TN015 AscertainingCompliance V1 0

REF: ASI TN015 Version 1
ASI Head Office

Suite G1, Ground Floor, 25 Ryde Road
Pymble NSW 2073
Tel: 02 8748 0180
Email: enquiries@steel.org.au
Author: P.W.KEY
(ABN)/ACN (94) 000973 839
www.steel.org.au
Date: July 2021 Page 1 of 57
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE TN015 V1
ASCERTAINING COMPLIANCE OF STRUCTURAL STEEL
Synopsis
This Technical Note provides a risk-based fit-for-purpose actionable approach to ascertaining
the compliance of structural steel to meet the performance intent mandated by the NCC and
Australian Standards. The developed ‘steel verification protocol’ allows stakeholders to make
an informed judgement on the most appropriate conformity assessment pathway.
This Technical Note has been reviewed by a panel of industry stakeholders, as detailed in
Appendix A. Their support is gratefully acknowledged.
OUTLINE
Section Description Page
1 Introduction 2
2 The National Construction Code, Standards and performance solutions 6
3 Product conformity, conformity assessment and Australian design Standards 9
4 Steel verification protocol 13
5 Product testing 29
6 Conformity assessment pathway selection 32
7 Responsible steel procurement – a supply chain solution 34
8 Stakeholder responsibilities and WHS 39
9 Responsible steel procurement framework 43
10 References 47
DISCLAIMER: The Australian Steel Institute Limited shall not be liable or responsible in any way whatsoever and expressly
disclaims any liability or responsibility for any loss or damage, claim, proceedings costs or expenses howsoever incurred by any
person whether the client or any third party and whether accruing under statute or in negligence, contract or otherwise at common
law, including but without in any way limited to any loss or damage, claim proceedings costs or expenses incurred as a result of or in
connection with the reliance whether whole or partial by any person as aforesaid upon any part of the contents of this advice.
ASI TECHNICAL NOTE REF: ASI TN015 Version 1 Page 2 of 68
11 Appendices: 49
A. Industry stakeholder review panel
B. Identification and marking of structural steel product
C. Test and inspection certificates
D. Supplier Declaration of Conformity (SDoC)
E. Verification batch testing and inspection
F. Statistical sampling as a means of demonstrating conformity
G. Conformity assessment pathway selection
H. State-based references to NCBP actions
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context
The procurement, fabrication and erection of structural steelwork for buildings, infrastructure and
resources projects involves a supply chain that is as varied as it is long. Contractual relationships
and commercial and political pressures all influence the ultimate procurement scenario, which
can also change markedly over the period of project delivery. The Regulatory environment is also
continually recalibrating, influenced by tensions that exist between our obligations under World
Trade Organisation (WTO) requirements for free trade, performance solutions enabling innovation
and the most fundamental requirements to ensure our community can expect risk-minimised safe
solutions for their workplaces and habitation.
The steel utilised in a project typically passes through a number of stakeholders in its journey
along the supply chain from the manufacturer to inclusion in the steel structure on site. The quality
and traceability of the steel utilised in a project is therefore ultimately dependent on a number of
parties in the supply chain. If any link in this chain is broken, traceability of the product is lost and
the ability to ascertain compliance compromised. Where steel is sourced internationally the same
principles apply but overlaid with the additional requirement to ensure the steel meets the
performance requirements of the NCC and Australian Standards.
Given the complexity and fluidity of supply chains in today’s procurement environment, meeting
duty of care for stakeholders can be challenging. There is a need to establish a common
understanding of the requirements and clearly articulate responsibilities for all parties in the
supply chain. The ‘Steel Verification Protocol’ outlined in this Technical Note establishes a
methodology to ascertain compliance and works in concert with the ‘Steel Procurement
Framework’ outlined in Section 9, the latter establishing stakeholder responsibilities.
As with the majority of construction products, structural steel product intended for the Australian
marketplace must meet the performance intent of:
a. The National Construction Code (NCC) (Ref. 1) for project types covered under the NCC.
b. The Australian Standards called up in either the contractual documentation (usually the
specification) and/or the NCC as applicable to the project type.
This includes both the permanent steelwork and the temporary steelwork required to construct
the permanent structure.
Regardless of the type of project, the compliance pathways specified within the NCC provide a
robust performance-based approach that should be applied to all project types.
Separate and overarching, the Workplace Health and Safety Act (Ref. 2), Regulations and Codes
of Practice provide a basis for ascertaining responsibilities and duty of care for all stakeholders.
The recommendations on ascertaining compliance in this Technical Note are based on three
significant principles:
1. The performance framework established by the NCC.
2. The basic principles of duty of care established under Workplace Health and Safety
legislation, and
3. The quality benchmark established by the relevant Australian Standards.
The primary focus of this Technical Note is on ascertaining the compliance of structural steel, not
fabricated steelwork. However, limited aspects of steelwork fabrication are discussed, primarily to
set the downstream context for the supply of compliant structural steel.
1.2 Abbreviations
ABCB - Australian Building Codes Board

ACRS - Australasian Certification Authority for Reinforcing and Structural Steels
APCC - Australasian Procurement and Construction Council Inc
ASI - Australian Steel Institute
CAB - Conformity Assessment Body
CompMP - Compliance Management Plan
CoP - Code of Practice
DoC - Declaration of Conformity
DTS - Deemed-to-satisfy
FPC - Factory Production Control
ILAC - International Laboratories Accreditation Co-operation
ITT - Initial Type Testing
JAS-ANZ - Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand
LTQ - Long Term Quality
MRA - Mutual Recognition Arrangement (in connection with ILAC)
NCC - National Construction Code
QMS - Quality Management System
SCA - Steelwork Compliance Australia
SDoC - Supplier Declaration of Conformity
WHS - Workplace Health and Safety
1.3 Definitions
Appropriate authority: means the relevant authority with the statutory responsibility to determine
the particular matter (definition from the NCC)
Batch (of structural steel): A group of structural steel product consisting of finished steel of the
same yield stress gradation and product form, treated in the same manner and from the same
heat (generalised from Refs 6, 7, 8, 9)
Conformity assessment: demonstration that specified requirements relating to a product,
process, system, person or body are fulfilled. The concept of conformity assessment is concerned
with the fulfilment of specified requirements, not with the wider concept of conformity. (From AS
ISO/IEC 17000 (Ref. 4))
First-party conformity assessment: conformity assessment activity that is performed by the
person or organisation that provides the object. (From AS ISO/IEC 17000)
Second-party conformity assessment: conformity assessment that is performed by a person or

organisation that has user interest in the object. (From AS ISO/IEC 17000)
Third-party conformity assessment: conformity assessment activity that is performed by a
person or body that is independent of the person or organisation that provides the object, and of
the user interests in the object. (from AS ISO/IEC 17000)
Conformity assessment body: body that performs conformity assessment services. (From AS
ISO/IEC 17000)
Conformity assessment system: rules, procedures and management for carrying out conformity
assessment. (From AS ISO/IEC 17000)
Conformity assessment scheme: the collection of all conformity assessment activities that are
repeatedly applied to a specified group of products, processes, services, systems, persons or
bodies
Declaration of Conformity (DoC): the document that is a first-party attestation that the object of
conformity (product, process or service) fulfills specified requirements
Heat (of steel): A product of a ladle of steel melted in one vessel and processed under the same
conditions (from Refs 6, 7, 8, 9)
Manufacturer: The business operating the hot-rolling process producing the finished steel
product
Procurer/purchaser: Organisation or person who is a recipient from a supplier of a product
manufactured to a Standard
Structural steel: steel manufactured to a recognised steel product Standard and intended for
use in fabricated steel load-carrying structures
Structural steelwork: structural steel that has been fabricated into members, assemblies and
components as part of a load-carrying structure
Supplier: An organisation or person that provides steel products manufactured to a Standard
Trusted relationship: a relationship between two or more parties that has developed based on
a series of interactions whose performance has been judged as successful. The level of trust may
be informal or based on metrics to ensure performance is measured and maintained.
1.4 Outline
This document establishes an actionable pragmatic protocol to ascertain the compliance of
structural steel, framed within the context of the requirements of the National Construction Code
and Australian Standards.
In order to achieve this aim, the document is divided into the following sections:
• Section 2 provides a summary of the requirements of the National Construction Code and
outlines the distinction between a Performance Solution and a Deemed-to-satisfy Solution
before establishing that steel that has not been manufactured to Australian Standards must
be considered a Performance Solution and treated accordingly.
• Section 3 examines the relationship between product conformity and the design Standards
in order to clearly enunciate the requirements for a steel to be considered as conforming to
the referenced Standard.
• Section 4 documents the recommended ‘Steel Verification Protocol’, consistent with the
requirements of the NCC and recognising that there are a number of stakeholders with a
duty of care in the journey steel takes from the manufacturer to the finished structure. Detail
to support the technical basis for the protocol is presented in subsequent sections.
• Section 5 considers the important aspect of product testing in supporting the verification of
steel to meet the performance requirements of the NCC.
• Section 6 outlines the selection of the appropriate conformity assessment pathway to

operationalise the ‘Steel Verification Protocol’. The selection of the conformity assessment
pathway is risk-based and fit-for-purpose.
• Section 7 considers what ‘responsible steel procurement’ and duty of care looks like for
each member of the supply chain, particularly as regards the requirements of WHS
legislation.
• Section 8 clarifies stakeholder responsibilities under the WHS Act and Regulations and
Codes of Practice.
• Section 9 brings together the critical elements of the previous sections to define an
actionable responsible steel procurement framework, including importantly, the need for a
‘Compliance Management Plan’.
Note:
The primary focus of this Technical Note is on ascertaining the compliance of structural steel,
not fabricated steelwork. However, limited aspects of steelwork fabrication are discussed,
primarily to set the downstream context for the supply of compliant structural steel.
ASI is intending to develop a separate Technical Note on ascertaining the compliance of

structural steelwork in due course.
2. THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE

The National Construction Code (NCC) (Ref. 1) is a performance-based code and specifies
means to achieve compliance to a range of Performance Requirements. The performance
requirements outline the minimum necessary standards different buildings or building elements
must attain. References to the NCC cited in this Technical Note are specifically to Volume 1,
applicable to Class 2 to 9 buildings.
Performance Requirements are satisfied by either:
1. A Performance Solution
2. A Deemed-to-Satisfy Solution (DTS)
3. A combination of 1 and 2
Performance Requirements must be verified using one or a combination of the following
Assessment Methods:
• Evidence of suitability in accordance with Part A5 of the NCC
• Verification Method, as outlined in Clause A2.2(2)(b) of the NCC
• Expert judgement, as defined in the NCC
• Comparison with the deemed-to-satisfy provisions of the NCC
The relevant evidence of suitability is defined in Clause A5.2 of the NCC and may be one or a
combination of:
• A current CodeMark Australia or CodeMark Certificate of Conformity
• A current Certificate of Accreditation
• A current certificate issued by a certification body stating the properties and performance
of a material, product, form of construction or design fulfil specific requirements of the
NCC
• A report issued by an Accredited Testing Laboratory
• A certificate or report from a professional engineer or other appropriately qualified person
as defined in the NCC
• Another form of documentary evidence, such as but not limited to a Product Technical
Statement that:
a) demonstrates that a material, product, form of construction or design fulfils specific
requirements of the NCC, and
b) sets out the basis on which it is given and the extent to which relevant standards,
specifications, rules, codes of practice or other publications have been relied upon
to demonstrate it fulfils specific requirements of the NCC.
The Verification Methods may include:
• A calculation
• A test, using a technical procedure
• An inspection (and inspection report)
• Any other acceptable form of certification (acceptable to the appropriate authority)
The verification methods may be those provided in the NCC or such other verification methods
that are acceptable to the appropriate authority. This Technical Note provides a verification
methodology that may be acceptable to the appropriate authority.
The overall NCC verification hierarchy is outlined in Figure 1.
NCC (Regula�on)
Mandates
Performance
Requirement s
Sa�sfied by
• Performance Solu�on
• Deemed -to-sa�sfy (DTS) Solu�on
• Combina�on of above
Verified using
• Evidence of suitability (Part A5)
• Verifica�on Method (Clause A2.2(2)(b))
• Expert judgement
• Comparison with DTS
Evidence of suitability: Verifica�on method:

• Current CodeMark Cer�ficate of Conformity • Calcula�on
• Current Cer�ficate of Accredita�on • Test, using a technical procedure
• Current cer�ficate issued by Cer�fica�on Body • An inspec�on, and inspec�on report
• Report issued by Accredited Tes�ng Laboratory • Any other acceptable form of cer�fica�on
• Cer�ficate or report from professional engineer
• Any other form of acceptable documentary
evidence
Figure 1 - NCC Verification Hierarchy
In respect of structural provisions (including structural steelwork), the Performance Requirements

are defined in Part B1 and include:
1. Clause BP1.1: Structural reliability
2. Clause BP1.2: Structural resistance
The Deemed-to-Satisfy Solution for these Performance Requirements is outlined in Clause B1.0,
which references Clause B1.4 in respect of determination of the structural resistance of materials
and forms of construction.
For steel construction, Clause B1.4 states the structural resistance of materials and forms of
construction must be determined in accordance with, as appropriate:
• Steel structures: AS 4100 (Ref. 3)
• Cold-formed steel structures: AS/NZS 4600 (Ref. 4)
• Residential and low-rise steel framing: NASH Standard – Residential and Low-Rise Steel
Framing Part 1 or Part 2 (Ref. 5)
If a Deemed-to-Satisfy solution is being adopted, the structural steelwork must meet the
requirements of AS 4100, which, in respect of steel materials, calls up the Australian Product
Standards (Refs 6, 7, 8, 9) and the structural steelwork fabrication and erection Standard (Ref.
14).
The Performance Solution for the aforementioned Performance Requirements is referenced from
Clause B1.0 to Clauses A2.2(3) and A2.4(3). The Performance Solution must be at least
equivalent to the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions (Clause A2.2(1)(b)) or demonstrated to comply
with all relevant Performance Requirements through an Assessment Method (Clause A2.2(1)(a)).
Structural steel that cannot be demonstrated to have been manufactured to the requirements of
the Australian Standards called up in AS 4100 cannot be a deemed-to-satisfy solution but must
be treated as a Performance Solution and must be demonstrated to comply to all relevant
Performance Requirements through an Assessment Method.
Assessing a performance solution is not a trivial task, and in most cases requires information to
be assessed early in the process, rather than after a building or structure has been procured. The
design, as typically defined in the design drawings and specifications, prescribes the required
product compliance, usually by reference to (Australian) Standards. If a product that does not
comply with the design requirements is proposed to be procured, authorisation for the change
must be obtained from the designer prior to procurement. The designer may need to undertake
verification according to the requirements of the NCC (and this Technical Note) for a performance
solution.
This Technical Note provides a protocol for verification of structural steel where a performance
solution is required.
Key takeaways:
• The National Construction Code (NCC) is performance based

• Utilising Australian design and material Standards is the deemed-to-satisfy approach
• Structural steel that has not been manufactured to Australian Standards must be
treated as a performance solution
• A specific verification protocol is required under the NCC for any performance solution
• If a product that does not comply with the design requirements is proposed to be
procured, authorisation for the change must be obtained from the designer prior to
procurement
3. PRODUCT CONFORMITY, CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT AND AUSTRALIAN DESIGN

STANDARDS
3.1 Context
The Australian Standard AS 4100 ‘Steel structures’ (Ref. 3), like most contemporary design
standards around the world, is limit state format. For a structure subjected to actions, the
structural steel elements and connections are designed to ensure the structure is within the limit
states for strength, stability, serviceability, brittle fracture, fatigue, fire, ductility and durability. Put
simply, the design action (S*) must be less than or equal to the design resistance (ØR u).
Uncertainties relating to both the actions and the actual capacity of the resisting members are
resolved by using a probabilistic approach in design. The actions (loads) are considered as having
a probability distribution as shown in Figure 2. The design action is represented by S* on the
curve, while the upper and lower limit represents the uncertainty which arises due to the lack of
control over or incomplete knowledge of the actions.
PROBABILITY
ACTION / RESISTANCE
Probability of failure
Figure 2 Probability distribution of actions and resistance superimposed
Both the actions and resistance are also subject to variabilities and uncertainties which include:
1. Variations in material properties;
2. Eccentricities due to product and building tolerances;
3. The actual degree of ductility and stability of a member;
4. Differences in behaviour of isolated members compared with members in a structure;
5. Simplifications and inaccuracies in design models.
The resistance is considered to have a log-normal distribution (Ref. 10)) as shown in Figure 2,
with the design resistance represented by ØR u on the curve and the uncertainty represented by
the upper and lower limits.
The probability of the actions exceeding the resistance (the probability of failure) is represented
by the shaded area where the two curves overlap.
3.2 Basis for Design Values

