by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
Concrete In Australia : March 2013
Concrete in Australia VolVol 39 No 1 15 already overheated subcontracting market in Western Australia, that the subcontractors would be unable to supply the volumes of material and labour required to complete the project within the program time. A reliance on any one structural system or structural material was therefore considered a project risk. Consequently, a diverse range of structural framing solutions were subjected to a cost/bene t and risk analysis. e results indicated that for the majority of the buildings, shallow, in situ concrete oor systems would be the preferred framing solution. is framing solution was further developed during the detailed design stage of the project. e study also indicated that prefabricated structural frame systems, precast concrete and structural steelwork would result in deeper oor systems, leading to more complex building services coordination. e prefabricated frame systems would also limit future exibility, re resistance and vibration performance. e main hospital building is highly serviced, and a structural framing and ooring system that would assist in the e ective design and installation of these services was a key design objective. A at plate option was highly favoured by the building services consultants but they also resisted the widespread use of post-tensioning, particularly in the clinical areas. A banded slab system, being the most structurally e cient, was accepted collectively by the consultant team. e banded slab system was further Building the bunker roof. Building B oncology bunker design.