Download Australian Building Regulation Bulletin

BULLETIN
A U S T R A L I A N B U I L D I N G R E G U L AT I O N
Issue 11
WHAT’S INSIDE
ABCB HOME
ONLINE SHOP
Dear NCC
Subscribers
Welcome to the
spring edition
of the Australian
Building
Regulation (ABR)
Online.
The ABCB has a strong track-record
in building regulation reform and is
well placed to meet the challenges
that are emerging with the renewed
emphasis from governments and
industry on increased productivity
and efficiency. While the ABCB’s
mission of life safety, health, amenity
and sustainability remains the focus
of its work, potential change to the
ABCB’s current business model can
help support a new reform agenda
that will assist industry and contribute
to the wider Australian economy.
Conceptually, a new tranche of
reforms has the potential to consider
a number of options to reduce the
costs of NCC compliance, whilst
assisting in achieving improved
outcomes. It could enhance access
to and the utility of key tools
needed by users of the building and
plumbing control systems and assist
in further consolidating consistency
in regulatory arrangements across
and within jurisdictions - essentially
adopting the principle of ‘less is
more’.
If delivered, the reforms will not only
provide productivity dividends but
will reduce the overall burden of
regulation while delivering better
building standards and assisting
housing affordability. This is a good
news story for all Australians and one
that the ABCB will be pursuing with
Governments in coming months.
CONTACT US
Some of you may have participated in
one of our recent practitioner surveys,
which invited feedback about the
‘Building Control Supply Chain’. This
survey sought information about
where opportunities may exist to
enhance features of the Supply
Chain; a conceptual ‘snapshot’ of
the building system and how it’s
performing. Although the ABCB
does not have any direct control over
the majority of the Supply Chain,
the Board ultimately intends to
facilitate discussions with appropriate
institutions to affect positive change.
You can read more about the survey
in this edition of the ABR.
The importance of restricting air
infiltration through doors and
openable windows is highlighted
in the article about building sealing
requirements. Open fronted shops,
cafes and restaurants are particularly
affected, and ensuring that such
areas are appropriately sealed will
ensure optimal thermal performance
as well as being a cost effective and
simple measure to help reduce air
flow between conditioned and nonconditioned spaces.
Our National Building Australia’s
Future Conference took place in
Brisbane in September and attracted
over 430 participants over three days.
The new location and added sessions
involving plumbing were very well
received as was the quality of guest
speakers. Find out more about the
Conference and other topical issues in
this edition of the ABR Online.
Finally, the NCC 2014 Public Comment
period closed on 1 August and I would
like to thank everyone who contributed
to this process, which helps us ensure
the robustness of the Code.
Neil Savery, ABCB General Manager
Quantification of NCC Performance Requirements:
EV4.1 Emergency Lighting
The building control supply chain survey results
The building/planning interface for climate adaptation
BAF Conference wrap-up
Future directions of the NCC –
catering for more extreme natural hazards
OTHER ARTICLES INCLUDE:
Building sealing requirements and open
front shops, cafes and restaurants
Standards Australia “spring into action”
WaterMark certification scheme review
Coming soon… online NCC training
CPSISC national training package
project update
How have housing energy efficiency
requirements made a difference?
CALENDAR OF
EVENTS
Copyright © 1999-2013 - Australian Building Codes Board All Rights Reserved
The views of this publication are not necessarily the views of
the Australian Building Codes Board
da
te
…
th
e
Sa
ve
2014 National Construction Code
INFORMATION SEMINARS
Your opportunity to hear about
amendments to BCA 2014
Location
Date
Canberra
18 February
Adelaide
20 February
Brisbane
25 & 26 February
Darwin
28 February
Perth
4 & 5 March
Sydney
18 & 19 March
Hobart
24 March
Melbourne
26 & 27 March
Darwin
Brisbane
Perth
Adelaide
Sydney
Canberra
Melbourne
Hobart
Visit the ABCB website from November to register www.abcb.gov.au
Details are correct at time of printing. The Seminar organisers retain the right to alter any or all of the Seminar details.
Issue 11
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
Quantification of NCC performance requirements
Background
Regular readers of ABR Online will be aware of the ABCB’s
ongoing project to quantify all NCC Performance Requirements
which is scheduled to be substantially completed by 2016.
The associated Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision, E4.2, specifies
where the required level of illumination is to be provided within
a building and Deemed-to-Satisfy Provision E4.4 specifies
compliance with Australian Standard 2293.1 as a means of
ensuring the design and operation of the emergency lighting
system is appropriate.
Implementation of the project demonstrates the ABCB’s
commitment to increase the use of the NCC performance
provisions and promote the inclusion of Alternative Solutions into
NCC complying designs. Alternative Solutions may be proposed
for any number of reasons including-
However, designers may not wish to comply with the Deemed-toSatisfy Provisions and prefer to develop an Alternative Solution.