The design equations in limit state standards such as AS 4100 ‘Steel structures’ are calibrated to
ensure an acceptably low probability of failure. This calibration exercise considers, amongst other
things, members being understrength due to variation in material strength and section properties.
To ensure the design assumptions in the calibration exercise remain valid, the structural steels
produced by manufacturers must meet long-term minimum, or in some cases maximum values,
also known as long-term quality (LTQ) levels. To achieve these long-term quality levels, the
manufacturer will target a mean value of material property higher than the minimum target value
to allow for production variability. Figure 3 indicates a typical distribution of actual yield stress
from Australian manufacturer testing for a 300 Grade steel. Notice the majority of tests are
significantly higher than 300 MPa, with an average of around 350-355 MPa.
300 MPa
60
50
Frequency of tests
40
30
20
10
0
310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380
Yield Strength MPa
Figure 3 – Yield strength histogram based on manufacturer production testing – 300 Grade
steel
(Image courtesy Infrabuild)
Specifically, as noted in the ABCB Handbook: Structural Reliability Verification Method (Ref. 11),
our structural design Standards for steel, concrete and timber, adopt the five percentile
characteristic material properties according to the NCC Volume 1 (Ref. 1) BP1.2, which states in
part “The structural resistance of materials and forms of construction must be determined using
five percentile characteristic material properties…”. This is consistent with recommendations in
ISO 2394 (Ref. 12) (or the equivalent AS 5104 (Ref. 13)) on which our suite of structural steel
related Standards are based.
As an example, the distribution of actual yield strength test results illustrated in Fig. 3 meets the
requirement that at least 95% of the results exceed the design grade of 300 MPa. The
manufacturer must target the long-term quality results to meet this target.
It is important to understand that a single batch test only affords a snap-shot of the manufacturer’s
production at a point in time. A batch test does not give any indication of long-term quality levels.
A statistical approach utilising test data collected over a period of time is required to determine
this.
It also follows from this that test data on test certificates taken from a single batch of steel cannot
be used directly as the basis for design or for (re)grading of the product, as this data does not
represent the five percentile (95% passing) material properties to which AS 4100 design basis
has been calibrated and the NCC requires. The Commentary to AS 4100 (Ref. 40) makes this
clear.
The practice of substituting a higher grade of steel where there is limited test data is also not
defendable because, regardless of the steel grade, there are not sufficient tests to determine the
five percentile characteristic strength. The designer must have a sound basis for calculating the
five percentile characteristic strength.
If it is necessary to calculate the characteristic or design values, sufficient test results from the
batch must be taken in order to perform the statistical analysis discussed subsequently.
The statistical approaches to verification (batch) testing discussed in subsequent sections of this
Technical Note provide a means to estimate the five percentile design value consistent with the
requirements of our Standards based on a defined but limited number of tests from a single batch.
3.3 Product Conformity

Structural steel supply standards will typically include product conformity requirements and
conformity assessment requirements. Product conformity requirements include specification of
the characteristics of the product, e.g. minimum yield stress, and the inspection and test
requirements for checking conformity of the product to the requirements of the standard.
The product conformity requirements in the latest AS/NZS structural steel material supply
standards (Refs 6, 7, 8, 9) have taken guidance from those found in EN product standards.
Specifically, manufacturers of steel products to these standards are required to meet the following
requirements:
• Initial Type Testing (ITT): The complete set of tests described in a standard to determine the
characteristics of samples of product representative of the product type. The ITT provides the
manufacturer with the characteristics of the product using their manufacturing, measuring and
quality management system (QMS).
• Factory Production Control (FPC): Operational techniques and all measures necessary to
maintain and regulate the conformity of the product to the requirements of the relevant
standards, which ensures that performance declared by the manufacturer (through ITT)
continue to be valid for all subsequent products. This includes personnel, equipment,
procedures and inspection and testing.
3.4 Conformity Assessment

Conformity assessment involves the series of processes necessary to show a product meets the
requirements of the standard. The main stages in conformity assessment are inspection/testing
(determination), review of the evidence of determination and attestation (statement of conformity).
Conformity assessment also interacts with other fields such as quality management. It is essential
that a steel manufacturer operates a quality management system in conjunction with its conformity
assessment activities, to ensure it consistently meets the requirements of the relevant supply
Standard.
3.5 Welding of Steel Structures
Consideration of the welding of steel structures, in particular where steel to other than Australian
Standards is utilised, is beyond the scope of this Technical Note. However, AS/NZS 5131 (Ref. 14)
references the AS/NZS 1554 (Ref. 37) Standard series for welding, which sets out the processes
required for qualification of materials, welding procedures, welds and personnel.
A broad range of parent materials can be welded to AS/NZS 1554.1 (Section 2) and similarly AS/NZS
5131 (Clause 5.3), however there are limitations primarily because the materials of construction listed
link into the preheat determination methods given within Section 5 of AS/NZS 1554.1. For steels non-
compliant with Section 2 of AS/NZS 1554.1, or any steel with a boron content ≥0.0008%, preheat and
other requirements are applicable as defined within the Australian Technical Specification SA TS 103
Structural steel welding—Limits on boron in parent materials (Ref. 38) and WTIA Technical Note 1
The Weldability of Steels (Ref. 39). Briefly, these requirements include:
(a) Verification of preheat requirements

(b) Ensuring that the brittle fracture and Charpy impact properties of the steel are compliant
with Appendix B of AS/NZS 1554.1
(c) Ensuring that the steels are matched with the appropriate welding consumables (Clause 4.6
of AS/NZS 1554.1)
(d) Ensuring that the steel is assessed to confirm the performance with AS/NZS 1554.1
prequalified weld procedures, where prequalified weld procedures are to be adopted by the
fabricator(1)
Notes:
(1) There will be a significant amount of work required to be undertaken by fabricators to re-qualify their
welding procedures if steel is used that does not comply with the performance of the steel product
used in their existing welding procedure pre-qualifications.
Key takeaways:
• The limit state design basis for our steel design Standard AS 4100 is predicated on and
calibrated against five percentile characteristic material properties, as required under
the NCC
• Our steel product Standards define characteristic strength based on the five percentile
(95% passing), which is assessed from long term quality testing data
• A single test result provided on a manufacturer test certificate, or a single testing
outcome, cannot be used to establish the five percentile characteristic strength
• Steel manufacturers complying with our steel product Standards must have ITT and
FPC in place to ensure consistent long term quality levels meeting the requirements of
the product Standards
• Particular attention must be paid to the welding of steel structures, in particular where
the steel procured is not compliant to Australian Standards
• The fabricator will need to re-qualify their existing weld procedures if using steel that is
not the same as that used for their existing weld procedure qualifications
4. STEEL VERIFICATION PROTOCOL

4.1 General
It is clear from Section 2 that the NCC requires steel to be properly identified and its performance
verified, regardless of whether the steel is manufactured to Australian Standards (the deemed-
to-satisfy solution) or manufactured to a different international Standard and claimed to conform
to the NCC and Australian Standards (a performance solution). Section 3 outlines particular
sampling and testing processes that need to be implemented consistent with the performance
basis of Australian design and product Standards in order to establish compliance with the NCC
and Australian Standards. Faced with these requirements, manufacturers, distributors and
suppliers, engineers, fabricators, procurers and constructors all have a duty of care to properly
ensure the compliance of the steel at all stages of the supply chain.
The ‘Steel Verification Protocol’ outlined in this section establishes a methodology to ascertain
compliance and works in concert with the ‘Steel Procurement Framework’ outlined in Section 9,
the latter establishing stakeholder responsibilities.
4.2 Context
A robust steel verification protocol must:
1. Establish the veracity of the product at multiple points in the journey from manufacturer to
intended use on a project.
2. Maintain verifiable traceability, that is, the ability to link the credentials (documentation
provided by the manufacturer) of the steel to the product in hand
3. Be able to be applied to both locally manufactured and imported product.
4. Maintain a similar ‘quality bar’ (the quality defined by the Australian Standards), regardless
of point of manufacture.
5. Be cost effective and commercially viable and, ideally, reward good procurement practice
with more cost-effective outcomes.
6. Be able to respond in a timely manner to supply of necessary documentation and when
product non-compliance is identified.
Accordingly, within the context of the current Australian procurement environment, the
recommended steel verification protocol must:
1. Establish the acceptable quality credentials of the steel manufacturer
2. Establish the acceptable quality credentials of the steel
3. Establish traceability of the product from manufacturer to use on the project
4. Where steel is not manufactured to an Australian Standard, establish the acceptable
performance requirements of the steel defined in the applicable Australian Standard for the
steel product concerned, as referenced in the NCC.
5. Assign appropriate responsibility to the applicable stakeholders in the supply chain.
4.3 Steel Verification Protocol Structure

To fulfil the requirements noted above, the steel verification protocol comprises the following
separate but related steps, as indicated in Figure 4:
1. Steel manufacturer verification (mandatory): establishes the quality of the
manufacturer’s processes and the product produced. The product may not necessarily be
produced to Australian Standards.
2. Supply chain verification (optional): an assessment of the capability of the supply chain
to provide compliant product with the necessary documentation.
3. Traceability verification (mandatory): establishes the link between the manufacturer’s

product and the product used on the specific project.
4. Product performance verification (mandatory): establishes the credentials of the steel
product to meet the performance requirements of the NCC and relevant Australian
Standards.
Each of these steps is detailed in the following sections. Steps 1, 3 and 4 are mandatory to
establish product compliance. Step 2 is optional but, if enacted by the supply chain, provides a
measure of process efficiency that should result in more cost-effective outcomes for the complete
steel supply chain in Australia.
Op�on n
Op�on 1
Op�on 2
Op�on 3
Mandatory
Steel Manufacturer Verifica�on
1 • Establishes the quality of the manufacturer’s processes and product produced
Supply Chain Verifica�on

Op�onal • An assessment of the capability of the supply chain to provide compliant
2 product with the necessary documenta�on and traceability
Traceability Verifica�on
Mandatory • Establishes the link between the manufacturer’s product and the product used
3 on the specific project
Product Performance Verifica�on

Mandatory • Establishes the creden�als of the steel product to meet the performance
4 requirements of the NCC and relevant Australian Standards
Conformity
Assessment
Pathway
Figure 4 – Steel verification protocol structure using a specific conformity assessment pathway
Within each step of the protocol, a number of options exist. The choice within each step and the
combination of the exact options adopted within each step of the protocol is termed the ‘conformity
assessment pathway’, as indicated in Figure 4. The final conformity assessment pathway may
vary between projects based on project-specific procurement scenarios and contractual
structures.
A risk-based approach to selecting the final conformity assessment pathway based on project
type and circumstances is presented in Section 6. The risk-based approach recognises the
realities of project procurement processes in today’s construction environment and represents a
pragmatic solution balancing risk and commercial reality.
4.4 Steel Manufacturer Verification (Mandatory)

4.4.1 Context
Verification of the steel manufacturer is the first step in the steel verification protocol. The
process is straightforward, as defined in Figure 5 and is used to establish the extent to which
the manufacturer has been independently verified for the requirements set by Australian
Standards (refer Section 4.4.2).
Select
Iden�fy
Manufacturer Establish evidence
manufacturer
Verifica�on Level
Figure 5 – Steel manufacturer verification process
The steps in verifying the steel manufacturer are:

1. Identify manufacturer: the steel manufacturer (steel mill) must be able to be identified
from the documentation (test certificates or mill certificates). The documentation should
also indicate any certifications the manufacturer may have, which will feed into step 2.
Certifications must be current.
2. Select ‘Manufacturer Verification Level’ (MVL): the manufacturer verification level is a
function of the scope and extent of third-party certification the manufacturer may have.
Refer Section 4.4.3.
3. Establish evidence: the evidence required to establish the veracity of the claims made by
the manufacturer and used to establish the MVL must be verified. Refer Section 4.4.4.
4.4.2 Standards Context

The Australian structural steel product Standards (Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9) require that manufacturers of
steel products to these standards have in place both Initial Type Testing (ITT) and Factory
Production Control (FPC). Refer Section 3.3 for further detail.
The combination of ITT and FPC essentially establishes the product characteristics and ensure
that the manufacturer maintains those characteristics throughout production runs of the same
product type. Without such control of consistency in the manufacturing process, assessment of
product characteristics (refer Section 4.7)) becomes much more challenging.
In addition, the product from the steel mill must meet the range of performance requirements for
mechanical and chemical properties outlined in the relevant Australian steel product Standards
(Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9).
4.4.3 Manufacturer Verification Levels
A number of levels of verification that the steel mill meets the FPC and product requirements are
presented. These ‘Manufacturer Verification Levels’ (MVL) are shown in Table 1 in approximate
order of veracity from most (MVL1) to least (MVL5) verified.
The verification level must be demonstrated by appropriate ‘evidence of suitability’ (adopting
terminology from the NCC), as described in Section 4.4.4.
Table 1 - Manufacturer Verification Level (MVL)
Level Detail
MVL1 Accredited third-party product certification (for product to Australian
Standards): undertaken by an independent Conformity Assessment Body (CAB)
that itself has been independently accredited. The accreditation body must be a
member of the International Accreditation Forum (www.iaf.nu). The ACRS Scheme
(ACRS | Home - Australian Certification Authority for Reinforcing Steel
(steelcertification.com), accredited by JAS ANZ, is an example of a CAB certifying
steel mills manufacturing structural steel products to the Australian Standards.
MVL2 Accredited third-party product certification (for product to non-Australian
Standards): undertaken by an independent Conformity Assessment Body (CAB)
that itself has been independently accredited. The accreditation body should be a
member of the International Accreditation Forum (www.iaf.nu). Where the mill has
been certified for production of material to other than Australian Standards,
additional verification of the product performance will be required (refer Section 4.7
Product Performance Verification).
MVL3 Non-accredited third-party product certification (for product to Australian
Standards): in this case the CAB has not been independently accredited for the
specific product. The procurer is relying on the name and reputation of the CAB in
respect of the quality (scope and thoroughness) of the certification itself.
MVL4 Third party FPC certification: in this case the factory production control (FPC) of
the manufacturer has been certified but not the specific product. The Conformity
Assessment Body (CAB) may be accredited or not accredited. Additional
verification of the product will be required (refer Section 4.7 Product Performance
Verification).
MVL5 Non-verified manufacturer: claims by a steel manufacturer that they certify
product to a Standard amount to first-party certification. The veracity of these
claims is entirely dependent on the quality of the processes the manufacturer has
in place, which have not been independently verified. The procurer must undertake
or organise to have undertaken independent review and auditing and may choose
to rely on a ‘trusted relationship’ built up from previous procurement from the same
manufacturer.
4.4.4 Evidence of Suitability

The appropriate evidence of suitability for each Manufacturer Verification Level (MVL) is provided
in Table 2.
Table 2 - Evidence of Suitability for Manufacturer Verification Level (MVL)
Level Appropriate evidence of suitability

MVL1 Accredited third-party product certification (for product to Australian Standards)
• Copy of valid certificate of approval from accredited certification body(a)
• Independent confirmation from certification body that manufacturer certification is
current(b)
MVL2 Accredited third-party product certification (for product to non-Australian Standards)
• Copy of valid certificate of approval from accredited certification body (a)(c)
• Independent confirmation from certification body that manufacturer certification is
current(b)
• Documented verification testing, as outlined in Section 4.7
MVL3 Non-accredited third-party product certification (for product to Australian Standards)
• Copy of valid certificate of approval from certification body (a)(d)
• Scheme Manual(g) or similar providing detailed scope of the certification and
methodology for conformity assessment(d)
• Outcomes from auditing of Scheme Manual and process documentation(h)
MVL4 Third party FPC certification
• Copy of valid certificate of approval from certification body
• Scheme Manual(g) or similar providing detailed scope of the certification and
methodology for conformity assessment(d)
• Verification testing of product(e)
MVL5 Non-verified manufacturer
• Non-verified manufacturers are supported under this guidance but not
recommended (f)
NOTES:
a) The steel manufacturer must be able to produce a valid and current certificate of approval
demonstrating certification. The certificate of approval must state the scope of products to
which the manufacturer is certified. This must cover the type of material being procured.
b) The authenticity and currency of the certification should be independently checked. Most
certification bodies maintain website lists of current certifications or can provide confirmation
on request. The certification must also display the independent accreditation credentials, which
should also be checked with reference to the accreditation authority website.
c) Product to non-Australian Standards is treated as a Performance Solution and requires

additional verification testing, as outlined in Section 4.7.
d) Where the certification body is not independently accredited, the procurer is relying on the
good name of the certification body to be assured of the veracity of the conformity assessment
undertaken. It is a reality that any party can claim that they can certify to a Standard. The
procurer must have the Scheme Manual reviewed and selected process documentation audited
by an appropriately qualified auditor.
e) FPC certification does not cover the specific product. Additional verification testing, as outlined
in Section 5, must be undertaken.
f) A non-verified manufacturer has not been independently assessed as having suitable

processes in place to deliver consistent product quality. The procurer is relying on the good
name of the manufacturer. If the procurer accepts the risk of sourcing from a non-verified
manufacturer, a robust verification testing regime must be put in place. Refer Section 5.
g) A product certification scheme will have a ‘Scheme Manual’ or similar outlining the basis and
operation of the Scheme and including the basis for conformity assessment to the relevant
Standard.
h) The Scheme Manual must be reviewed and selected documentation from a representative
Scheme audit also audited.
4.5 Traceability Verification (Mandatory)

