Figure 1 provides a breakdown of the Hazard Factors by locality for Australian regions, from AS 1170.4-2007.

Location	Z	Location	Z	Location	Z
Adelaide Albany Albury/Wodonga	0.10 0.08 0.09	Geraldton Gladstone Gold Coast	0.09 0.09 0.05	Port Augusta Port Lincoln Port Hedland	0.11 0.10 0.12
Alice Springs Ballarat Bathurst	0.08 0.08 0.08	Gosford Grafton Gippsland	0.09 0.05 0.10	Port Macquarie Port Pirie Robe	0.06 0.10 0.10
Bendigo Brisbane Broome	0.09 0.05 0.12	Goulburn Hobart Karratha	0.09 0.03 0.12	Rockhampton Shepparton Sydney	0.08 0.09 0.08
Bundaberg Burnie Cairns	0.11 0.07 0.06	Katoomba Latrobe Valley Launceston	0.09 0.10 0.04	Tamworth Taree Tennant Creek	0.07 0.08 0.13
Camden Canberra Carnavon	0.09 0.08 0.09	Lismore Lorne Mackay	0.05 0.10 0.07	Toowoomba Townsville Tweed Heads	0.06 0.07 0.05
Coffs Harbour Cooma Dampier	0.05 0.08 0.12	Maitland Melbourne Mittagong	0.10 0.08 0.09	Uluru Wagga Wagga Wangaratta	0.08 0.09 0.09
Darwin Derby Dubbo	0.09 0.09 0.08	Morisset Newcastle Noosa	0.10 0.11 0.08	Whylla Wollongong Woomera	0.09 0.09 0.08
Esperance Geelong	0.09 0.10	Orange Perth	0.08 0.09	Wyndham Wyong	0.09 0.10
Meekering Region				Islands
Ballidu Corrigin Cunderdin	0.15 0.14 0.22	Meckering Northam Wongan Hills	0.20 0.14 0.15	Christmas Island Cocos Islands Heard Island	0.15 0.08 0.10
Dowerin Goomalling Kellerberrin	0.20 0.16 0.14	Wickepin York	0.15 0.14	Lord Howe Island Macquarie Island Norfolk Island	0.06 0.60 0.08

Based on the abovementioned details, the following conclusions are made:

1) Supreme 76 and Supreme 92 systems are adequate for Importance Level 4 structures and a maximum hazard factor of 0.22.

2) All framing except for Supreme 64 Settings Slimline System are adequate for Importance Level 4 and a maximum hazard factor of 0.08.

3) All framing systems are adequate for Importance Level 3 and a maximum hazard factor of 0.05.

4) All framings have been reviewed under an SLS1 Seismic event only.

5) This review does not take into account the glass wall or doors to be secured by the framing systems.

6) Figure … provides a breakdown of the Hazard Factors by locality for Australian Regions from AS 1170.4-2007.

Therefore, the proposed works detailed in this letter are in accordance with AS 1170.0 – 2002 and AS 1170.4 – 2007, once the application guidelines detailed in this letter are followed.

The capacity of the aluminium framing systems has been summarised in Tables 1 & 2 when considering the following Seismic Parameters;

• Importance Level, 4
• Probability factor, kp (ULS), 1.8
• Probability factor, kp (SLS), 0.25
• Hazard factor, Z, 0.22 (i.e. Cunderdin Area)
• Spectral Shape Factor, Ch (0), 1.3
• Height amplification factor, ax, 3
• Component importance factor, Ic, 1
• Component amplification factor, ac, 1
• Component ductility factor, Rc, 1

Under the above Seismic parameters, all systems besides the Supreme 76 and Supreme 92 framing systems are inadequate.

Reducing the Hazard factor only produces the results shown in Tables 3 & 4;

• Importance Level, 4
• Probability factor, kp (ULS), 1.8
• Probability factor, kp (SLS), 0.25
• Hazard factor, Z, 0.08 (i.e. Sydney Area)
• Spectral Shape Factor, Ch (0), 1.3
• Height amplification factor, ax, 3
• Component importance factor, Ic, 1
• Component amplification factor, ac, 1
• Component ductility factor, Rc, 1

Under the above Seismic Parameters, Supreme 64 Settings Slimline System is inadequate, and all other systems are adequate.

Reducing the Hazard factor and Importance Level only produces the results shown in Tables 5 & 6;

• Importance Level, 3
• Probability factor, kp (ULS), 1.8
• Probability factor, kp (SLS), 0.25
• Hazard factor, Z, 0.05 (i.e. Brisbane Area)
• Spectral Shape Factor, Ch (0), 1.3
• Height amplification factor, ax, 3
• Component importance factor, Ic, 1
• Component amplification factor, ac, 1
• Component ductility factor, Rc, 1