To assist designers, Verification Method EV4.1 was developed
to express a level of illumination that the ABCB accepts as
appropriate for the assessment of generic Alternative Solutions to
E4.2 and E4.4.
• cost savings;
• design preferences;
• implementation of innovative products or systems; or
• constructability.
In essence, Verification Method EV4.1 requires -
The primary task of the project is to establish whether existing
regulatory provisions contain a measurable value that can be used
to develop Alternative Solutions in accordance with NCC Volume
One A0.5, Volume Two 1.0.5 or Volume Three A0.5. Where it is
evident that a measurable value does not exist in a Performance
Requirement, a review of Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions will be
undertaken. If a measurable value can be identified within an
existing provision, including within an Australian Standard, the
benefits of replicating that value, or a similar value, in a higher
level of the NCC’s hierarchical structure will be considered.
• a level of horizontal illuminance to be calculated at the floor
level at specified points in a building;
• a minimum percentage of the required level of illuminance to
be available within specified periods from the time the system
is energized; and
• a minimum duration of effective performance.
EV4.1 Emergency Lighting Verification Method
Verification Method EV4.1 states that -
When a measurable value cannot be identified within the NCC,
an appropriate value will either be added to the respective
Performance Requirement, or a new Verification Method (VM) will
be developed and included within the NCC.
Compliance with EP4.1 is verified for the level of illumination for
safe evacuation in an emergency, when the emergency lighting
system satisfies the requirements below:
The term Verification Method is defined in the NCC and means
“a test, inspection, calculation or other method that determines
whether a building, plumbing or drainage solution complies with
relevant Performance Requirements”. Currently, there are several
Verification Methods in the NCC, including those in Parts C, D and
J of Volume One and more will be added progressively over the
next few years.
(a)The calculated horizontal illuminance is not less than—
(i) 0.2 lux at floor level in the path of travel to an exit; and
(i) 1 lux at each floor level or tread in every required—
(A)fire-isolated stairway; or
(B)fire-isolated passageway; or
(C)fire-isolated ramp; or
The fundamental benefit of introducing more Verification
Methods is that they provide designers with an optional means
of demonstrating proposed Alternative Solutions comply with
mandatory Performance Requirements.
(D)non-fire-isolated stairway; or
(E)non-fire-isolated ramp.
(b)The emergency lighting provides a level of illuminance not less
than—
EV4.1 Emergency Lighting
(i) 10% of that required by (a) within 1 second of energization;
and
To-date, several Performance Requirements have been reviewed
under the project and actions have been taken to introduce
new measurable values. An example is the inclusion in NCC 2013
Volume One of Verification Method EV4.1 as a means of verifying
compliance with Performance Requirement EP4.1, which states -
(ii)80% of that required by (a) within 15 seconds of
energization.
(c)The full level of illumination required by (a) must be achieved
within 60 seconds of energization.
“A level of illumination for safe evacuation in an emergency must
be provided, to the degree necessary, appropriate to—
(d)An emergency lighting system must operate at not less than
the minimum required level of illuminance for not less than 90
minutes.
(a)the function or use of the building; and
(b)the floor area of the building; and
(c)the distance of travel to an exit.”
3
BULLETIN
Complying with EV4.1
No. of fittings =
EV4.1 is a means of verifying if a proposed emergency lighting
system achieves the level of illumination for safe evacuation
required by EP4.1 in an emergency.
lux required (lm/m2) x area (m2)
average lumen flux per lamp (lm) x UF x MF
Where:
A designer may choose the method used to determine-
• No. of fittings = the number of fittings needed to meet the
required flux.
• the calculated horizontal illuminance at EV4.1(a);
• Lux required = the lux required to meet the Performance
Requirement.
• the illuminance and delay at switch-on at EV4.1(b) and (c); and
• Area = the area on the horizontal working plane (the plane
where the lux is required).
• the operation time at EV4.1(d).
The following is provided to assist practitioners in the use of EV4.1.
It is only one application of EV4.1. The assumptions and methods
used are for illustration only.
• Average lumen flux per lamp = the specified lumen times by
the light output ratio.
• UF = Utilisation Factor, also known as the coefficient of
utilisation, is taken from the manufacturer’s specifications
based on either the room index factor or the zonal cavity
method. The utilisation factor accounts for the shape and
proportions of the room, the reflectance of the ceiling, wall
and floor surfaces and the deposition of dirt on the luminaire.
Calculations of horizontal illuminance
For horizontal surfaces, the level of horizontal illuminance may be
calculated by using the Lumen (Flux) Method, which determines
the average illuminance on a horizontal working plane. The
Lumen Method involves a number of broad assumptions and
requires details from the manufacturer regarding lumen output
and deterioration coefficients. It should be noted this method
provides an average across the horizontal plane, assumes the light
is above the horizontal working plane and does not consider the
beam angle of the light.