4.5.1 Context
Traceability is the ability to maintain the connection between the test and inspection certificates
and the specific steel product to which they apply throughout the process from steel manufacture
through distribution to the procurer and on through fabrication and erection of the structure, as
shown in Figure 6. In respect of traceability, this Technical Note is concerned primarily with the
stage from steel manufacture up to and including procurement of the steel for fabrication. AS/NZS
5131 (Ref. 14) specifies requirements for the type and extent of traceability during fabrication and
erection.
It can be challenging to establish the traceability of product Instances of fraud (e.g. altered copies
of certificates) and deliberate misleading information (e.g. certificates not applicable to the steel
purchased) have been reported. In this environment the procurer must request documentation
prior to the purchase of the product. The documentation must be audited rigorously.
Scope covered in Scope covered in

this Technical Note AS/NZS 5131
Steel Importer / • Mill • Mill

Mill cer�ficates cer�ficates Final
manufactu Supplier / Fabricator In use
rer cer�ficates Distributor structure
• Marking • Marking
Traceability back from structure to mill cer�ficates

Figure 6 – Traceability connecting manufacture to the finished structure
4.5.2 AS/NZS 5131 Context

AS/NZS 5131 requires, as a starting point prior to fabrication, that the steel product meets the
performance requirements of the steel product Standards (Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9). It then prescribes
different levels of traceability for product through the fabrication process depending on the
‘Construction Category’. The levels are defined as ‘batch’, ‘piece-mark’ and ‘piece’ traceability
and may be applied to different structural components depending on the construction category.
Reference 15 provides an explanation of AS/NZS 5131 and construction categories.
It is important to understand that the traceability described in AS/NZS 5131 is contingent on
proper traceability having been maintained up to and including the point of steel procurement for
fabrication. It is also important to understand that, regardless of the construction category (and
hence type of traceability implemented during fabrication) defined in AS/NZS 5131, the procured
steel must all be traceable back to the corresponding valid test and inspection certificates.
4.5.3 Verification
Verification constitutes the ability to establish a positive link between the valid test and inspection
certificates provided and the actual procured product for each batch of product, regardless of
whether the product is manufactured locally, sourced internationally or incorporated into
fabricated steelwork overseas.
Each of these scenarios has challenges that need to be addressed based on project-specific
requirements. However, regardless of the project scenario, the following principles must be
followed:
1. Ensure the steel manufacturer is verified – refer Section 4.4. A verified manufacturer
will have traceable documentation and proper marking of product.
2. Ensure proper identification of the material to the relevant Standard (see Appendix B).
3. Ensure the relevant Documentation is available. The Australian product Standards
prescribe the type and contents of the documentation that is required to be transmitted
with the steel product and available to the procurer (see Appendix C).
4. If there is any doubt as to traceability, it is recommended that robust sample collection
and testing processes are put in place involving trusted third parties for both sample
collection and material testing. There have been documented examples of fraudulent
behaviour, with steel material supplied for testing that was not applicable to the batch of
product supplied. Testing of samples from each batch must be undertaken utilising an
International Laboratory Accreditation Co-operation’s (ILAC’s) Mutual Recognition
Arrangement (MRA) accredited testing facilities (see Section 5.3), whether locally or
internationally based. The testing and sampling plan should be selected as indicated in
Section 5.4.
5. If there are concerns about the veracity of the sample collection and material testing
process, then it is recommended the steel is treated as unidentified steel in accordance
with the requirements of AS 4100, which requires the design steel yield strength to be
treated as 170 MPa. A sampling and testing plan must also be implemented to establish
that the steel ductility, chemical composition and weldability meet the performance
requirements of the steel product Standards, AS/NZS 5131 and AS 4100. Alternatively,
that sampling and test plan can also include testing of steel strength (see Section 5.3)
to provide a statistically appropriate basis for assessing the material strength.
6. As an alternative to adopting a design yield strength of 170 MPa as noted in point 5, and
given the lack of any form of traceability, testing a steel sample from every member
could be used to check the properties of every member and establish a statistical basis
for the design value to be utilised. This approach is obviously expensive and time
consuming and would be a last resort, perhaps in combination with identifying and
excluding those members where the 170 MPa design yield strength was acceptable and
therefore excluded. If there is sufficient documentation to link certain members to an
individual batch of steel, then the statistically based verification testing outlined in
Section 5.3 may be adopted by taking sufficient samples from each identified batch,
rather than a sample from each member.
7. If the steel arrives in a fabricated structure and there are concerns about the veracity of
the traceability, then it is recommended the steel is treated as unidentified steel in
accordance with the requirements of AS 4100, which requires the design steel yield
strength to be treated as 170 MPa. A sampling and testing plan must also be
implemented involving cutting of samples from the fabricated steelwork under the
direction of a suitably qualified trusted third party. The sampling and testing plan must
establish that the steel ductility, chemical composition and weldability meet the
performance requirements of the steel product Standards, AS/NZS 5131 and AS 4100.
Alternatively, that sampling and test plan can also include testing of steel strength (see
Section 5.3) to provide a statistically appropriate basis for assessing the material
strength.
8. It must be noted that if steel in a fabricated structure does not have demonstrable
traceability, it is likely not known which steel members come from the same batch of
steel (or even the same mill) and therefore every piece of steel must be verified if the
responsible party is to certify the structural adequacy of the structure to the requirements
of the NCC. This is generally a commercially unrealistic scenario and therefore it is very
important that the protocols for verifiable traceability are established early in a project in
order to avoid a situation where it is impossible for the responsible party to certify the
structure.
9. The designer is the responsible party for the original design of the structure and must
be provided sufficient information (as outlined in this Technical Note) if requested to
certify the structural adequacy of the constructed structure. The designer must approve
changes to the design, including use of alternative materials. Where unauthorised
changes are made, for example due to procurement practices, then design responsibility
is transferred to the party making those changes.

For each of the functional requirements listed in Section 4.5.3, the recommended evidence of
suitability is indicated in Table 3.
Table 3 – Evidence of Suitability for Traceability
Item Recommended evidence of suitability

1 Manufacturer Verification
• Refer Section 4.4
2 Identification
• Marking of material as required by relevant Standard(a)
• Identification tags on bundled product(a)
• Photos of marking and ID tags (b)
3 Documentation
• Test and inspection certificates in English (c)
• Supplier Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) (d)
4 Traceability
• Documentation providing a verifiable link between the material purchased and
test and inspection certificates for each batch of material(e)(f)
NOTES:
a) Section 11.1 of each of the Australian product Standards (Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9) specifies the
requirements for identification and marking of product (refer Appendix B). Material not identified
and marked in this manner must be treated as non-compliant with the requirements of the relevant
Standard.
b) Where requested by the procurer, the supplier/distributor must provide photos of the member
marking and tags for the batch of material supplied.
c) Section 11.2 of each of the Australian product Standards (Refs 6, 7, 8, 9) specifies the
requirements for test and inspection certificates (refer to Appendix C) and that they must be
available to the purchaser. The Standards specifically state “A test and inspection certificate shall
be available to the purchaser for all products manufactured to this Standard for each batch
produced” (or “for each section produced” in the case of AS/NZS 3679.2). It is recommended that
test and inspection certificates are requested for all steel procured.
d) Section 11.2 of the product Standards requires the manufacturer to provide as part of the test and
inspection certificates a declaration that the products supplied comply to the requirements of the
Standard (refer to Appendix C). AS/NZS 5131 recommends a Supplier Declaration of Conformity
is provided for purchased components. An SDoC must be provided by the
importer/supplier/distributor where material is sourced internationally. The SDoC must include
reference to the verification test report or reports used to support a claim of conformity. Refer to
Appendix D for a typical example of the form of the SDoC.
e) The test and inspection certificate would usually be relied on to provide the documented link
connecting test and inspection outcomes to the marking and identification on the product
purchased.
f) It can be challenging to establish the traceability of product. Instances of fraud (e.g. altered copies
of certificates) and deliberate misleading information (e.g. certificates not applicable to the steel
purchased) have been reported. The procurer must check documentation rigorously and may need
to implement a robust verification testing process as described in Section 5.3 where anomalies in
documentation exist.
4.6 Supply Chain Verification (Optional)

4.6.1 Context
The ease with which product can be sourced from either local or international suppliers and the
ensuing competition drives cost as the primary consideration. A focus on cost alone has
ameliorated the practice of identifying and utilising ‘trusted suppliers’ that was the cornerstone of
previous supply chain verification and helped ensure cost-effective compliant solutions.
Within the context of the steel supply chain, the most significant supplier between the steel
manufacturer and the completed project is usually the steel distributor who, regardless of whether
they source material locally or internationally or whether they also perform limited fabrication
(steel processing), must ensure the necessary identification, documentation and traceability of
the steel required by the Standards and the NCC is maintained and provided to the procurer.
Strictly speaking, supply chain verification is not required if the other mandatory protocols
described in this Technical Note are enacted. For this reason, for the current market, supply chain
verification is noted as optional. However, ASI strongly encourages supply chain verification as
necessary to provide a practical and cost-effective approach to ensuring compliance of structural
steel for the Australian market.
4.6.2 Supply Chain Requirements
The primary functional requirements of the steel supplier or distributor as regards steel
compliance is to ensure the requirements of the Standards and the NCC are supported,
specifically in relation to:
1. Identification: of the steel products according to the relevant Standard.
2. Documentation: the Australian product Standards prescribe the type and form of
documentation that is required to be transmitted with the steel product and available to the
procurer.
3. Traceability: steel product with identification from the manufacturer must have that
identification recorded and maintained, regardless of how the product may be bundled,
unbundled, processed and managed within the distribution centre and supply chain.
4. Product performance verification: refer to Section 4.7.
In addition, the steel supplier/distributor must:
5. be an Australian legal entity: If product is imported directly, then the importer of the
product is considered to be the supplier/distributor for the purposes of these requirements.
6. operate a Quality Management System: typically AS/NZS ISO 9001. The QMS is the
foundation for the delivery of quality, but may need to be extended to support requirements
from specific procurers.
The recommended evidence of suitability for each of the functional requirements listed in Section
4.6.2 is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 – Evidence of Suitability for Importer, Supplier and Distributor
Item Recommended evidence of suitability

1 Identification
• Marking of material as required by relevant Standard(a)
• Identification tags on bundled product(a)
• Identification transferred where product unbundled(b)
• Photos of marking and ID tags (c)
2 Documentation
• Test and inspection certificates in English (d)
• Supplier Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) (e)
3 Traceability
• Documentation providing verifiable link between material purchased and test and
inspection certificates for each batch of material(f)(g)
4 Product performance verification(h)
• Refer Section 4.7 (i)
5 Australian legal entity
• Name and address of importer/supplier/distributor
• ABN for importer/supplier/distributor
6 Quality Management System
• Certification for Quality Management System(j)
• Documentation from auditor stating that the QMS covers the elements detailed
in this Technical Note(k)
NOTES:
a) Section 11.1 of each of the Australian product Standards (Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9) specifies the
requirements for identification and marking of product (refer Appendix B). Material not identified
and marked in this manner must be treated as non-compliant with the requirements of the
relevant Standard.
b) Section 11.1 of each of the Australian product Standards (Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9) requires that where
identification is removed (e.g. by unbundling of product), the identification is transferred to each
remaining portion of the product.
c) Where requested by the procurer, the supplier/distributor must provide photos of the typical
member marking and tags for the batch of material supplied.
d) Section 11.2 of each of the Australian product Standards (Refs 6, 7, 8, 9) specifies the
requirements for test and inspection certificates (refer Appendix C) and that they must be
available to the purchaser. The Standards specifically state “A test and inspection certificate
shall be available to the purchaser for all products manufactured to this Standard for each batch
produced” (or “for each section produced” in the case of AS/NZS 3679.2). It is recommended
that test and inspection certificates are requested for all steel procured.
e) Section 11.2 of the product Standards requires the manufacturer to provide as part of the test
and inspection certificates a declaration that the products supplied comply to the requirements
of the Standard (refer Appendix C). AS/NZS 5131 recommends a Supplier Declaration of
Conformity is provided for purchased components. An SDoC must be provided by the
importer/supplier/distributor where material is sourced internationally. The SDoC must include
reference to the verification test report or reports used to support any claim of conformity. Refer
Appendix D for a typical example of the form of the SDoC.
f) The test and inspection certificate would usually be relied on to provide the documented link
connecting test and inspection outcomes to the marking and identification on the product
purchased.
g) It can be challenging to establish the traceability of product. Instances of fraud (e.g. altered
copies of certificates) and deliberate misleading information (e.g. certificates not applicable to
the steel purchased) have been reported. The procurer must check documentation rigorously.
The use of verified importers/suppliers/distributors (refer Section 4.6.4) is recommended.
h) Refer Section 4.7 for detailed explanation of product performance verification.
i) The evidence of suitability required depends on the type of product and compliance pathway
selected. Refer Section 4.7 for details. The scope and extent of verification testing shall be the
same as for the ‘trusted supplier’ (refer Section 4.6.5).
j) Certification of the Quality Management System must be undertaken by an auditor who is

accredited by a signatory to the International Accreditation Forum’s Multilateral Recognition
Agreement (eg. JAS ANZ).
k) The audit of the importer/supplier/distributor must include the elements detailed in this Technical
Note, specifically the elements of the performance monitoring protocol outlined in Section 4.6.5.
The auditor may either document this within the audit report or as a separate audit outcome.
4.6.4 Verified Supplier Status

The concept of a ‘verified supplier’ has the potential to introduce efficiencies for the supply chain,
differentiate suppliers and distributors in a crowded market and reimagine the mechanism of
‘trusted suppliers’ noted previously.
A verified supplier is a supplier or distributor who:
1. Has been third-party certified as meeting the processes necessary to support the provision
of the evidence of suitability detailed in Table 4, or;
2. Has been third-party certified for their QMS, with specific addition to the audit report of the
elements detailed in Table 4.
Note: ASI are planning the implementation of distributor certification under the ‘National Structural
Steelwork Compliance Scheme’ (Ref. 42).
4.6.5 Trusted Supplier Status

Trusted Supplier status is a relationship between a supplier or distributor and a particular
procurer. Trusted Supplier status is ‘awarded’ by the procurer to the supplier/distributor based on
an established procurement relationship built up over a period of time and continually tested.
The assessment of the supplier/distributor will depend on the commercial and contractual
relationships in play. However, as a minimum, the following requirements shall be assessed:
1. The supplier or distributor has in place a QMS, preferably certified, that also addresses the
elements detailed in Table 4.
2. The supplier or distributor has in place a performance monitoring protocol for their steel
source when that steel source is other than MVL1 (refer to Section 4.4.2).
3. For supply from an MVL2 steel manufacturer, the performance monitoring protocol shall
require batch verification testing to Level 2 (refer to Section 5.3.5) for the first two similar
batches of product from a new steel source and thereafter no specific verification testing
unless the processes of the steel manufacturer change. A similar batch is a batch that is
considered similar to another batch by having the same product form (e.g. UB, UC, PFC,
SHS, RHS, CHS, plate), yield stress designation and impact toughness requirements from
the same steel manufacturer.
4. For supply from MVL3 and MVL4 steel manufacturers, the performance monitoring protocol
shall require batch verification testing to Level 2 (refer Section 5.3.5) for the first two similar
batches of product from a new steel source and thereafter Level 1 verification testing for a
minimum of every third similar batch.
5. For MVL5 steel manufacturer, the performance monitoring protocol shall require batch
verification testing to Level 2 (refer Section 5.3.5) for the first two similar batches of product
from a new steel source and thereafter Level 1 verification for a minimum of every similar
batch. Where the mechanical properties (yield strength, ultimate tensile strength, %
elongation) vary more than one standard deviation from the mean value established by the
Level 2 verification testing, the batch shall be tested to Level 2.
6. Records of performance monitoring are available from the supplier on request by the
procurer.
7. The supplier/distributor provides to the procurer a ‘Supplier Declaration of Conformity’ (refer
Appendix D) for the product purchased and has available on request the test certificates
and assessment report providing the basis for the stated design properties of the steel.
4.7 Product Performance Verification (mandatory)

The particular requirements of the NCC (refer to Section 2) may be interpreted as applying to
structural steel product performance verification as outlined in Table 5 and the accompanying
notes, based on three distinct scenarios:
1. Product manufactured to Australian product Standard (‘Australian Standard Product’),
whether the manufacturer is located in Australia or elsewhere
2. Product claiming equivalence to Australian product Standard (‘Equivalent Product’)
3. Product manufactured to an alternative product Standard (‘Alternative Standard Product’)
Table 5 Protocol for Product Performance Verification

