NZGS Ground Anchor Guideline Document Release

One thought on “NZGS Ground Anchor Guideline Document Release”

1. Firstly, thanks to the team who have prepared this very good document. My comments as below:
   1- General. There is a bit of a mixture of terminology for design stages in the Guideline. e.g. concept/detailed design, presumptive/final design, pre-design/design.
   2- Section 5.3.1. “Design and construction team interaction” bullet pts. I would question whether all of these items are really concept design considerations. I think that the first 2 points and possibly the 5th point may be considered at a very high level (i.e. fatal flaws), but if you can’t meet those requirements then why would you even consider anchors?
   3- Fig 5.1. Bottom box refers to “Steps a-e above…”, but those steps are not labeled as such
   4- Table 5-1. Surprised to see a LF of 1.1 for a ULS scenario here.
   5- Fig 5.2 – not referenced in the text?
   6- Table 5-5. SRFs have typically not varied for different load cases as they consider the reliability of the material while load factors consider the likelihood of the event. This would seem to be the equivalent of using higher strength parameters for very unusual loading cases?
   7- 7.3.5. Should the last 3 bullet points be indented?
   8- App D. Great resource, but could do with a bit of a tidy up with regard to material descriptions? for example, are “sandstone”, “ECBF” and “Waitemata Group” all the same material here?
   9- App G. I am not sure about this certificate as it may be construed as one designer taking on design liability for anothers work. Has a legal opinion been sought on this? I would need to run it past our legal/risk team before signing such a document. Also the word “ensure” is one that raises eyebrows in a consultancy.

   Log in to Reply