• MF = Maintenance Factor, also known as the Light Loss Factor
(LLF), accounts for the deterioration of the lumen output of the
lamp based on the atmospheric conditions, the maintenance
interval and the type of luminaire.
The following scenarios relate to emergency lighting for a path
of travel to an exit. Applying EV4.1(a)(i), the number of fittings
needed to meet the lux required can be calculated as follows:
Scenario One:
The light fitting in this scenario is recessed into the ceiling, and contains three T5 (14W) fluorescent globes, emitting 1200 lumens each.
The average flux coefficient provided by the manufacturer is 0.64.
Area = L x W
Area = 10m x 1.5m
Area = 15m2
Calculation of Utilisation Factor:
Room Index Factor:
The height used when calculating the Room Index Factor is the distance from the horizontal working plane under consideration (in this
case the floor) to the light fitting.
4
Issue 11
Room index factor =
LxW
h(L + W)
Room index factor =
10 x 1.5
2.4(10 + 1.5)
Room index factor =
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
From the manufacturer’s specifications, using interpolation UF =
0.29.
MF = 0.7 is an assumed value for the area under consideration.
It is considered the area in this scenario is relatively clean with
conditioned spaces. This implies minimal deterioration of the
luminaire.
0.54
Room Reflectance: Room reflectance is expressed as a percentage
of light reflected back into the room from a surface, the darker the
surface the less light returned or reflected.
• Light Ceiling = 0.70
• Medium Walls = 0.30
No. of fittings =
lux required (lm/m2) x area (m2)
average lumen flux per lamp (lm) x UF x MF
No. of fittings =
0.2 x 15
(0.64 x 1200 x 3) x 0.29 x 0.7
No. of fittings =
• Dark Floors = 0.10
0.0064
Therefore the number of fittings required would be one fitting.
Given how effectively this lamp meets the requirements, the type
of fittings or number of lamps within the fitting could be altered
to increase efficiency.
These reflectance values are assumed values for the scenario and
are considered typical values for general office layouts. These
values will differ depending on each individual scenario and
further research should be completed for a particular scenario
before approximating these values.
Scenario Two:
The light fitting in this scenario is a single T5 (28W) globe mounted at the wall 0.5 m above the floor, emitting 2625 lumens. The average
flux coefficient from the manufacturer is 0.62.
Room index factor =
LxW
h(L + W)
No. of fittings =
lux required (lm/m2) x area (m2)
average lumen flux per lamp (lm) x UF x MF
Room index factor =
10 x 1.5
0.5(10 + 1.5)
No. of fittings =
0.2 x 15
(0.62 x 2625 x 1) x 0.58 x 0.7
Room index factor =
2.61
No. of fittings =
Room Reflectance: Room reflectance is expressed as a percentage
of light reflected back into the room from a surface, the darker the
surface the less light returned or reflected.
0.0045
Therefore the number of fittings required is one fitting.
Comparing the two scenarios, despite requiring the same number
of fittings to achieve the 0.2 lux requirement, the two scenarios
differ in the following ways:
• Light Ceiling = 0.70
• Medium Walls = 0.30
• The first scenario contains three T5 (14W) fluorescent lamps,
while scenario two requires a single T5 (28W) fluorescent lamp.
• Dark Floors = 0.10
• Scenario two requires fewer fittings than scenario one, implying it
provides a higher average illuminance. It should also be noted that
in scenario two the light is wall mounted and the Lumen Method
only provides an average illuminance for a horizontal working
plane, it does not accurately account for the light placed both
above and beside the horizontal plane. Due to the beam angle this
average illuminance would deteriorate further from the fitting, for
example the opposing side of the hallway would appear darker.
From the manufacturer’s specifications, using interpolation the UF
= 0.58.
MF = 0.7 is an assumed value for the area under consideration.
It is considered the area in this scenario is relatively clean with
conditioned spaces. This implies minimal deterioration of the
luminaire.
5
BULLETIN
The Lumen Method can also be used when determining the
horizontal illuminance for a fire isolated stairway. Applying
EV4.1(a)(ii)(A) the average horizontal illuminance can be calculated
at each tread level. Applying this method would require iterative
calculations at each tread level. The tread level furthest from the
light source will be the determining factor; however this method
would not consider the impacts of shadowing from previous
treads and other objects which could deteriorate the lux at any
particular point.
Energization
Figure 1: An example of lighting design simulation and lighting
calculations using 3D modelling software.
In determining the energization of the emergency lighting
(EV4.1(b) and (c)) a number of different approaches can be used.
In the previous scenarios, the manufacturer’s specification
identifies a backup power pack available for these products.
The specification of these power packs identifies a non-flicker
and automatic restart time of no greater than 0.9 seconds after
ignition. This achieves the requirements of 10% illumination
within 1 second and 80% illumination within 15 seconds of
energization or ignition, and as well as the requirement for full
illumination within 60 seconds.