(aligned with NCC)
Product Type
Australian Standard Equivalent Product Alternative Standard
Product Product
Product Verified, preferably (a) Verified, preferably (a) Verified, preferably (a)
manufacturer
(to MVL 1,3,4,5) (to MVL 2,3,4,5) (to MVL 2,3,4,5)
Traceability Verified (b) Verified (b) Verified (b)
Solution type (c) Deemed-to-Satisfy Performance Performance
Assessment method Expert Judgement Expert Judgement Expert Judgement
Verification Method Verification Method
Comparison with Comparison with
DTS DTS
Evidence of Certificate of Certificate of Certificate of
suitability (d) Accreditation Accreditation Accreditation
Certificate from Certificate from Certificate from
Certification Body (e) Certification Body (e) Certification Body (e)
Accredited Testing Accredited Testing Accredited Testing
Laboratory report(f) Laboratory report(f) Laboratory report(f)
Report/certificate Report/certificate Report/certificate
from professional from professional from professional
engineer (g) (required engineer (g) engineer (g)
for MVL 3, 4, 5 only)
Other documentary Other documentary
Other documentary evidence evidence
evidence
Verification Method Not applicable Test, using a Test, using a
technical procedure (h) technical procedure(h)
Certification from Certification from
professional professional
engineer (i) engineer (i)
NOTES:
a) Regardless of the type of product (Australian, Equivalent, Alternative), the product performance
verification outlined in this Table assumes the steel manufacturer has been verified as described
in Section 4.4 to MVL 1, 2, 3 or 4. A reliable assessment of product performance cannot easily be
undertaken on a product of unknown and/or variable quality. Hence, whilst MVL5 is supported,
MVL5 is not recommended under this protocol.
b) Product whose traceability has not been verified according to the guidance in Section 4.5 must
not be used, as there is no established link between what is used on the project and product
quality that can be suitably demonstrated with the evidence of suitability required by the NCC.
c) As defined by the NCC.
d) Detail of the appropriate evidence of suitability is provided in Table 2 for the steel manufacturer
(steel quality), Table 3 for traceability verification and Table 4 for the supplier/distributor.
e) Refer Section 4.4.2 for details of suitable third-party certification.
f) Refer Section 5.3.2 for a discussion on suitable testing laboratories.

g) The NCC Guide to BCA Volume 1 (Ref. 16) states categorically in Clause B1.4 “For designers
seeking structural compliance via Performance Solutions, a major principle in determining
structural resistance is that the reliability level of the structure or its components must be at least
equal to that already achieved in the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions”. Refer to Section 3 for
guidance on assessment of reliability in respect of steel product performance.
h) Refer to Section 5.3.3 for guidance on scope of verification testing required.
i) The professional engineer should be registered for practice in Australia based on the registration
requirements for the particular state concerned and the regulatory requirements in the NCC.
The verification of product performance for ‘Equivalent product’ and ‘Alternative Standard product’
is potentially a time consuming and costly path depending on the particular conformity
assessment pathway selected (see Section 6).
4.8 Construction Risk

4.8.1 AS/NZS 5131 Context
In respect of structural steel, the publication of AS/NZS 5131 ‘Structural steel – Fabrication and
erection’ (Ref. 14) has introduced a risk-based approach to fabrication and erection of structural
steel, for both the permanent structure and also temporary works. Project risk, including the
consequences of failure and the complexity of the construction works, is recognised through
categorisation into one of four ‘construction categories’, as defined in Table 6. The assessment
of the construction category is provided in AS 4100 (Ref. 3) and AS/NZS 5131 (Ref. 14) and
discussed in Ref. 15.
Table 6 AS/NZS 5131 Construction categories
Construction Example structure types(1)

Category
CC1 • Farm sheds; greenhouses; fences; gates; small signs
CC2 • Low- to medium-rise buildings (industrial buildings, residential buildings,
offices, residential apartments and retail)
• Single and two level school buildings and structures
CC3 • Large structures (e.g. high-rise buildings)
• Large stadia
• Road and rail bridges
• Post-disaster buildings (e.g. hospitals)
CC4 • Structures with extreme consequences of structural failure
Notes:
The structure types shown are indicative only. The assessment of the construction category is the
responsibility of the engineer based on the guidance provided in AS 4100 and AS/NZS 5131. The
‘Building importance level’ from the NCC is one factor in the assessment of the construction category.
A fundamental principle influencing the selection of the appropriate conformity assessment

pathway (refer Section 6) is that for high-risk projects (CC3) where project-specific verification
testing is required, non-statistical evaluation of conformity (refer section 5.3.4) is limited to steels
produced by manufacturers with some form of accredited independent assessment of capability
or product quality (FPC or Product Certification).
4.8.2 Component-specific risk

For certain components or assemblies, there may be a heightened risk profile or criticality due to
the type or magnitude of stress on the component or assembly. These scenarios need to be
addressed on a case-by-case basis, but common examples include:
1. Complete penetration butt welds on highly loaded connections: an increased rate of
non-destructive testing (NDT) may be adopted
2. Lamellar tearing on highly constrained connections: the 2020 revision of AS 4100
introduced new guidance on the selection of materials for the avoidance of lamellar tearing.
Thicker plates in connections where welding induces high through-thickness stresses may
require special consideration. Where the plate has been manufactured and ordered for
improved through-thickness ductility (for example, for the avoidance of lamellar tearing), a
statistical approach to verification testing (Level 2 sampling and test plan) for through-
thickness ductility is recommended (refer Section 5.3 and Appendix E). Project-specific
ultrasonic testing, as outlined in AS 4100, may also be required at specific locations of
particular connections.
Key takeaways:
• Manufacturers (steel mills) must be verified with appropriate evidence of suitability

• Establishing the traceability of steel is paramount. Without traceability between the
steel procured and the documentation (mill certificates etc), the compliance of every
piece of steel is unknown
• Distributors and suppliers must take responsibility for maintaining traceability with
correct documentation for each batch of steel
• Performance verification of the steel product must be undertaken to meet the
requirements of the NCC
• The extent of product performance verification undertaken should be reflective of the
project risk level, as defined by the Construction Category from AS 4100 and AS/NZS
5131
5 PRODUCT TESTING
5.1 General
Product testing of some form is a necessary feature of any of the conformity assessment
pathways discussed in this Technical Note. The scope and extent is dependent on the point at
which the testing is undertaken and the risk profile exposed by the particular conformity
assessment pathway.
There are two forms of product testing relevant to structural steel:
1. Manufacturer testing: undertaken as part of the manufacturing process in order to verify
initial product conformity (ITT) and maintain ongoing product conformity (FPC) through
production testing. Refer Section 5.2.
2. Verification testing: independent assessment of selected mechanical, chemical and
physical properties, utilising an agreed sampling and testing plan. Within the context of this
current document, verification testing is undertaken either on a project-specific basis to
verify the properties of a batch of structural steel product or by a supplier or distributor as
part of their performance monitoring protocol. Refer to Section 5.3.
5.2 Manufacturer Testing

5.2.1 Testing to demonstrate product conformity
The requirements for testing of product as part of the manufacturing process are defined in the
Australian steel product Standards (Refs 6, 7, 8, 9) and have been harmonised across the four
Standards. In each of these Standards normative Appendix B ‘Product Conformity’ defines the
requirements for ITT and FPC in respect of type of tests, sampling frequency and conformity
requirements in order for the manufacturer or supplier to demonstrate product conformity to these
Standards.
The Long Term Quality (LTQ) data derived from production testing helps to ensure products
conform with the Standard and are consistent with the limit state design philosophy in our design
Standards (refer Section 3).
5.2.2 Mill certificates
Clause 2.2.2 of AS 4100:2020 states “Test reports or test certificates that conform to the minimum
requirements of the appropriate Standard listed in Clause 2.2.1 shall constitute sufficient evidence
of conformance of the steel to the Standards listed in Clause 2.2.1.” The requirements for the test
reports or test certificates are contained in Clause 11.2 of the Australian steel product Standards,
which outlines the range of information that must be shown on the certificate. The Standards
require a valid certificate to be available for each batch of steel produced.
ASI regularly receives feedback from stakeholders, in particular engineers attempting to provide
certification for structures, that mill certificates provided with imported steel often do not contain
the information required by the product Standards or the attributes are not within the range
specified to be compliant with the product Standards. In some cases the mill certificates are not
in English, which makes assessment difficult. ASI has prepared Technical Notes TN-005 (Ref.
35) and TN-007 (Ref. 36) to provide guidance on AS 4100 requirements for steel, including what
information is required on a mill certificate.
5.3 Verification (Batch) Testing

5.3.1 General
Verification testing is independent assessment of selected mechanical, chemical and physical
properties utilising an agreed sampling and testing plan to verify the properties of a batch of steel
material intended to be utilised on a building or infrastructure project.
The key considerations in developing a project-specific approach to verification testing include:

• The appropriateness of the testing laboratory (refer Section 5.3.2)
• The scope of testing required (refer Section 5.3.3)
• The sampling methodology to be undertaken (refer Section 5.3.4)
The scope and sampling methodology then feed into the adopted sampling and test plan (refer
Section 5.3.5).
It is important to note that the verification testing outlined is designed to be applied to a batch of
material. Where verification testing is required and the material comes from different batches,
each batch will need to have verification testing applied.
It is also important to note that verification testing as described in this Technical Note is only
required for certain procurement scenarios. As described in Section 6 and Appendix G, the
selection of the appropriate ‘conformity assessment pathway’ is the basis for the type and extent
of verification testing necessary.
5.3.2 Testing Laboratories
Testing must be undertaken by testing laboratories accredited by signatories to the International

Laboratory Accreditation Co-operation’s (ILAC’s) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA), as required
for the qualification of test and inspection certificates in the Australian product Standards. The scope of
accreditation must include the specific tests required in the relevant Australian product standard. In
Australia, the national accrediting body is the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA). To
check the scope of the particular test facility accreditation, reference can be made to the NATA website
(https://nata.com.au/accredited-facility).
It should be noted that evidence has been reported of test certificates documenting compromised results
due to the testing methodologies adopted. It is therefore important that the veracity of test results is
checked. The most expedient way of undertaking this is through checking that the scope of accreditation
of the test facility covers the range of tests documented.
5.3.3 Scope of Testing
The scope of testing defines the range of different tests required to verify the product conforms
to the material characteristics defined in the Australian product Standard. The recommended
scope of testing is aligned closely with the normative requirements of Appendix B ‘Product
Conformity’ of the Australian product Standards. Table 7 provides the scope of testing and the
primary functional imperative for the selected tests. The functional imperative highlights the
structural engineering basis for undertaking the particular tests.
Table 7 Recommended Scope of Verification Testing
Characteristic Requirement Functional Imperative

Mechanical properties Yield strength, tensile Section and member
strength, elongation, through- structural capacity; required
thickness ductility ductility for stress
redistribution
Impact toughness Resistance to brittle fracture
Chemical composition Product analysis Weldability; durability; coating
performance
Tolerances Cross-section dimensions, Section and member
out-of-straightness capacity; detailing
Weld quality Cold flattening or flange-web Weld strength and
tension test (only required for penetration
hollow sections and welded
sections)
5.3.4 Sampling Methodology

The sampling methodology adopted is a function of the quality control objectives and a cost-
benefit analysis of the expected outcomes. Two fundamental approaches are possible for
sampling of a batch of steel:
1. Statistical: Statistical methods for quality control of building materials and components are
defined in ISO 12491 (Ref. 19)
2. Non-statistical: limits the extent of testing compared to a statistical approach and is
therefore usually more cost-effective
The background and basis for the recommended sampling methodology and sampling and test
plans provided in Section 5.3.5 is given in Appendix E.
5.3.5 Sampling and Testing Plans
Two sampling and test plans are provided:
1. Level 1: Documented in Table E1, the Level 1 sampling and test plan is entirely non-
statistical, covering the scope of testing outlined in Section 5.3.3.
2. Level 2: Documented in Tables E2(a) and E2(b), the Level 2 sampling and test plan is a
mixture of non-statistical (Table E2(a)) and statistical (Table E2(b)) approaches. The
mechanical properties (yield strength, tensile strength, elongation and through-thickness
ductility (when required)) critical to the structural performance of the product are verified
using a statistical approach.
The basis for selection of either the Level 1 or Level 2 sampling and test plan is discussed in
Section 5.4.
5.4 Selection of the Appropriate Sampling and Test Plan

The selection of an appropriate sampling and test plan (Level 1 or Level 2) and the frequency of
testing is a function of:
1. The manufacturer verification level (MVL) (refer Section 4.4)
2. The verification of traceability (refer Section 4.5)
3. Supply chain verification (refer Section 4.6)
4. The product type (Australian, Equivalent, Alternative) (refer Section 4.7)
5. The risk profile of the project (refer Section 4.8)
6. The risk profile and/or criticality of the component (refer Section 4.8)
These aspects are inter-related and must be considered holistically. The outcome of this
consideration is the project-specific ‘conformity assessment pathway’ noted in Figure 3 as part of
the steel verification protocol adopted for the project. The type and frequency of verification
testing forms one component of the selected conformity assessment pathway, as detailed in
Section 6.
Key takeaways:
• Where verification testing is required, the scope and sampling methodology must be
consistent with the requirements for demonstrating compliance to the relevant
Australian Standards
• ‘Level 1’ and ‘Level 2’ sampling and test plans have been defined, with Level 2
including increased statistically based testing of key structural properties
• Selection of the appropriate sampling and test plan must be based on project risk and
the particular conformity assessment pathway assessed as part of the ‘Steel verification
protocol’
6 CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PATHWAY SELECTION

6.1 Context
The conformity assessment pathway operationalises the ‘Steel Verification Protocol’ illustrated in
Figure 4. A fundamental principle influencing the selection of the appropriate conformity
assessment pathway is that the approach must be risk-based, considering both project and supply
risk. Project risk includes the consequence of failure and the complexity of the construction works
and is quantified utilising the construction category designation from AS 4100 and AS/NZS 5131.
The supply risk relates to the reliability of the product and this is based on the manufacturer and
the chain of custody of steel products from the mill, to the fabrication workshop, and then to site.
A risk-based approach will ensure that the protocol is both responsive to regulatory requirements
and cost-effective, commensurate with the risk involved.
The conformity assessment pathway selection framework is based on the following principles:
a) The conformity assessment options are ranked in order from least to most robust as
follows: 1. First-party (manufacturer), 2. Third-party FPC Certification, 3. Third-party
Product Certification.
b) The risk of non-compliance is arguably reduced if the steel manufacturer is a regular
supplier to the Australian market. Over a period of time there is the opportunity to
monitor manufacturer performance (periodic testing) and to clearly communicate
supply expectations in terms of quality and documentation.
c) It is vital product traceability is maintained through the whole supply chain. The supply
chain, specifically steel distributors and suppliers, must support the requirements for
product marking and traceability. There is the opportunity for the supply chain to play
a proactive role in managing steel supply to ensure cost-effective solutions.
d) Product traceability becomes more challenging for steel in offshore fabricated
structures due to the loss of product markings (bundle or individual products) by the
time the fabricated components arrive in Australia. In this situation it is recommended
there are robust sample collection and material traceability processes in place
involving trusted third parties, preferably residing in-country. Product traceability is
required from the steel mill to the steel fabricator’s workshop, through the fabrication
process to the site. If the construction reviewer or the statutory authority have concerns
about the test sample collection or material traceability processes, it is recommended
the steel is treated as unidentified steel in accordance with the requirements of AS
4100 (Ref. 3). This will involve cutting samples from fabricated structural steelwork for
testing when it arrives in Australia.
e) For high-risk structures where project-specific verification testing is required, non-
statistical evaluation of conformity is limited to steels produced by manufacturers with
some form of independent assessment of capability or product quality (FPC or Product
Certification) that itself has been accredited. Non-accredited 3 rd party certification is
not recommended for high-risk (CC3 or CC4) projects.
f) Low-risk (CC1) structures will generally not be covered under the NCC. A requirement
for verification is not regulated but a basic duty of care remains. Steel supplied from
certified manufacturers and/or via verified or trusted suppliers requires no further
verification. Steel supplied from non-certified manufacturers and/or via suppliers who
are not verified or trusted requires limited verification.
g) Some overseas products may be covered by certification such as CE marking. The
validity of the certification must be verified and the product still requires product
performance verification.
6.2 Conformity Assessment Pathway Selection