While calculations may be an appropriate means of demonstrating
compliance with the Verification Method for the purposes of
gaining approval of the proposed design, an approval authority
could require peer review of calculations, or impose a condition
of approval to require in-situ testing of the emergency lighting
system by the use of light meters.
As with the development of any Alternative Solution, responsibility
for demonstrating that a proposed design complies with the
respective Performance Requirement(s) rests with the applicant
for approval. The NCC lists forms of documentary evidence that
may be used to support the use of an Alternative Solution. When
an Alternative Solution is first contemplated it is often beneficial
to discuss the proposal with the respective approval authority,
particularly for complex proposals, and establish the scope of
methodologies and supporting documentation that the authority
may require. Typically, preliminary discussions between a designer/
applicant and the approval authority regarding a proposed
Alternative Solution can promote the delivery of prompt outcomes.
It should also be noted that a number of State and Territory Building
Regulations contain requirements and processes for dealing with
NCC Alternative Solutions.
Alternatively, the same results could be achieved using a backup generator system, provided this system was large enough to
meet the power requirements for the emergency lighting system.
This, in conjunction with the ability for this system to be switched
on instantly, would meet both the requirements of energization
and operation times within EV4.1. Calculation for a system of this
nature would be included in the electrical design of the premises.
Operation time
Much like energization, the operation times are identified in the
manufacturer’s specifications. The products used in the previous
scenarios can be fitted with two alternative backup power packs
lasting the duration of either 1 hour or 3 hours. In order to achieve
the requirements for EV4.1(d) the 3 hour option would need to be
selected.
Further updates on the Board’s quantification of performance
project will be provided in future editions of ABR On-line. The
ABCB office would like to invite organisations who would like to
produce similar articles for consideration in future publications. If
you are interested please contact Ray Loveridge –
[email protected]
Other methods
Calculations related to lux requirements can also be completed
using 3D modelling software. Examples of lighting design and
rendering can be seen in Figure 1.
References
• Lighting Products used in scenarios
• Lighting Software Tutorial
6
Issue 11
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
The Building Control Supply Chain
‘Building Control’
Supply Chain
Survey Process
Between 16 July and 12 August 2013 the ABCB conducted a
survey of NCC subscribers and in conjunction with the Australian
Construction Industry Forum, a broader group of practitioners
involved in the building industry (note the survey was not
directed at plumbing). In total, just on 650 people responded
to the survey, which contained 13 questions that sought both a
quantitative rating and comments on the various features of the
building control supply chain.
Education/Training
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
10
9
10
Registration/Licensing
The purpose of the survey was to obtain information from
industry as a whole about if and where it believes there are
real or potential opportunities to enhance features of the
building control supply chain. This is a conceptual supply chain,
graphically represented by the following diagram.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Practitioner Assessment
1
Understanding that there is no one body that oversights
the entirety of this supply chain, the opportunity to identify
enhancements may be missed and the possibility of introducing
productive changes can become random.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
State & Territory Acts / Regulations
1
As the components of the supply chain have been increasingly
de-regulated and administration fragmented the need to monitor
the system is imperative, although this is often isolated to specific
areas of jurisdictional responsibility.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
National Construction Code
(Performance/DTS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
7
8
9
10
Standards
This means we don’t necessarily get the full picture as to how
the system is performing and miss the potential to attend to less
obvious risks.
1
2
3
4
5
6
State & Territory /
Local Government Variations
This survey was an attempt to bring some national perspective
to where the opportunities for enhancement might exist
and provide a mechanism, if considered necessary following
the outcomes of the survey, to engage with the responsible
institutions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
9
10
Product certification
Whilst there were a large number of observations made by the
survey participants, this paper provides a summary of the overall
level of satisfaction with the different features identified and the
main comments made, particularly where it was repeated several
times with a clear majority view.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Alternative Solutions
1
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Building Certification
3
4
5
6
7
8
Contracts
(Builders / Sub-trades)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Practitioner and Construction
Compliance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Monitoring / Auditing of the
building control system
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Key
1 = needs support / improvement
10 = fully effective
7
8
9
10
BULLETIN
degree of confusion about certain aspects, particularly roles and
responsibilities, and there were some who feel that features of the
system need to be rebuilt from the ground up.
For the purpose of this paper, the summary of views expressed
has endeavoured to aggregate the headline suggestions, as
opposed to personal criticisms, with a focus on links to the NCC
given the domain of the ABCB.
A large number of comments received were in relation to the
educational (Rating 3.44) arrangements for building practitioners,
which was the lowest score of any of the features. Many observed
the need for better links between theory and practice, areas
where better education is required, new mediums for training and
the importance of on-going development. It was also felt that for
engineering in particular, the courses had become too general
and for others, there were not sufficient courses available.
The scale for rating a feature was from 1 – 10, with 1 representing
the need for support, 5 neutral and 10 fully effective.