The conformity assessment selection process flowcharts, based on the above principles, are
presented in Appendix G for each of CC1, CC2 and CC3 project risk categories.
Key takeaways:
• Separate conformity assessment pathways are presented based on project risk, that is,
for each of construction categories CC1, CC2 and CC3
• The conformity assessment pathway and the extent of sampling and testing required is
fundamentally predicated on the assessed veracity of the steel manufacturer and
traceability. With verified manufacturers and supply chains, no verification testing may
be required.
• Procurers should consider carefully the benefits a verified solution brings, in respect of
product risk, project schedule risk and reputational risk from the consequences of
failure
7 RESPONSIBLE STEEL PROCUREMENT – A SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTION
7.1 Context
The procurement, fabrication and erection of structural steelwork for buildings, infrastructure and
resources projects involves a supply chain that is as varied as it is long. Contractual relationships
and commercial and political pressures all influence the ultimate procurement scenario, which
can also change markedly over the period of project delivery. It is also clear that the Regulatory
environment is continually recalibrating, influenced by tensions that exist between our obligations
under World Trade Organisation (WTO) requirements for free trade, performance solutions
enabling innovation and the most fundamental requirements to ensure our community can expect
risk-minimised safe solutions for their workplaces and habitation.
Regardless of the procurement permutations implemented and the project type, there is an
overarching duty of care prescribed by Regulation for all stakeholders. Taken within the context
of a supply chain, this may be contextualised as a ‘chain of responsibility’, linking the duty of care
of each stakeholder through overlapping responsibilities designed to ensure a shared
responsibility and a consistent and seamless approach to compliant outcomes.
The following sections explore Workplace Health and Safety (WHS), duty of care and the
responsibilities for each stakeholder in the supply chain.
7.2 Workplace Health and Safety and Duty of Care

7.2.1 Model Workplace Health and Safety Act
The Model Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (Ref. 2) (the WHS Act) provides a framework
to protect the health, safety and welfare of all workers at work. It also protects the health and
safety of all other people who might be affected by the work. The WHS Act also provides
protection for the general public so that their health and safety is not placed at risk by work
activities. The general requirements of this Act have been implemented in most, but not all,
jurisdictions in Australia.
The WHS Act places the primary health and safety duty on a person conducting a business or
undertaking (PCBU). The PCBU must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and
safety of workers at the workplace.
Reasonably practicable is specifically defined, meaning that which is, or was at a particular time,
reasonably able to be done to ensure health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all
relevant matters, including:
• The likelihood of the hazard or the risk concerned occurring
• The degree of harm that might result from the hazard or the risk
• What the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know, about the hazard or risk,
and ways or eliminating or minimising the risk
• The availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk
• After assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating or minimising
the risk, including whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk.
There are two elements to what is reasonably practicable. A duty-holder must first consider what
can be done, that is, what is possible in the circumstances for ensuring health and safety. They
must then consider whether it is reasonable, in the circumstances, to do all that is possible.
In practice, this means that what can be done should be done unless it is reasonable in the
circumstances for the duty-holder to do something less.
The question of what is reasonably practicable is to be determined objectively, and not by
reference to the duty-holder’s capacity to pay or other particular circumstances. A duty-holder
cannot expose persons to a lower level of protection simply because it is in a lesser financial
position than another duty-holder.
Safe Work Australia have prepared a guide (Ref. 41) on determining what is reasonably
practicable to meet a health and safety duty.
7.2.2 Codes of Practice
The Work Health and Safety Act 2011 references a range of ‘Codes of Practice’ (CoP) that provide
implementation guidance. CoP’s relevant to the current discussion include:
• ‘Managing the risks of plant in the workplace’
• ‘Safe design of structures’
• ‘Construction work’
The Model Codes of Practice may be freely downloaded from:
https://safeworkaust.govcms.gov.au/resources-publications/model-codes-of-practice.
Specific state implementations of these may be found on the relevant State Regulator (usually
WorkSafe or SafeWork) website.
Codes of Practice are admissible in court proceedings under the WHS Act and Regulations.
Courts may regard a Code of Practice as evidence of what is known about a hazard, risk or control
and may rely on the code in determining what is reasonably practicable in the circumstances to
which the code relates.
Whilst there are a number of codes of practice relevant to construction work and the supply chain,
the ‘Safe design of structures’ Code of Practice 2015 (Ref. 21) is of particular relevance.
7.2.3 Stakeholder Scope
The overarching focus of the ‘Safe Design of Structures’ CoP is on those who provide design
services and deliverables (including as specifically stated architects, building designers,
engineers, building surveyors, interior designers, landscape architects, town planners, building
contractors and all other design practitioners contributing to, or having overall responsibility for,
any part of the design). However, it is significant to note that the Act/Regulation and/or CoP also
outlines specific duties for:
1. Clients (a person conducting a business or undertaking who commissions a design or
construction work or a construction project)
2. The principal contractor
3. The manufacturer (including of a product or a structure). This includes steel manufacturers
and also fabricators.
4. The importer (including of material or a structure). This includes importers of steel material
and also of fabricated steel structures.
5. The supplier (including of material or a structure). This includes distributors of steel
material and components.
6. The constructor (of the steel structure). This includes steelwork erectors and other
contractors associated with site installation.
Examples of these duties are referenced in the following sections outlining responsibilities of
specific stakeholders. It is important to note that the Act specifically states that duties assigned
to a person under the Act cannot be transferred. The duty of care cannot be abrogated through
contractual undertakings.
Significantly, the CoP states:
“Where more than one person has a duty for the same matter, each person retains responsibility
for their duty and must discharge it to the extent to which the person has the capacity to influence
or control the matter or would have had that capacity but for an agreement or arrangement
claiming to limit or remove that capacity”.
7.2.4 The Safety Report

The WHS Regulation and CoP make specific reference to the ‘Safety Report’ as the written report
that the designer must provide to the client that specifies the hazards relating to the design of
the structure that, so far as the designer is reasonably aware:
 Create a risk to persons who are to carry out the construction work, who use the structure
as a workplace or during demolition; and
 Are associated only with the particular design and not with other designs of the same type
of structure
The Safety Report should include information about:
 Any hazardous materials or structural features and the designer’s assessment of the risk
of injury or illness to construction workers arising from those hazards
 The action the designer has taken to control those risks
The client must provide a copy of the Safety Report to the principal contractor.
Working with WHS (Qld), ASI has established a definitive link between non-compliant construction
products (in this case steel) and the duties of care under the WHS Regulation (Ref. 22). It is
therefore clear that the steps taken to address risks associated with the known issue of potential
non-compliance of steel must be included in the Safety Report.
7.3 Chain of Responsibility and the Steel Supply Chain

The overlapping duties of care mandated in the WHS Act and Regulations and contextualised in
codes of practice such as the Safe Design of Structures Code of Practice (Ref. 21) create, in
effect, a ‘chain of responsibility’ connecting all parties in the supply chain, to ensure safe carriage
of the overarching obligation to provide our community with risk-minimised safe outcomes that
are applicable to all project types.
More recently, in response to demonstrable issues with non-conforming construction products
across all construction materials, the Qld State Government enacted the “Building and
Construction Legislation (Non-conforming Building Products—Chain of Responsibility and Other
Matters) Amendment Act 2017” (Ref. 23) that establishes a chain of responsibility, placing duties
of building product supply chain participants (including product designers, manufacturers,
importers, suppliers and installers) to ensure building products used in Queensland are safe and
fit for intended purpose.
Other jurisdictions are in the process of addressing non-conforming building products. The reader
is encouraged to actively track the status of implementation in their respective State. The status
at the time of writing is provided in Appendix H which also lists websites containing further
information on non-conforming building products for each State.
Separate to the above, in some states, the supply chain is also required to comply with chain of
responsibility requirements for the transportation of products from yard to site.
7.4 Risk Assessment and Documentation

The Safe Design of Structures Code of Practice (CoP) pays particular attention to assessment of
risks and establishing documentation to ensure all relevant parties are informed throughout the
lifecycle of the project and structure.
The CoP speaks to the risk management process as a systematic way of making a workplace as
safe as reasonably practicable and being used as part of the design process. The following steps
are recommended:
• Identify hazards – find out what could cause harm
• Assess risks, if necessary – understand the nature of the harm that could be caused by the
hazard, how serious the harm could be and the likelihood of it happening. This step may
not be necessary if you are dealing with a known risk with known controls
• Control risks – implement the most effective control measure that is reasonably practicable
in the circumstances and ensure it remains effective over time
• Review hazards and control measures to ensure they are working as planned
The ‘steel verification protocol’ outlined in this Technical Note provides the engineer the tools
necessary to dependably address all the points noted above in relation to potential hazards
created by non-compliant steel products.
In respect of establishing documentation, the CoP recommends key information about identified
hazards and action taken or required to control risks should be recorded and transferred from the
design phase to those involved in later stages of the lifecycle. Communicating this information to
other duty holders will make them aware of any residual risks and reduce the likelihood of the
design being altered by those engaged in subsequent work on or around the building or structure.
As regards construction products, this would include procurement decisions, which must be based
on full knowledge of the requirements for steel and steelwork compliance.
The CoP suggests a ‘Safety Report’ (refer Section 7.2.4) as an appropriate vehicle to transfer
this information to other stakeholders.
7.5 Emerging supply chain imperatives

A discussion on responsible steel procurement would not be complete without highlighting the
emerging imperative of sustainability that is driving the shape of future supply chains.
Sustainability and the broader corporate social responsibility context are driving procurement
decisions. Increasingly, sustainability is being defined using ESG Principles which relate to a set
of standards for company operations that cover environmental, social and governance best
practice:
• Environment: The supply chain must demonstrate environmental sustainability credentials
aligned with a focus to reduce the carbon footprint, reduce waste and use of resources,
increase participation in the circular economy – Reduce | Reuse | Recycle | Remanufacture,
and to prevent harm to the environment, community and its ecosystems.
• Social: This area considers societal impact of the company, which includes diversity,
human rights and the health, safety and welfare of employees. From a lifecycle perspective,
procurement of compliant construction products ensures fit-for-purpose outcomes that
minimise long term maintenance, rework and the likelihood of early failure of the structure.
The Modern Slavery Act came into effect on 1st January 2019. The social issue of modern
slavery occurs in sourcing from global supply chains and business has the power and
influence to be watchful of, and to address. Modern slavery comprises practices such as
human trafficking, slavery, forced labour, child labour, and slavery-like practices. The Act
prescribes a reporting regime relating to responsible materials sourcing for larger
businesses (annual revenue more than AUD $100M) with voluntary reporting for all others.
• Governance: Covers the rights, conduct and responsibilities of management of the
company, and includes employee pay and compensation, transparency and responsible
processes, stewardship, and ethical business conduct.
A detailed discussion of these aspects is beyond the scope of this Technical Note. However,
stakeholders in the steel supply chain would be well advised to educate themselves as to the
likely current and emerging influences of these aspects on supply chain operation.
Key takeaways:
• WHS Duty of Care is overarching. WHS Codes of Practice, in particular the ‘Safe
design of structures code of practice’ mandate specific duties for most stakeholders in
the supply chain
• Both WHS and legislative changes that have or are being implemented by various
States establish a ‘chain of responsibility’ between all stakeholders in the building
product supply chain.
• WHS requires designers to identify potential hazards, which would include that of non-
compliant construction products, and for other stakeholders in the supply chain to
ensure risks are minimised with respect to potential non-compliant construction
products.
• Sustainability and ESG (Environmental – Social – Governance best practice) principals
are key influences that will shape the supply chain moving forward.
8 STAKEHOLDER RESPONSIBILITIES AND WHS
8.1 Context
Section 7 outlined the framework for responsible steel procurement established by the WHS Act
and Safe Design of Structures Code of Practice (CoP). That framework both mandates and
implies a range of responsibilities for the various stakeholders in the supply chain, as further
elaborated in this section.
8.2 Responsibilities of Designers

Section 22 of the WHS Act speaks to the responsibilities of “persons conducting businesses or
undertakings that design plant, substances or structures”. Paraphrasing the significant aspects:
• The designer must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the plant, substance or
structure is designed to be without risks to the health and safety of persons.
• The designer must carry out, or arrange the carrying out of, any calculations, analysis,
testing or examination that may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed.
• The designer must give adequate information to each person who is provided with the
design for the purpose of giving effect to it concerning, among other things, any conditions
to ensure the structure is without risks to health and safety during construction, use as a
workplace and demolition. The development of a work health and safety (WHS) file for a
structure could assist the designer meet the duty to provide information to others. It could
include copies of all relevant health and safety information the designer prepared and used
in the design process, such as the safety report, risk register, safety data sheets, manuals
and procedures for safe maintenance, dismantling or eventual demolition.
• The designer, on request, must, so far as is reasonably practicable, give current relevant
information on the matters referred to in the item above to a person who carries out, or is
to carry out, any of the activities referred to.
The Safe Design of Structures CoP provides clarity on who is considered a designer,
paraphrased:
• architects, building designers, engineers, building surveyors, interior designers, landscape
architects, town planners and all other design practitioners contributing to, or having overall
responsibility for, any part of the design
• building service designers, engineering firms or others designing services that are part of
the structure
• contractors carrying out design work as part of their contribution to a project.
• temporary works engineers
• persons who specify how structural alteration, demolition or dismantling work is to be
carried out.
• Persons who modify a design without reference to the original designer take on the duties
of a designer
The CoP also provides further clarity regarding responsibilities of designers, paraphrased:
• Safe design begins at the concept development phase of a structure when making decisions
about: …materials to be used…
• In addition to core design capabilities relevant to the designer’s role, a designer should also
have: …knowledge of technical design standards…
• So far as is reasonably practicable, the duty holders involved must consult each other on
the hazards and risks associated with the building and work together on appropriate design
solutions.
The designer has a responsibility to inform his client fully of the expectations regarding process
when the designer is required to certify the structure as fit-for-purpose under the protocols
required in the NCC. It is highly recommended that appropriate wording is added to the drawing
notes and/or construction specification. Recommended wording would be of the form:
“The design of the steelwork has been based on the requirements set out in the contract
specifications and AS 4100, together with the corresponding referenced Australian Standards for
supply of steelwork, supply of fasteners and welding consumables and fabrication. The contractor
is to provide all documentation in English that the steelwork complies with the construction
specification and the Standards. Any deviation to these requirements, unless approved by the
design engineer, may render the structural steel and steelwork not fit-for-purpose and not
compliant with the requirements of the NCC. The structural steel and/or steelwork will need to be
verified and/or re-supplied under these circumstances”.
8.3 Responsibilities of Manufacturers

Section 23 of the WHS Act applies to “a person (the manufacturer) who conducts a business or
undertaking that manufactures” plant, a substance or a structure. Paraphrasing the significant
aspects:
• The manufacturer must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the plant,
substance or structure is manufactured to be without risks to the health and safety of
persons.
• The manufacturer must carry out, or arrange the carrying out of, any calculations, analysis,
testing or examination that may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed.
• The manufacturer must give adequate information to each person to whom the
manufacturer provides the plant, substance or structure concerning, among other things,
the results of any testing and of any conditions necessary to ensure the structure is without
risks to health and safety during construction, use as a workplace and demolition.
• The manufacturer, on request, must, so far as is reasonably practicable, give current
relevant information on the matters referred to in the item above to a person who carries
out, or is to carry out, any of the activities referred to.
8.4 Responsibilities of Importers

Section 24 of the WHS Act applies to “a person (the importer) who conducts a business or
undertaking that imports” plant, a substance or a structure. Paraphrasing the significant aspects:
• The importer must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the plant, substance or
structure is without risks to the health and safety of persons.
• The importer must: (a) carry out, or arrange the carrying out of, any calculations, analysis,
testing or examination that may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed or
(b) ensure that the calculations, analysis, testing or examination have been carried out.
• The importer must give adequate information to each person to whom the importer provides
the plant, substance or structure concerning, among other things, the results of any testing
and of any conditions necessary to ensure the structure is without risks to health and safety
during construction, use as a workplace and demolition.
• The importer, on request, must, so far as is reasonably practicable, give current relevant
8.5 Responsibilities of Distributors and Suppliers

Section 25 of the WHS Act applies to “a person (the supplier) who conducts a business or
undertaking that supplies” plant, a substance or a structure. Paraphrasing the significant aspects:
• The supplier must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the plant, substance or
structure is without risks to the health and safety of persons.
• The supplier must (a) carry out, or arrange the carrying out of, any calculations, analysis,
testing or examination that may be necessary for the performance of the duty imposed or
(b) ensure that the calculations, analysis, testing or examination have been carried out.
• The supplier must give adequate information to each person to whom the supplier supplies
the plant, substance or structure concerning, among other things, the results of any testing
and of any conditions necessary to ensure the structure is without risks to health and safety
during construction, use as a workplace and demolition.
• The supplier, on request, must, so far as is reasonably practicable, give current relevant
8.6 Responsibilities of Fabricators

Fabricators are not specifically named in the WHS Act, which is understandable, as fabrication is
one of the myriad of functions that cannot all be specifically named. However, Section 23 of the
WHS Act is applicable as the fabricator is “a person (the manufacturer) who conducts a business
or undertaking that manufactures … a structure that is to be used, or could reasonably be
expected to be used, as, or at, a workplace”. Paraphrasing the significant aspects:
• The manufacturer (fabricator) must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the
plant, substance or structure is manufactured to be without risks to the health and safety of
persons.
• The manufacturer (fabricator) must carry out, or arrange the carrying out of, any
calculations, analysis, testing or examination that may be necessary for the performance of
the duty imposed.
• The manufacturer (fabricator) must give adequate information to each person to whom the
manufacturer provides the plant, substance or structure concerning, among other things,
the results of any testing and of any conditions necessary to ensure the structure is without
risks to health and safety during construction, use as a workplace and demolition.
• The manufacturer (fabricator), on request, must, so far as is reasonably practicable, give
current relevant information on the matters referred to in the item above to a person who
carries out, or is to carry out, any of the activities referred to.
8.7 Responsibilities of Principal Contractors

Section 26 of the WHS Act applies to “persons conducting businesses or undertakings that install,
construct or commission plant or structures”. Paraphrasing the significant aspects:
• The person must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the way in which the plant
or structure is installed, constructed or commissioned ensures that the plant or structure is
without risks to the health and safety of persons who install or construct the plant or
structure, who use the plant or structure, who carry out reasonably foreseeable activities
such as decommissioning, dismantling, demolition or disposal or who are in the vicinity and
whose health and safety may be affected by the actions noted above.
The CoP provides further clarity regarding responsibilities of principal contractors:

“The principal contractor is a person conducting a business or undertaking that:
• commissions the construction project (the client), or
• is engaged by the client to be the principal contractor and is authorised to have

management or control of the workplace.
The principal contractor has duties to ensure the construction work is planned and managed in a
way that eliminates or minimises health and safety risks so far as is reasonably practicable.
Further guidance on managing risks for construction projects and principal contractor duties is
available in the Code of Practice: Construction Work.”
Principal contractors should also note that there will be additional time and costs associated with
certification by the engineer where verification of steel and steelwork is required. Refer Section
8.2.
8.8 Responsibilities of Clients

The responsibilities of clients are not specifically referenced in the WHS Act. However, as a
stakeholder driving the final procurement outcomes for a project, there is clearly a primary duty
of care prescribed under Section 19 of the WHS Act. Paraphrasing the significant aspects:
• A person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure, so far as is reasonably
practicable, that the health and safety of other persons is not put at risk from work carried
out as part of the conduct of the business or undertaking.
• A person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure, so far as is reasonably
practicable: (a) the provision and maintenance of a work environment without risks to health
and safety; and (b) the provision and maintenance of safe plant and structures.
The CoP provides further clarity regarding responsibilities of clients:

“A person conducting a business or undertaking that commissions construction work (the client)
has specific duties under the WHS Regulations to:
• consult with the designer, so far as is reasonably practicable, about how to ensure that
health and safety risks arising from the design during construction are eliminated or
minimised, and
• provide the designer with any information that the client has in relation to the hazards and
risks at the site where the construction work is to be carried out.”
Clients should also note that there will be additional time and costs associated with certification
by the engineer where verification of steel and steelwork is required. Refer Section 8.2.
Key takeaways:
• The WHS Act and codes of practice, in particular the ‘Safe design of structures code of
practice’, impose particular and very significant responsibilities on most members of the
supply chain
• These shared responsibilities create, in effect, a ‘chain of responsibility’ where all
stakeholders must work together to ensure risk-minimised outcomes
• There will be additional time and costs for the engineer to certify where verification of
steel and steelwork is required.
9 RESPONSIBLE STEEL PROCUREMENT FRAMEWORK
9.1 Context
The responsibilities mandated by the WHS Act unite the supply chain for a building or structure
into a ‘chain or responsibility’ through a shared duty of care to ensure risk-minimised outcomes.
Appendix A of the Safe Design of Structures CoP documents the consultation, cooperation and
coordination duties between stakeholders for a range of different contractual project structures.
A person who commissions

CLIENT construc�on work must consult
with the designer.
The person who commissions
work must also pass on to the
constructor informa�on
provided by the designer
An en�ty bound by design and

build contractual arrangements
DESIGN-BUILD
for a construc�on project may
ENTITY be appointed as a principal
contractor
DESIGNER CONSTRUCTOR A team contractually bound to

deliver a building or structure to
the client has a greater
opportunity to ensure that
consulta�on takes place more
frequently and effec�vely
during the design stage and in
DESIGN – BUILD TEAM construc�on
Contracted responsibili�es
Consulta�on, co-opera�on and co-ordina�on du�es
Figure 7 – Responsibilities for consultation, cooperation and coordination

Design-build contractual structure
Figure 7, reproduced from Appendix A of the Safe Design of Structures CoP, illustrates the
responsibilities of and interactions between the stakeholders in a project based on a design-build
contractual model. Other contractual models are, of course, possible. Notice the responsibility for
consultation, cooperation and coordination is required, irrespective of the contractual relationship
between the parties.
9.2 Responsibilities for Steel Procurement

Figure 8 presents a flowchart of the steel procurement process based on the recommendations
in this Technical Note and highlighting the responsible parties contextualised from the general
responsibilities derived from WHS Regulation and noted in Section 8. The intent of the flowchart
is valid irrespective of the contractual relationships enacted on a particular project, for example,
as illustrated in Fig. 7. It is important to reiterate that the duty of care and responsibilities defined
in the WHS Act cannot be abrogated or re-assigned by a particular contractual relationship.
Procurement context (1)

• Compliance Management Plan
Responsible par�es: Client, Principal contractor
Specifica�on of structural steel requirements (2)
• Steel ‘construc�on specifica�on’

• Construc�on category
Responsible party: Designer
Establish supplier
creden�als Review suppliers (3)
• Supplier verified / trusted? • Supplier verified / trusted?
Responsible party: Responsible party: Fabricator (9)

Fabricator (9)
Place order with supplier (4)

• Schedule of materials
• Construc�on category
Responsible party: Fabricator (9)
Establish MVL
Prepare list of steel sources (5)
• Manufacturer verifica�on level (MVL)
Responsible party: • Evidence of cer�fica�ons; performance monitoring
Metallurgist or • Project specific verifica�on tes�ng requirements (if any)
materials engineer on
behalf of supplier Responsible party: Supplier
Review of steel source list (6)
Responsible par�es: Principal contractor,

fabricator (9), designer
Traceability verifica�on Place order with manufacturer or use stock

• Traceability confirmed?
product
Responsible party: Responsible party: Supplier

Supplier
Undertake project specific verifica�on tes�ng

Verifica�on tes�ng
• Required?
(if required)(7)
Responsible par�es: Conformance assessment
body on behalf of supplier, including
Responsible party:
metallurgist (if required)
Supplier
Gather evidence of conformity (8)

• Cer�ficates (test, FPC or product)
• Verifica�on test reports
• SDoC
Responsible party: Supplier
Structural steel supplied with traceable evidence

of conformity (cer�ficates, reports etc)
Responsible party: Supplier
Review of evidence of conformity (6)

Acceptance of steels

Figure 8 – Responsibilities within steel procurement process

Notes to Fig. 8:
(1) The client must take shared responsibility for understanding the contemporary procurement
environment and engaging with the project delivery team to ensure a cost-effective risk-minimised
quality solution is the outcome. Along with all other stakeholders, clients do have responsibilities
under WHS Regulation. The principal contractor should prepare a Compliance Management Plan
(refer Section 9.3) prior to the project procurement commencing as an agreed protocol to address
potential non-compliance.
(2) The requirements for the ‘construction specification’ are defined in AS 4100 (Ref. 3) and AS/NZS
5131 (Ref. 14). The construction specification, including drawings, is prepared by the designer. ASI
have developed the ‘National Structural Steelwork Specification’ (Ref. 24) to support designers in
properly implementing AS/NZS 5131 into the project process.
(3) The review of suppliers and the use of verified / trusted suppliers is strongly recommended. Support
for verification of the supply chain in this manner provides the best opportunity to introduce cost-
effective compliant outcomes.
(4) Orders for steelwork placed with suppliers must clearly transcribe the relevant requirements of the
construction specification and state that steel must meet the ‘Steel verification protocol’ defined in
this Technical Note. Purchase orders might conveniently be appended with a summary of the
protocol as part of the standard conditions.
(5) The selected supplier(s) must provide details of the steel sources proposed. The credentials of the
steel sources, including the assessed MVL, evidence of certifications and results of performance
monitoring must be available. Where project specific verification testing is required, this must also
be available for review. It would be convenient for the supplier to develop these credentials for the
steel sources commonly utilised.
(6) Specific review of the proposed steel source list and evidence of conformity are recommended hold
points. A mandated review will help ensure the veracity of the procurement process.
(7) Any requirement for project-specific verification testing is dictated by the particular conformity
assessment pathway adopted. Refer to Appendix G. The supplier may need to rationalise stock
responsive to the need to supply material for both CC2 and CC3 projects.
(8) The required evidence of conformity is defined in Section 4.
(9) Depending on project type and size, the responsibilities of the fabricator may also be assumed by
the structural steel contractor, who subcontracts fabrication to the fabricator.
9.3 Compliance Management Plan

The compliance of construction products on a project cannot be assumed. An internationalised
procurement environment, price competition and the complexity of ascertaining compliance make
it difficult for stakeholders to adequately respond within project timeframes to situations where
the compliance of particular products is in question.
Given this environment, the principal contractor must have in place a plan for managing
procurement and compliance of structural steel to ensure cost effective, timely risk minimised
outcomes. The procurement, fabrication and erection of structural steelwork should be
undertaken under a documented Compliance Management Plan (CompMP).
The CompMP should include:
• the requirements of the Quality Plan in AS/NZS 5131
• Process and documentation checklists for purchasing steel
• Process for identification and traceability of steel and steelwork from purchasing through to
completion of the project
• Process for ascertaining compliance of structural steel (as defined in this Technical Note)
• Process and documentation checklists for erection of structural steelwork
• Assigned responsibilities for compliance management, including names and CV’s of

relevant personnel
• A response to any specific issues documented in the designer’s ‘Safety Report’ (refer
Section 7.4) required under WHS
The CompMP should be provided by the principal contractor prior to first procurement of materials
for the project.
Key takeaways:
• WHS responsibilities and duty of care cannot be abrogated or re-assigned by a

particular contractual relationship
• The procurement process and responsibilities indicated in Figure 8 are considered
good practice and consistent with duty of care under WHS
• A ‘Compliance Management Plan’ prepared by the principal contractor is strongly
recommended to proactively minimise project impact caused by potential non-compliant
construction products
10 REFERENCES
1. Australian Building Codes Board, ‘National Construction Code’, 2019.
2. Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth.). Retrieved from
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017C00305 on 21 Jan 2021.
3. Standards Australia, AS 4100:2020 ‘Steel structures’.
4. Standards Australia, AS/NZS 4600:2018 ‘Cold-formed steel structures’.
5. NASH Standard – Residential and Low-Rise Steel Framing Part 1 or Part 2
6. Standards Australia, AS/NZS 3678:2016 ‘Structural steel - Hot-rolled plates, floorplates
and slabs’.
7. Standards Australia, AS/NZS 3679.1:2016 ‘Structural steel - Part 1: Hot-rolled bars and
sections’.
8. Standards Australia, AS/NZS 3679.2:2016 ‘Structural steel - Part 2: Welded I sections’.
9. Standards Australia, AS/NZS 1163:2016 ‘Cold-formed structural steel hollow sections’.
10. Pham, L. and Bridge, R.Q. and Bradford, M., 1986, ‘Calibration of the proposed limit states
design rules for steel beams and columns’, Civil Eng Trans, I.E. Aust.,Vol. CE28, No. 3,
July 1986, pp 268-274.
11. ABCB Handbook: Structural Reliability Verification Method. Available from:
https://www.abcb.gov.au/-/media/Files/Resources/Education-
Training/Handbook_Structural_Reliability.pdf
12. International Standards Organisation, ISO 2394:2015 ‘General principles on reliability for
structures’.
13. Standards Australia, AS 5104:2017 ‘General principles on reliability for structures’.
14. Standards Australia, AS/NZS 5131:2016 ‘Structural steelwork – Fabrication and erection’
15. Australian Steel Institute, Technical Note TN011 ‘AS/NZS 5131 - Structural steelwork
fabrication and erection - Implementation guide for engineers, specifiers and procurers’,
version 3, Aug 2020.
16. NCC Guide to BCA Vol. 1. Available from: https://www.builderassist.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2016/02/NCC2016-BCA-Guide.pdf
17. Australasian Procurement and Construction Council, ‘Procurement of construction
products - A guide to achieving compliance’, 2014. Available for download from
https://9104f275-f216-4fd2-9506-
720eb252b4fc.filesusr.com/ugd/473156_54e042e91f914e81a2e55b6a9bbbc301.pdf
18. Shergold, P. and Weir, B., ‘Building confidence. Improving the effectiveness of
compliance and enforcement systems for the building and construction industry across
Australia’, 2018. Available for download from
https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/July%202018/document/pdf/building_ministers
_forum_expert_assessment_-_building_confidence.pdf
19. International Standards Organisation, ISO 12491:1997 ‘Statistical methods for quality
control’.
20. Standards Australia, AS/NZS 1170.0: 2002 ‘Structural design actions’.
21. Safe Work Australia, ‘Safe design of structures. Code of Practice’, October 2018.
Available from https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/model-code-practice-safe-
design-structures
22. ASI ‘Questions Answered’ connecting WHS to non-compliant product. Available at:
https://www.steel.org.au/focus-areas/quality-and-compliance/
23. ‘Building and Construction Legislation (Non-conforming Building Products – Chain of
Responsibility and other matters) Amendment Act 2017’, accessed from View -
Queensland Legislation - Queensland Government on 1 st Feb, 2021.
24. Australian Steel Institute, ‘National Structural Steelwork Specification’. Available for
download from https://www.steel.org.au/resources/elibrary/resource-items/asi-national-
structural-steelwork-specification/
25. Shergold Weir Report Implementation | ACA - Association of Consulting Architects
Australia, accessed on 1st Feb, 2021.
26. NSW Government response to the Shergold Weir Building Confidence Report, accessed
from NSW Government Response to the Shergold Weir Building Confidence Report | NSW
Fair Trading on 1 st Feb, 2021.
27. ‘Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW)’, retrieved from Design and Building
Practitioners Act 2020 No 7 - NSW Legislation on 1 st Feb, 2021.
28. ‘Review of Victoria’s Building System’, accessed from Review of Victoria's Building
System (planning.vic.gov.au) on 1 st Feb, 2021.
29. ‘Code of Conduct for Building Surveyors’, accessed from Code of Conduct for Building
Surveyors | Victorian Building Authority (vba.vic.gov.au) on 1 st Feb, 2021.
30. ‘Strengthening the professional indemnity insurance environment for building industry
professionals in Queensland’ – Interim report, retrieved from
https://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/4917/safebuildingspwcreport.pdf
31. ‘Queensland Building Plan 2017’, accessed from
https://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/4839/qldbuildingplan.pdf on 1st Feb,
2021.
32. South Australian ‘Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016’, accessed from PDI
Act 2016 | PlanSA on 1 st Feb, 2021.
33. South Australian ‘Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Accredited professionals)
Regulations 2019, accessed from Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Accredited
Professionals)Regulations 2019 (legislation.sa.gov.au) on 1 st Feb, 2021.
34. Have your say on building industry registration | Department of Mines, Industry Regulation
and Safety (commerce.wa.gov.au) accessed on 1 st Feb, 2021.
35. ASI Technical Note TN-005. Guidelines for Designing to AS 4100 when Imported
Materials are Involved. Version 4, 2020. Available at:
https://www.steel.org.au/resources/elibrary/resource-items/tn005-guidelines-for-
designing-to-as-4100-when-imp/
36. ASI Technical Note TN-007. Compliance Issues and Steel Structures. Version 3, 2020.
Available at: https://www.steel.org.au/resources/elibrary/resource-items/tn007-
compliance-issues-and-steel-structures/
37. Standards Australia, AS/NZS 1554:2014 Structural Steel Welding set.
38. Australian Technical Specification SA TS 103:2016 Structural steel welding—Limits on
boron in parent materials.
39. WTIA Technical Note 1 The Weldability of Steels. Available at:
https://portal.weldaustralia.com.au/resources/product-details/?id=636d7f3f-4822-eb11-
a813-000d3a6aacf5
40. Standards Australia. AS 4100 Supplement 1-1999. Steel Structures Commentary.
41. Safe Work Australia Guide on ‘what is reasonably practicable to meet a health and safety
duty’. Available at: https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/how-determine-what-
reasonably-practicable-meet-health-and-safety-duty
42. ‘National Structural Steelwork Compliance Scheme’ https://www.steel.org.au/focus-
areas/quality-and-compliance/national-structural-steelwork-compliance-scheme/
APPENDIX A
INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDER REVIEW PANEL
The Technical Note was prepared under the guidance of an ASI steering committee and was peer
reviewed by a range of representatives and organisations as listed below. The contribution of these
entities for the benefit of the Australian steel community is gratefully acknowledged.
Name Company Company type