It is important to note that the ABCB does not have any direct
control over most of the features illustrated in the building control
supply chain, where it advised participants that depending
on the survey outcomes, it would look to facilitate discussions
with appropriate institutions, which could be state and territory
administrations, statutory authorities, industry associations or the
like, to determine what if any actions might need to be taken and
by whom.
On the subject of registration and licensing (Rating 3.97) there
were very clear themes on the need for national consistency
and further enhancing efforts to eradicate incompetence from
the system. On-going development was linked to registration
renewal and the opportunity to simplify the process was also
made, as was the potential for other trades to be registered in
order to maintain the reputation of the industry.
Many of the comments on practitioner assessment (Rating
4.19) indicated that the system was working well from their
perspective, whilst others pointed to the need to include
some sub-trades, expand to include practical experience and
achieve greater national consistency. Some comments took
the opportunity to emphasize the importance of ensuring that
practitioner competency is upheld by both regulators and
industry associations.
One very strong theme emerges out of the question on state
and territory Acts and Regulations (Rating 4.07), which is a call
for greater national consistency, to the point of having common
national legislation. The comments highlight difficulties
practitioners have working with state based variations to the
NCC, as well as inconsistencies between the various pieces
of legislation for those who work interstate. Combined with
regularity of change and difficulty in locating what is required, the
claim is made that it is difficult for industry to comply.
In relation to the NCC (Rating 4.93) and the obvious call for it to
be made a freely available instrument with improvements to
its useability, there were many comments about the need for
greater use of Deemed-to-Satisfy (DtS) Provisions. Despite there
being observations to the contrary, the focus of many on the DtS
reflects a trend to prescription, which undermines the benefits of
having a performance-based Code that promotes innovation and
more cost effective solutions, but likely identifies how different
trades use it. Other suggestions included areas for value add,
reduce the frequency of change and provide additional support
through training and guidance material.
Key Points
The survey results provide a useful insight into the views of many
participants in the building industry who have taken the trouble
to contribute their opinions across a number of topic areas. The
observations made by many of those who have taken the time to
respond include genuine reflections on opportunities to enhance
aspects of the building control supply chain.
It should be noted that out of the 13 features identified in the
building control supply chain, Australian Standards (Rating 5.16)
received the highest average score. This question also attracted
a lot of contradictory commentary, including there being too
many and at the same time not enough standards; that they are
changed too frequently and then not often enough; and that
many are out of date, but at the same time they are very good.
A common theme, however, was the cost of Standards and
concerns about potential commercial conflicts with the current
arrangements.
The fact that only one feature of the supply chain measured
above neutral reflects the level of interest by those who have
participated in commentating on a subject that is of relevance to
them. Inevitably not all of the views expressed are important to
all interests; however, there is sufficient breadth of commentary
for everyone involved in the building industry to find something
of value.
As a general observation, many of the submissions made
positive comments about the effectiveness of features within
the building control supply chain. Others tended to indicate a
8
Issue 11
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
When it comes to the question around contracts (Rating 4.02), a lot
of the comments centred on roles and responsibilities, particularly
for the sub-trades; the need for standardisation and simplicity
in contract documents; and greater levels of protection from
unscrupulous and incompetent operators. As with all categories,
training featured in the comments, particularly for builders who
have the primary relationship with the client.
In contrast to the question on Australian Standards, the feature
identified as state and territory/local government variations (Rating
4.03) did not rate well amongst those surveyed. The comments
in turn reflect a very simple message about the need to minimise
variations from the NCC; that not enough is being done to control
their proliferation, particularly by local governments; and that
there is not an acceptable appreciation of the costs and confusion
they bring to the industry.
Whilst a large number of comments on practitioner compliance
(4.26) acknowledged that most practitioners are hard-working
and honest, there was also a recognition that compliance
is made difficult by other features of the system, such as
training, relationships, access to regulations, the need to make
interpretations and levels of documentation. There was an
acknowledgement that there are some who manage to enter
the system that should be weeded out with more effective
monitoring and enforcement by the regulators.
Product certification (Rating 4.17), which in the case of this survey
relates primarily to CodeMark rather than WaterMark, was seen
as random, lacking in rigour and narrow in its application. The
concern over how imported products are tested and certified
represents a large number of views, as does the need to
distinguish between the conformance of the product compared
to its intended use and then how it is installed. Generally the
need for certification was supported, but by who and in what
shape it comes was less clear.
In relation to monitoring and auditing of the system (Rating 3.65),
there were a large number of observations about how it can be
made more effective, but put simply; the view is that there needs
to be more of it. Comments reinforced the critical importance of
this feature and that undertaken proactively, it has the potential to
address short-comings with other parts of the supply chain before
they become systemic problems.
Whilst alternative solutions (Rating 4.08) best represent the
application of the performance-based code, they appear to attract
significantly opposing views between those who believe they
are the future of the code and those who are concerned about
the risks flexibility in design brings. This may in turn reflect the
differences in approach to construction for buildings covered
by the two volumes of the BCA, necessitating adaptation in the
application of performance for residential versus non-residential
buildings. Other comments appear to highlight concerns over
the rigour in the application of alternative solutions and the
inadequacy of their administration.
The theme of private certification (4.29) attracted a lot of
comments about the effectiveness of private certification, with
some calling for the reinstatement of this to be a function of the
public sector. It is a contentious subject because of the significant
responsibilities involved and the immediacy of interaction
with clients. In turn this attracted comments on levels of
independence and the roles of regulators in policing the system.
At the same time the comments identified the lack of support
for and therefore appeal of the profession, which is subject to so
much scrutiny.
For further information, please contact the ABCB office on
1300 134 631
“like” us on
Facebook
AUSTRALIAN BUILDING CODES BOARD
Building Australia’s Future
GPO Box 9839
CANBERRA ACT 2601
www.abcb.gov.au
9
1300 134 613
[email protected]
facebook.com/ABCB.NCC
BULLETIN
The Building/Planning Interface for Climate Adaptation
New buildings designed and
constructed in accordance with
the NCC have a good record
of successfully withstanding
severe climate related hazards
to date. However, buildings
must also be sufficiently
resilient to withstand future
climate related hazards taking
potential climate change into
account.
Buildings are currently
designed and constructed
in accordance with the NCC
to withstand climate related
hazards such as cyclones
and extreme winds, intense
rain, bushfire, and from
2013, flood. These hazards
impose loads and risks to
buildings determined mainly
by historical records from which design events with annual
probabilities of exceedance are specified.
Building standards have undergone constant review, particularly
after major hazard events and through research, to ensure
adequate levels of health and safety are maintained for the
community.
It is important to stress that reliance cannot be placed on building
controls to guarantee occupant safety in all cases. One of the
more complex issues that governments face in dealing with the
projected increase in extreme natural hazard events is whether
or not development should be allowed to occur at all in some
locations, for example in those coastal locations likely to be
subject to significant sea level rise or increased risk of storm surge.
Under a high carbon emissions scenario, the need for buildings
to be more resilient to the impacts of climate change becomes
even more critical because climate related events would be
more extreme. For example, heat stress may become a critical
factor impacting on public health and well-being which could
necessitate significant improvements in a building’s passive
design and ventilation.
Too often the emotive response to a natural hazard event
where lives have been lost and property destroyed is for
everyone to rally behind the catch cry of we will rebuild. Despite
improvements in building control standards, the fundamental
question of whether development in such areas is appropriate
needs to be asked, particularly in light of an increasing knowledge
about the recurrence of similar events.
Therefore, subject to the availability of sufficient and reliable
data to justify changes, future editions of the NCC would need to
consider these impacts.
The ABCB’s recent work in responding to the issue of climate
change has not been confined solely to adaptation measures.
Over the past eight years the ABCB has been heavily engaged
in establishing an evidence base and designing measures for
mitigation through demand side energy efficiency in homes and
multi-storey residential and commercial buildings, primarily in
relation to thermal performance.
The resilience of the built environment in the face of natural
hazards and consideration of changing risks resulting from the
effects of climate change relies heavily on appropriate building
and planning controls working in tandem. For a number of natural
hazards planning controls work best at identifying the extent of
and vulnerability to the hazard through spatial analysis, which
then triggers locations where building code assessment at a
higher level should be applied.
Whilst the ABCB and others now concentrate on reviewing the
effectiveness of these measures and obtaining higher rates
of compliance with the standards that have been adopted,
the relationship between building and planning controls is
also apparent. In some jurisdictions local governments have
attempted to unilaterally apply different and/or higher standards
through their planning ordinances. In NSW the universal
application of BASIX could act as a potential model for how
the two systems can work more effectively in delivering an
acceptable outcome.
This need for increased alignment between planning and building
regulation represents an important innovation in planning
for climate change adaptation and is the premise upon which
building control standards for bushfire and now flood prone areas
have been designed. Planning has a critical role in mapping areas
prone to natural hazards that may be exaggerated by climate
change impacts, and creates the nexus for the application of
building standards.
The role of the NCC is critical in ensuring the community
is resilient to climate change impacts, but shares many
interdependencies.
10
Issue 11
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
The factors that will ultimately determine community resilience
include:
• Appropriate land use planning controls to restrict or condition
development in areas subject to high risk, such as areas subject
to flooding, extreme bushfire and storm surge;
• Appropriate mitigation measures such as flood mitigation
works and bushfire risk reduction measures (eg controlled
burning);
• Proportional building standards in the NCC to ensure buildings
are appropriately designed and constructed for the likely
hazards;
• Community awareness, understanding, and preparedness in
the face of climate hazards;
• Effective emergency management response when climate
related hazard events occur, including recovery planning; and
• Insurance to provide a safety net.