Anthony Ng Infrabuild Manufacturer
Chris Kilmore Bluescope Manufacturer
Doug Hawkes Structural Integrity Engineering Engineer
Glenn Gibson IDEC Fabricator
George Vorobieff Head to Head International Consultant
John Merrick Arcadis Engineer
Maria Mavrikos Structural Challenge Fabricator
Mark Bubicich Liberty Primary Steel Manufacturer
Michael Sampson Southern Steel Distributor
Pablo Santos S & L Steel Fabricator
Patrick Beshara LendLease Constructor
APPENDIX B
IDENTIFICATION AND MARKING OF STRUCTURAL STEEL PRODUCT
B.1 Context
The Australian steel product Standards (Refs 6, 7, 8, 9) mandate specific requirements for
identification and marking of steel product claiming to comply to the Standards.
Steel manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and fabricators must be familiar with these
requirements for identification and marking to ensure product is compliant. They must have
access to current copies of the relevant product Standards.
B.2 Marking Requirements

The product Standards require all product lengths to be identified with a mark that indicates the
identification requirements noted in Section B.3. In addition, bundles or packs of material are to
be marked with the bundle/pack identification information noted in Section B.3.
The marks shall be produced/applied at the time of manufacture, legible and durable to the point
of fabrication and/or after fabrication and coating (depending on the type of identification and type
of product). Depending on the product the marking shall be applied at defined locations and
spacings.
B.3 Identification Requirements

The identification requirements across the four product Standards may be summarised as:
Individual lengths/plates:
(a) A mark with the two characters ‘AS’ to indicate the item is made to the relevant Australian
Standard
(b) The manufacturer’s name or mark or both
(c) The grade of the steel
(d) A mark allowing the item to be traced to a test certificate
(e) The nominal size and shape
Bundles/packs:
(f) The manufacturer’s name or mark or both
(g) Reference to the relevant Standard eg AS/NZS 3678
(h) The grade of steel
(i) The identification of the heat of steel from which it was made
(j) The nominal size and shape
APPENDIX C
TEST AND INSPECTION CERTIFICATES
C.1 Context
The Australian steel product Standards (Refs 6, 7, 8, 9) specifically state “A test and inspection
certificate shall be available to the purchaser for all products manufactured to this Standard for
each batch produced”. They also mandate specific requirements for test and inspection
certificates in Clause 11.2 for steel product claiming to comply to the Standards.
Steel manufacturers, suppliers, distributors and fabricators must be familiar with these
requirements for test and inspection certificates to ensure product is compliant. They must have
access to current copies of the relevant product Standards.
C.2 Minimum Requirements for Test and Inspection Certificates

The minimum requirements for test and inspection certificates across the four product Standards
may be summarised as:
(a) Shall be in English alphanumeric characters, issued by the manufacturer and include the
following:
(b) Manufacturer’s name
(c) Test certificate number
(d) Date of certification
(e) Product, testing specification and grade e.g. AS/NZS 3678-350L0
(f) Product designation
(g) Product steelmaking process, for example basic oxygen or electric arc
(h) Length, bundle, pack or unique product identifier to which the test certificate applies
(i) Heat number (from steel feed melting and casting)
(j) Chemical analysis type e.g. cast analysis ‘L’ or product ‘P’
(k) For each test, a laboratory identification providing traceability to the laboratory accreditation
of the test type.
(l) Chemical composition for all elements listed in the applicable Standard, typically carbon
(C), phosphorus (P), manganese (Mn), silicon (Si), sulphur (S), chromium (Cr),
molybdenum (Mo), vanadium (V), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), aluminium (Al), titanium (Ti),
niobium (Nb), boron (B), carbon equivalent (CE) and any element intentionally added.
(m) As required in the relevant Standard, mechanical testing information:
I. Tensile tests providing position and orientation, batch or item test and results (yield
strength, gauge length and % elongation)
II. Impact tests providing position and orientation, batch or item test, test piece
dimensions, tested temperature and results (individual and average energy in joules)
III. Through-thickness tensile tests providing position and orientation, batch or item test
and results (% reduction in area)
(n) Any additional heat treatment of the test piece
(o) The manufacturing facilities quality management system’s certifier and certification number
(p) The body assessing the product conformity to the Standard in question. For self-
assessment, this is the manufacturer, the default scheme being as described in Appendix
B of the Standard in question.
(q) A declaration from the manufacturer that the products supplied comply with the
requirements of the Standard in question. This shall be validated by the manufacturer’s
authorised inspection representative, including their name and position. Where the
document has been validated by the purchaser’s authorised representative or by an
inspector designated by a third party, their name and position shall be on the document.
C.3 Qualifications on Test and Inspection Certificates

The product Standards require that tests documented on a test and inspection certificate are
performed by a laboratory accredited by signatories to the International Laboratory Accreditation
Corporation (ILAC) through their Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) for the specific tests
described on the test and inspection certificate. The appropriate logo or further details of the ILAC
(MRA) signatory shall be noted on the document.
In Australia, ILAC (MRA) accredited bodies include National Association of Testing Authorities
(NATA).
NOTES:
1. It is important that stakeholders check the accreditation of the testing laboratory specifically covers
the range of tests documented on the test and inspection certificate. There have been reported
instances of both fraudulent and misleading documentation. Check ILAC website at International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ilac.org)
2. Market feedback indicates that in certain regions internationally, there are concerns with the
reliability of test results from some accredited test facilities. Where concerns exist, it is
recommended that a duplicate set of samples is collected by an independent authority and the
duplicate set sent to an accredited testing facility in Australia.
APPENDIX D
SUPPLIER DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY (SDoC)
D.1 Context
AS/NZS 5131 (Ref. 14) recommends a Supplier Declaration of Conformity is provided for
purchased components. An SDoC must be provided by the supplier or distributor where material
is sourced internationally. The SDoC must include reference to the verification test report or
reports used to support any claim of conformity.
D.2 Typical Form of SDoC

Figure D.1 provides an outline of the typical form of an SDoC for structural steel.
Notes to Fig. D.1:
1. Each SDoC must have a unique number for identification purposes
2. Company details must include the company name, registered business address, ABN and
contact details. The street address of the location of manufacture (for steel manufacture)
must also be included.
3. The ‘Unique product identification’ will usually be the combination of the product name and
the mill certificate credentials, the latter comprising the manufacturer name, the mill
certificate number and the steel batch number.
4. The Standards to which conformity is declared will be one of the relevant Australian steel
product Standards (Refs. 6, 7, 8, 9).
5. The intended use of the product describes the expected application of the product. In most
cases for structural steel this might be “Steel structures or composite steel and concrete
structures as defined in the scope of AS 4100, AS/NZS 5100.6 and AS/NZS 2327”.
6. The ‘Evidence of Compliance’ will depend on the exact conformity assessment pathway
selected (refer Section 6 and Appendix G) up to the point of supply and would include the
appropriate combination of the following:
a. Documentation demonstrating the applicable Manufacturer Verification Level (MVL)
(Refer Section 4.4). This might include certification credentials of the steel
manufacturer and accreditation credentials of the conformity assessment body (CAB)
certifying the steel manufacturer
b. Mill certificates from the steel manufacturer
c. Evidence of marking and identification to verify traceability (refer Section 4.5)
d. Test reports or test certificates where product performance verification (Refer Section
4.7) is required
e. Assessment report where test reports or test certificates are used with an assessment
method to verify product performance
7. The declaration must be signed and dated by a party authorised to make the declaration
on behalf of the company.
SUPPLIER DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY

SDoC Number:
1. Company Details:
(including Corporate address and street address where product

manufactured, if applicable)
2. Unique product iden�fica�on:
Name:
Unique iden�fica�on code:
3. Standard(s) to which conformity declared:
4. Intended use:
5. Evidence of conformity:
Manufacturer verifica�on level:
Mill cer�ficates:
Marking & iden�fica�on:
Test reports/test cer�ficates:
Assessment reports:
Declara�on:
I hereby declare that the product noted at item 2 complies with the
Standards noted at item 3 based on the evidence of compliance noted at
item 4
Name: Signed: Date:
Posi�on:
Figure D.1 Typical Form of SDoC

APPENDIX E
VERIFICATION BATCH TESTING AND INSPECTION
E.1 Context
Verification testing is the independent assessment of selected mechanical and chemical
properties of a test sample. Such testing should be undertaken by a suitably accredited test
facility. The sample or samples will be taken from a batch or lot of product intended for use in a
building or infrastructure project. The procurer or the project designer needs to specify the
material properties to be assessed, the sampling plan and the basis on which decisions about the
quality of batches of product will be made (pass/fail or statistical sampling).
Testing must be undertaken by test facilities accredited by signatories to the International
Laboratory Accreditation Co-operation’s (ILAC’s) Mutual Recognition Arrangement (MRA). The
scope of accreditation should include the specific tests required in the relevant material supply
standard. In Australia, the national accrediting body is the National Association of Testing
Authorities (NATA). To check the scope of test facility accreditation, reference can be made to
the website of the relevant accrediting body.
Note that in certain regions internationally, test facility accreditation is no guarantee of reliable
test results. If there are concerns about the reliability of an offshore test facility utilised for project
specific third-party testing, it is recommended a duplicate set of samples is collected. One set of
samples is sent to the offshore test facility while the second is sent to Australia. A robust sample
collection process and tracking system involving a trusted third party is advisable. A small
percentage of the samples sent to Australia can be tested (10-20% suggested). It is
recommended a qualified metallurgist review the two sets of test results and advise if additional
testing in Australia is warranted.
E.2 Verification Testing Basis

The recommended verification testing focuses primarily on the mechanical and chemical
properties of structural steels, as these variables have a significant impact on their structural
performance and weldability.
Chemical composition of the finished product should be determined in accordance with the
AS/NZS 1050 series Standards or other procedures that achieve the same, or better, degree of
accuracy. The product analysis should conform to the limits for chemical elements, including
residual elements such as boron that should not be intentionally added to the steel without the
agreement of the purchaser as required in the applicable product standard. Typically, the method
of choice is spark OES (Optical Emission Spectrometry) as it allows for fast and accurate element
analysis of solid metal samples.
The verification testing and inspections should be undertaken to the requirements of the relevant
product standard. Any testing and inspection bodies engaged to undertake such activities shall
be appropriately accredited.
E.3 Sampling and testing plan

E.3.1 Introduction
Batch testing and inspection is predicated on selection of an appropriate sampling and testing
plan. Two sampling and testing plans have been prepared for use in conjunction with the
conformity assessment pathway selection approach proposed in this document. These are termed
‘Level 1 and ‘Level 2’.
The Level 1 plan features a non-statistical acceptance criterion for all material property testing
and inspections, see Table E1. The Level 2 plan features a statistical sampling (inspection by
variables) batch acceptance approach for material tensile properties (Table E2(b)) and a non-
statistical acceptance criterion for the remaining properties (Table E2(a)).
E.3.2 Sampling and Testing Plan – Level 1
The Level 1 sampling and testing plan shown in Table E1 features a non-statistical acceptance
criteria for all material property testing and inspections.
Table E1
Sampling and testing plan – Level 1
Structural Characteristic Requirement Sample Acceptance

Steel Product Size No. (Ac) (4)
Structural Chemical Product analysis 1 0
hollow section composition
Tolerance Straightness 1 0
Mechanical Yield stress, tensile strength, 1 (1) 0
properties elongation
Impact toughness 3 (2) 0
Weld quality Cold flattening 1 (1) 0
Plate Chemical Product analysis 1 0
composition
Reduction in area for through- 1 0
thickness properties
Hot-rolled bars Chemical Product analysis 1 0
and sections composition
Tolerance Out-of-straightness 1 0
Mechanical Yield stress, tensile strength, 1 (1)
0
Welded Chemical Product analysis 1 0
sections composition
Weld quality Web to flange tensile test 1 (3) 0
Notes:
(1) One test for each batch not greater than 50 tonnes. Two tests for batches greater than 50
tonnes.
(2) As per product Standard, typically three test samples for impact toughness testing.
tonnes.
(4) The ‘Acceptance Number’ is the highest number of nonconforming items that can be found in a
sample for a lot to still be considered acceptable.
E.3.3 Sampling and Test Plan – Level 2

The Level 2 sampling and testing plan features a statistical sampling (inspection by variables)
acceptance criterion for tensile properties of structural steels (Table E2(b)), and a non-statistical
acceptance criterion for the remaining properties of interest (Table E2(a)).
Table E2(a)
Batch acceptance criterion: Non-statistical
Structural Characteristic Requirement Sample Acceptance

Steel Product Size No. (Ac) (4)
Structural Chemical Product analysis 1 0
hollow section composition
Mechanical Impact toughness 3 (1)
0
properties
Weld quality Cold flattening 1 (2) 0
Plate Chemical Product analysis 1 0
composition
Mechanical Impact toughness 3 (1) 0
properties
Reduction in area for through- 1 0
thickness properties (5)
Hot-rolled bars Chemical Product analysis 1 0
and sections composition
properties
Welded Chemical Product analysis 1 0
sections composition
properties
Weld quality Web to flange tensile test 1 (3) 0
Notes:
(1) As per product Standard, typically three test samples for impact toughness testing.
tonnes.
tonnes.
(4) The ‘Acceptance Number’ is the highest number of nonconforming items that can be found in a
sample for a lot to still be considered acceptable.
(5) Where the plate has been manufactured and ordered for improved through-thickness ductility
(for example, for the avoidance of lamellar tearing), a statistical approach to verification testing
is recommended (refer Table E2(b))
Table E2(b)
Batch acceptance criterion: Statistical sampling
Structural Characteristic Requirement Sample Acceptance No. (Ac)

Steel Product Size
Structural Mechanical Yield stress, tensile min 3 (1) 𝑋𝑋�𝑝𝑝 − 𝐾𝐾. 𝑠𝑠 ≥ 𝐿𝐿 (1)
hollow section properties strength, elongation

where:
Plate Mechanical Yield stress, tensile min 3 (1)
properties strength, elongation 𝑋𝑋�𝑝𝑝 = mean value of tests
from batch
Reduction in area for min 3 (1)
through-thickness 𝑠𝑠 = standard deviation
properties (2) 𝐾𝐾 = statistical multiplier
Hot-rolled bars Mechanical Yield stress, tensile min 3 (1) (Table F1)
and sections properties strength, elongation 𝐿𝐿 = minimum value of
property from product
Welded Mechanical Yield stress, tensile min 3 (1)
standard
sections properties strength, elongation
Notes:
(1) Refer to Appendix F for details of sampling inspection by variables methodology
(2) Where the plate has been manufactured and ordered for improved through-thickness ductility
(for example, for the avoidance of lamellar tearing), a statistical approach to verification testing
is recommended
E.4 Non-statistical Evaluation of Conformity

E4.1 Sampling, Testing and Assessment
Sampling, testing and assessment shall be undertaken in the following steps:
a) Select samples at random from the batch of steel.
b) For each characteristic in table E1 or E2, carry out inspection or testing on the number of
samples required.
c) Record the number of non-conforming characteristics and accept the batch if the number
is less than or equal to the acceptance number (Ac).
d) For any characteristic, if the number of non-conforming test results is greater than the
acceptance number (Ac), the batch is rejected.
E4.2 Retesting in Case of Non-Conforming Product
The proposed retesting requirement outlined below is based on that found in BS 4449 (BSI, 2005).
If any test specimen fails to meet the yield stress, tensile strength, yield/ tensile ratio, elongation,
impact toughness, flange to web tensile (welded sections), cold flattening (structural hollow
sections), or out of straightness requirements, four additional specimens shall be taken from the
same batch to undergo tests. If all the additional four specimens pass the retests, the batch is
deemed to conform to the standard. Otherwise the batch is deemed non-conforming.
E.5 Statistical Sampling Batch Acceptance Criterion

Refer to Appendix F for a statistical sampling (inspection by variables) methodology for assessing
the conformity of tensile properties of a batch of steel.
E.6 Traceability
The identification number of the batch shall be identified on the verification test report and on
individual or bundled product.
E.7 Test Report

A test report shall be prepared containing the following information:
a) The manufacturer’s name
b) The section designation
c) The grade of steel
d) The date of testing
e) The heat number
f) Product marking
g) Individual test results
h) Computed minimum values (only applies if statistical sampling (inspection by variables)
undertaken)
E.8 Supplier Declaration of Conformity