Whilst the building control system is effectively coordinated at a
national level through the ABCB and the participation of all state
and territory governments alongside the Commonwealth and
local government, the same cannot be said about planning.
It may be necessary to look for other mechanisms to achieve
a more effective relationship between building and planning
controls in circumstances where the outcomes depend on the
two systems working seamlessly.
For further information, please contact the ABCB office on
1300 134 631
ABCB WEBCASTS
Did you miss out on the 2013 Seminars
but want to hear about the amendments
to NCC 2013? Then visit the ABCB website at
www.abcb.gov.au and view the
NCC Seminars Webcast!
11
BULLETIN
Conference wrap-up
Building Australia’s Future: The verdict
The recent Building Australia’s Future 2013 Conference
once again had a successful turn out, with the inclusion
of dedicated plumbing streams alongside the extensive
building program well-received among attendees. Dimi
Kyriakou from Building Connection magazine gives an
overview of the event.
Conference plenary session on Understanding Codes & Standards
The Building Australia’s Future (BAF) Conference, held in Brisbane
from 15-18 September, reinforced the importance of open
communication between law makers, regulators and practitioners
working in the construction industry.
The ever-present question of the effects of climate change was
addressed by keynote speaker Professor Mala Rao of the University
of East London, whose well-researched presentation highlighted
the role that the building and plumbing industries have to play in
what is arguably the defining challenge of our time.
The BAF Conference, an initiative of the Australian Building Codes
Board (ABCB) and supported by the Master Plumbers Australia
and the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors, saw around 440
delegates Australia wide travel to the Queensland capital.
The practicalities of waterproofing were discussed in an engaging
presentation by Andrew Golle of Armont Rectification Builders
and Consulting. Armed with a range of photos that showed
waterproofing installations gone wrong, this was more than enough
evidence to highlight its important role in the built environment.
For the first time in its 14-year history, and following the recent
inclusion of the Plumbing Code of Australia in the National
Construction Code (NCC), the conference brought together
delegates from the plumbing sector alongside other building
professionals operating in the construction industry.
Future trends and technologies on the horizon for the building
industry were also addressed. The University of South Australia’s
Professor Simon Beecham put forward their latest solution to
rain water harvesting, which comes in the form of permeable
pavements, while keynote speaker Mark McCrindle of McCrindle
Research delivered an entertaining presentation that got attendees
thinking about what lies ahead for the construction industry
– it examined everything from keeping younger generations
of employees engaged, to the future trends in housing and
population and how this impacts building professionals.
Over the course of three days, delegates were treated to an
extensive range of topical issues facing both the building and
plumbing industries – and the organisers must be credited with
the breadth of topics chosen.
The morning presentations were followed by a series of afternoon
workshops that were designed to not only snap delegates out of
their lunchtime food coma, but also provide an avenue for them
to engage directly with some of the most influential professionals
within the building and plumbing industries.
The technical enquiries sessions again were a popular component
of the conference program, asking delegates to work through
various technical questions from both the Building Code of
Australia and Plumbing Code of Australia. These sessions
reiterated the importance of the National Construction Code,
and interestingly highlighted how much of it is up to individual
interpretation, which undoubtedly sparked some friendly debate
between the different professions present.
Conference plenary session on Trends & the Future
No less than 30 presentations were delivered by industry leaders and
professional speakers, with the presentations divided into either joint
or individual building and plumbing sessions, which helped maintain
a level of relevance to the members of both sectors.
The three days of the conference were themed around Managing
Risk and Liability, Understanding Codes and Standards, and finally
Trends and the Future. While all were valuable in their own right,
some of the presentations that stood out for Building Connection
included those that discussed recent natural disasters and how
the building and plumbing regulators handled the after-effects.
Graeme Beattie from BRANZ outlined New Zealand’s approach
to inspecting houses for post-disaster occupation following the
Christchurch earthquake, while Brendan Nelson from MWH Global
explained what has changed for building and plumbing since the
Queensland floods crippled the state in 2011.
Overall, this year’s BAF Conference was once again a great
opportunity for attendees to network and hear about the latest
developments affecting their role in the industry. The successful
turnout reiterates the importance of such industry events, and the
breadth of information presented will pave the way for industry
to be better educated, and therefore better prepared, to face the
challenges that lie ahead.
Further information on the BAF Conference can be found on the
ABCB website.
12
Issue 11
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
Future Directions of the NCC – Catering for More Extreme Natural Hazards
Introduction
One of the most critical future challenges facing
the ABCB is ensuring the NCC contains appropriate
standards so that new buildings and plumbing
systems will be sufficiently resilient in the face of
natural hazards affected by more extreme weather.
This is not, however, a new concept for the ABCB. A
cornerstone of the ABCB’s mission is reflected in the
NCC requirement for new buildings to be designed
and constructed to withstand extreme climate
related natural hazard events including wind and
cyclones, rainfall, snow, bushfire and flood, as
appropriate to their location.