A Supplier Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) (refer to Appendix D) shall be provided. The SDoC
shall include the following:
a) A statement from the supplier that the specific batch of structural steel covered by the
SDoC complies with the mechanical and chemical properties, weld quality (only applicable
for steel material to AS/NZS 1163 and 3679.2) and out of straightness requirements of the
relevant product standard.
b) Reference verification test report or reports used to support the claim of conformity.
APPENDIX F
STATISTICAL SAMPLING AS A MEANS OF DEMONSTRATING CONFORMITY
F.1 Introduction
The international standard ISO 12491 (Ref 19) provides statistical methods for all types of building
materials and components to ensure that they meet the quality control requirements given in ISO
2394 (Ref 12))/AS 5104 (Ref 13), which forms the basis for AS/NZS 1170.0 (Ref 20). The previous
versions of the AS/NZS steel supply standards required steel mills to use a statistical sampling
approach based on the ISO 12491 methods to demonstrate their statistically predicted proportion
of non-conforming product is less than 5% at a 90% confidence level.
Sampling and testing plan (Level 2) features a statistical sampling (inspection by variables)
approach to assessing the conformity of the tensile properties of batches of steel. This covers the
following mechanical properties:
a) Tensile strength (fu)
b) Yield stress (fy)
c) Yield to tensile ratio (fy/fu)
d) Elongation (Agt)
e) Reduction in area for through-thickness properties (where the plate has been manufactured
and ordered for improved through-thickness ductility (for example, for the avoidance of
lamellar tearing))
The statistical sampling (inspection by variables) methodology presented in this Technical Note
is based on ISO 12491 (Ref 19).
Impact toughness, chemical composition, weld quality and out of straightness should be verified
using the non-statistical evaluation of conformity approach proposed in Table E2(a).
F.2 Statistical Sampling (Inspection by Variables) Methodology

F.2.1 Extent of Sampling
A minimum of three test specimens shall be taken from each batch of steel. Additional numbers
of samples may be taken if the computed minimum or maximum values do not comply with those
specified in the product standard.
The preparation of test samples shall be as per the relevant structural steel manufacturing
standard. Properties to be tested:
a) Yield stress (fy)
b) Tensile strength (fu)
c) Elongation (Agt)
F.2.2 Evaluation of Results
The minimum values of yield stress, tensile strength, elongation and the maximum value of fy/fu
shall be computed as follows:
Step 1: Estimation of the mean and standard deviation of the test population
The mean value and standard deviation of the tests within the batch should be estimated using
the following equations for Xp and s, respectively:
��
𝑋𝑋𝑝𝑝 = ∑ 𝑥𝑥𝑠𝑠 ⁄𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝
��𝑝𝑝 )2 �(𝑛𝑛𝑝𝑝 − 1)
𝑠𝑠 = �∑ (𝑥𝑥𝑠𝑠 − 𝑋𝑋
where x s is the individual test value and n p is the number of test values within the batch.
Step 2: Estimation of the nominal value from tests

The minimum or maximum value of a material property may be estimated from the following
equations:
��𝑝𝑝� − 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 ≥ 𝐿𝐿 for minimum nominal values (no individual test result less than the lower value
𝑋𝑋
specified in the product standard)
��𝑝𝑝� + 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 ≤ 𝑈𝑈 for maximum nominal values (no individual test result greater than the upper value
𝑋𝑋
specified in the product standard)
where K is the statistical multiplying factor from Table F1 and L and U are the minimum and
maximum value respectively specified in the appropriate product standard.
Table F1
Statistical multiplication factor K
Number of test values np 3 4 5 6 8 10 20 30 ∞

For fy (p=0.95 at 75% 3.15 2.68 2.46 2.34 2.19 2.10 1.93 1.87 1.64
confidence level
For Agt, fy/f u (p=0.90 at 4.26 3.19 2.74 2.49 2.22 2.07 1.77 1.66 1.282
90% confidence level)
Example
Consider five tensile tests with measured upper yield strength values of ReH = 365, 340, 355,
400 and 395 MPa. From the above equations, the mean value 𝑋𝑋 ��𝑝𝑝� = 371 MPa and the
corresponding standard deviation s = 25.84 MPa. The estimated nominal value is therefore:
��𝑝𝑝� − 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 = 371 - (2.46 × 25.84) = 307.4 MPa

𝑋𝑋
From AS/NZS 3679.1, the minimum yield stress value for Grade 300 yield stress for the material
ReH = 300 MPa, for a thickness of between 11 and 17 mm. As the minimum value criteria is
satisfied and no individual test values fall below the grade minimum, it is therefore concluded that
the batch of steel complies with the minimum yield stress requirement for Grade 300 steel.
F.3 Verification Test Report
Refer Appendix E.
F.4 Supplier Declaration of Conformity
Refer to Appendix D.
F.5 Personnel Competency
The supplier shall employ a qualified metallurgist or materials engineer to undertake the
calculations presented in section F.2.
APPENDIX G
CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT PATHWAY SELECTION
G.1 Context
The conformity assessment pathways detailed in subsequent sections have been configured as a
function of the Construction Category (CC) assessed for the project based on AS 4100:2020 and
identically in AS/NZS 5131:2020. Construction Categories from CC1 to CC4 are defined, from least
to most risk. The designer is required to assess the Construction Category for the structure or part
of the structure.
Fabrication and erection requirements for CC1 to CC3 are defined in AS/NZS 5131, including for
material identification, traceability and conformity. CC4 represents projects that are of national
significance or present very high risk or consequence of failure and whose requirements are greater
than CC3 but cannot be pre-defined.
The requirements for CC4 above and beyond CC3 must be defined for the specific project.
Consequently, the conformity assessment pathway for CC4 cannot be pre-defined, excepting to
note that it should be at least as rigorous as CC3.
G.2 Construction Category 1
PROJECT
RISK(1) CONSTRUCTION CATEGORY 1
MANUFACTURER
VERIFICATION(2)
MVL1 MVL5
STEEL
MVL2 MVL3 MVL4
Y Verified Y Verified Y Verified Y Verified Y Verified

SUPPLY CHAIN VERIFICATION(3)
supplier? supplier? supplier? supplier? supplier?
N N N N N
Trusted Trusted Trusted Trusted Trusted
Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N
VERIFICATION(4)
TRACEABILITY
Traceability verified? N
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
None None None None Level 1

PRODUCT PERFORMANCE
required required required required First batch

PROJECT-SPECIFIC
VERIFICATION(5)
None Level 1
required First batch Level 1 Level 1 Level 1
First batch
First batch First batch Level 1 every
2nd batch
Not supported(6)
For notes, refer to Section G.4.

G.3 Construction Category 2
PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION CATEGORY 2
RISK(1)
MANUFACTURER
VERIFICATION(2)
MVL1 MVL5
STEEL
MVL2 MVL3 MVL4

N N N N N
Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N
VERIFICATION(4)
TRACEABILITY
None None None Level 1 Level 1

PRODUCT PERFORMANCE
required required required First batch First batch

PROJECT-SPECIFIC
VERIFICATION(5)
None Level 2
required First 2
Level 2 Level 2 Level 2
First 2 batches First 2 batches
batches Then Then Every
Level 1 every Level 1 every batch
2nd batch batch
Not supported(6)
For notes, refer to Section G.4

G.4 Construction Category 3 (and CC4 as Noted)
Note: This may also be applied to Construction Category 4. Refer to Section G.5 for further detail.
PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION CATEGORY 3
RISK(1)
MANUFACTURER
VERIFICATION(2)
MVL1 MVL5
STEEL
MVL2 MVL3 MVL4

N N N N N
Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N
VERIFICATION(4)
TRACEABILITY
None None Level 1 Level 1 Level 2

PRODUCT PERFORMANCE
Every 2 nd batch Every 2 nd batch

required required Every batch
PROJECT-SPECIFIC
VERIFICATION(5)
Level 2
Level 2
Level 1 First 2 batches
Level 2
First 2 batches
First 2 batches
Every 2nd Then Then
Then
Level 1 every
batch Level 1 every Level 1 every
batch
2nd batch batch
Not supported(6)
For notes, refer to Section G.5.

G.5 Notes
(1) Refer to Section 4.8 for details of assessment of project (construction) risk.
(2) Refer to Section 4.4 and Table 1 for details of Manufacturer Verification Level (MVL)
(3) Refer to Section 4.6 for details of supply chain verification
(4) Refer to Section 4.5 for details of traceability verification. For the case of a verified or
trusted supplier or supply chain, traceability verification should be trivial. Where the supplier
is (or supply chain if more than one party is involved in the supply chain) not verified or
trusted, traceability verification must be completed, otherwise there is no verified link
between the material provided and the documentation or manufacturer.
(5) Refer to Section 4.7 for details of product performance verification. The verification of
product performance may be undertaken by the verified supplier, the trusted supplier under
a performance monitoring protocol established with the procurer or by the procurer on an
as-needed basis. There are obvious increasing supply chain efficiencies from the former
approaches compared to the latter.
(6) Where there is no verified traceability between the material supplied and the documentation
or manufacturer, it is only possible to establish the steel compliance by testing every piece
of steel, which is considered commercially not viable. In this case, the only option is to treat
the steel as unidentified under Clause 2.2.3 of AS 4100 (Ref. 3).
(7) The conformity assessment pathway selection for CC3 may be applied to CC4 with
consideration as to whether any project-specific additional requirements are necessary.
CC4 is for special purpose structures where the requirements are at least at the level of
CC3 if not greater, but any requirements over and above CC3 are based on the specific
project, as defined in the construction specification.
APPENDIX H
STATE-BASED REFERENCES TO NCBP ACTIONS
H.1 Context
Issues with non-compliant building products and the pressure on building regulation to address
very public instances of building and structure failure (of various forms) has resulted in a number
of state and federal working groups and reports to understand and ultimately address the root
causes.
Currently, all states are addressing the recommendations from the recent Shergold Weir Report
‘Building Confidence’ (Ref. 18), which the Building Ministers Forum commissioned in mid-2017
as an assessment of the effectiveness of the compliance and enforcement systems for the
building and construction industries across Australia, a response to a number of significant and
publicly documented failures in structures to that date (and subsequently).
Of the 24 recommendations in that report, a number are relevant to the responsibilities of
stakeholders outlined in this current discussion:
 Recommendation 13: That each jurisdiction requires building approval documentation to
be prepared by appropriate categories of registered practitioners, demonstrating that the
proposed building complies with the National Construction Code.
 Recommendation 14: That each jurisdiction sets out the information which must be
included in performance solutions, specifying in occupancy certificates the circumstances
in which performance solutions have been used and for what purpose.
 Recommendation 15: That each jurisdiction provides a transparent and robust process
for the approval of performance solutions for constructed building work.
 Recommendation 17: That each jurisdiction requires genuine independent third-party
review for specified components of designs and/ or certain types of buildings.
 Recommendation 21: That the Building Ministers’ Forum agrees its position on the
establishment of a compulsory product certification system for high-risk building products.
The list of actions following are predominantly focused on those resulting from the Shergold Weir
Report where available.
The Association of Consulting Architects Australia (ACA) provides a summary of implementation
plans for Shergold Weir Report recommendations in each state (Ref. 25).
H.2 Construction Risk

Procurement of non-compliant materials and components represents a clear and present risk to
the construction phase on any building project and has been unequivocally recognised for many
years (Ref. 17). Quantifying that risk for the purposes of putting in place a risk-based approach
to cost-effectively minimising risk is a work in progress in Australia, in particular incentivised by
the recommendations of the Shergold Weir Report (Ref. 18) into a number of significant building
failures. Currently the ABCB and every State regulator has processes in place to operationalise
the Shergold Weir recommendations.
At the time of publication of this Technical Note, and in partial response to the Shergold Weir
recommendations, the ABCB are developing a classification of buildings by ‘building complexity’,
which means “those attributes that are complicated or organisational, which increase the
likelihood of non-compliance in a situation where the safety and/or health consequences of that
non-compliance would be significant”. There are six complexity levels from 0 to 5 corresponding
to increasing complexity from 0.
The building complexity categorisation is inherently intended to support currently evolving

approaches to risk-based inspection schedules and other yet undefined components of ensuring
a compliant solution. The building complexity categorisation may well become a future component
of the steel verification protocol outlined in this Technical Note.
H.3 References to New South Wales NCBP Actions

The NSW Government has and is addressing the recommendations of the Shergold Weir Report
with a number of initiatives, summarised on the NSW Fair Trading website (Ref. 26).
The NSW Government enacted the ‘Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW)’ (Ref. 27)
on 11 th June 2020. A prominent feature of the Act is the establishment of a new, non-delegable
statutory duty of care that will be owed to building owners by builders, designers, product
manufacturers, suppliers and supervisors and the prohibition against such duty being contracted
out by parties to a construction contract. The Act also imposes a regime requiring design and
building practitioners to provide design compliance declarations and building compliance
declarations in respect of compliance with requirements of the NCC and other applicable
requirements.
H.4 References to Victorian NCBP Actions

The Victorian Government has commissioned a review of Victoria’s Building System (Ref. 28).
The Victorian Government has enacted, through the Victorian Building Authority (VBA), a new
Code of Conduct for Building Surveyors (Ref. 29) as a direct response to one of the
recommendations of the Shergold Weir Report.
H.5 References to Queensland NCBP Actions
The Queensland Government has introduced a number of reforms, including:
• Strengthening the professional indemnity insurance environment for building industry

professionals in Queensland - Interim report (Ref. 30)
https://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/4917/safebuildingspwcreport.pdf
• The Department of Housing and Public Works Queensland has issued a Building Plan (Ref. 31)
with action items to help address recommendations of the Shergold Weir Report.
• ‘Building and Construction Legislation (Non-conforming Building Products – Chain of

Responsibility and other matters) Amendment Act 2017’ (Ref. 23)
H.6 References to South Australian NCBP Actions

The South Australian Government has implemented building reforms under their ‘Planning,
Development and Infrastructure Act 2016’ (Ref. 32). In respect of addressing Shergold Weir
Report recommendations, the ‘Planning, Development and Infrastructure (Accredited
professionals) Regulations 2019 (Ref. 33), which sit under the Act, address the registration and
professional development recommendations in Shergold Weir.
H.7 References to Western Australian NCBP Actions

The Western Australian Government is seeking feedback on a range of consultation papers as a
first step, including for registration of stakeholders under WA’s ‘Building Services (Registration)
Act 2011’. See for example Ref 34.

TN015 AscertainingCompliance V1 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TN015 AscertainingCompliance V1 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TN015 AscertainingCompliance V1 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REF: ASI TN015 Version 1

ASI Head Office

ASCERTAINING COMPLIANCE OF STRUCTURAL STEEL

Section Description Page

2 The National Construction Code, Standards and performance solutions 6

3 Product conformity, conformity assessment and Australian design Standards 9

4 Steel verification protocol 13

6 Conformity assessment pathway selection 32

7 Responsible steel procurement – a supply chain solution 34

8 Stakeholder responsibilities and WHS 39

9 Responsible steel procurement framework 43

ABCB - Australian Building Codes Board

Second-party conformity assessment: conformity assessment that is performed by a person or

• Section 6 outlines the selection of the appropriate conformity assessment pathway to

ASI is intending to develop a separate Technical Note on ascertaining the compliance of

2. THE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CODE

Evidence of suitability: Veriﬁca�on method:

Figure 1 - NCC Verification Hierarchy

In respect of structural provisions (including structural steelwork), the Performance Requirements

• The National Construction Code (NCC) is performance based

3. PRODUCT CONFORMITY, CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT AND AUSTRALIAN DESIGN

Figure 2 Probability distribution of actions and resistance superimposed

3.2 Basis for Design Values

3.3 Product Conformity

3.4 Conformity Assessment

3.5 Welding of Steel Structures

(a) Verification of preheat requirements

4. STEEL VERIFICATION PROTOCOL

4.3 Steel Verification Protocol Structure

3. Traceability verification (mandatory): establishes the link between the manufacturer’s

Supply Chain Veriﬁca�on

Product Performance Veriﬁca�on

4.4 Steel Manufacturer Verification (Mandatory)

Figure 5 – Steel manufacturer verification process

The steps in verifying the steel manufacturer are:

4.4.2 Standards Context

Table 1 - Manufacturer Verification Level (MVL)

4.4.4 Evidence of Suitability

Table 2 - Evidence of Suitability for Manufacturer Verification Level (MVL)

Level Appropriate evidence of suitability

c) Product to non-Australian Standards is treated as a Performance Solution and requires

f) A non-verified manufacturer has not been independently assessed as having suitable

4.5 Traceability Verification (Mandatory)

Scope covered in Scope covered in

Steel Importer / • Mill • Mill

Traceability back from structure to mill cer�ﬁcates

4.5.2 AS/NZS 5131 Context

4.5.4 Evidence of Suitability

Table 3 – Evidence of Suitability for Traceability

Item Recommended evidence of suitability

4.6 Supply Chain Verification (Optional)

Table 4 – Evidence of Suitability for Importer, Supplier and Distributor

Item Recommended evidence of suitability

h) Refer Section 4.7 for detailed explanation of product performance verification.

j) Certification of the Quality Management System must be undertaken by an auditor who is

4.6.4 Verified Supplier Status

4.6.5 Trusted Supplier Status

4.7 Product Performance Verification (mandatory)

Table 5 Protocol for Product Performance Verification