The ABCB has traditionally relied on historical
climate and weather data in setting standards.
However, more recently the ABCB has sought
to utilise scientifically based climate change
projections, such as in its review of wind standards for
construction in cyclone-affected areas.
These improved standards for high wind design were later
demonstrated to be satisfactory as evidenced by the small
number of building failures resulting from Cyclone Vance, which
affected northern WA in 1999, and Cyclones Larry and Yasi which
affected northern Qld in 2006 and 2011 respectively. However, the
largest problem identified by recent cyclone investigations relates
to pre-1980 buildings which were designed to lesser standards
and which have often been weakened by material degradation
and inadequate maintenance.
This work is consistent with the 2007 COAG National Adaptation
Framework1, the 2011 COAG National Strategy for Disaster
Resilience2 and the 2012 Productivity Commission Report into
Barriers to Effective Climate Change Adaptation,3 which all
recommended that the ABCB should continually monitor climate
related hazards as well as review the NCC to ensure the standards
are appropriate for the risk environment whilst taking climate
change into account.
As noted in the Productivity Commission Report, the ABCB has
undertaken a study into the impact of climate change on the
Building Code of Australia (BCA)4. The Report finds that by and
large, buildings designed and constructed in accordance with
the current BCA are likely to be reasonably adequate for climate
related hazards anticipated in 50 years’ time, associated with a low
emissions scenario. If the climate changes in accordance with high
emissions scenarios however, the current BCA may be deficient in
some areas.
What does the NCC cover and is it adequate?
Buildings are currently designed and constructed in accordance
with the NCC to withstand climate related hazards such as
cyclones and extreme winds, intense rain, bushfire, snow and
flood, as appropriate to their location. These hazards impose
loads and risks to buildings determined mainly by historical
records and post event analysis, from which design events with
annual probabilities of exceedance are specified.
Whatever the emission scenario, more extreme weather events at
both a regional level and nationally require constant monitoring and
review to ensure the NCC’s established level of safety is proportional
to the likely hazard intensity and resultant risk of damage.
While the NCC does not have specific provisions for heat stress,
the NCC energy efficiency requirements would moderate the
impacts of extreme heat within buildings resulting in reduced risk
of heat stress for building occupants.
What the NCC does not cover
The main objective of the NCC is life safety and not property
protection. However, a level of property protection is often
achieved as a consequence of life safety. For example, a house
should be able to provide reasonably safe shelter for occupants
during a cyclone, bushfire or flood. In the process of providing
safe shelter, the objective is for the building to remain intact.
While the bulk of the building may as a consequence be
protected, this level of protection may not extend to building
contents. For example, during a cyclone or flood, water may
affect the non-structural elements leading to failure of these
elements (e.g. plasterboard ceiling or wall linings) which could
cause additional contents damage.
Building standards have undergone constant review, particularly
after major hazard events and via research, to ensure adequate
levels of safety and health are maintained for the community.
Where the building standards proved to be inadequate, as
identified in the wake of Cyclone Althea in 1971 and Cyclone Tracy
in 1974, they were subsequently upgraded.
1
2
3
COAG 2007, National Climate Change Adaptation Framework, p.18,
Canberra
COAG 2011, National Strategy for Disaster Resilience: Building Our
Nation’s Resilience to Disasters, p.12, Canberra
Productivity Commission 2012, Barriers to Effective Climate Change
Adaptation, Report No. 59, Final Inquiry Report, Canberra
4
13
ABCB 2010, An Investigation of Possible Building Code of Australia
(BCA) Adaptation Measures for Climate Change, December,
Canberra.
BULLETIN
The NCC currently does not cover hail or storm tide. Some of the
largest insurance property losses result from hail damage (e.g. the
1999 Sydney hailstorm). However, any proposed changes would
need to pass the regulation impact review test. It is unlikely it
would be cost effective to require all external building materials
to resist hail impact, taking into account the localised nature of
such storms, the cost of upgrading or restricting certain building
materials, and the low risk to life safety.
Storm tide is potentially a very high risk in low lying coastal
communities, especially those subject to the risk of cyclones.
However, it would be very costly and restrictive to design and
construct buildings to resist storm surge because of the significant
water forces involved. Restricting development in high hazard
areas via planning controls may provide a more realistic solution.
For bushfires, where the models show an increase in temperature
combined with lower rainfall, longer droughts and lower
humidity, an increased risk is likely.
Other implications include:
It is also important to note that the vast majority of buildings that
are highly exposed to natural hazard events already exist. The
NCC does not operate retrospectively unless required by state and
territory laws (such as in the case of swimming pool fences), so it
will take a long period of time for the existing stock to be replaced
or incrementally improved as owners undertake renovations that
require the building to meet the current requirements of the NCC.
• Increased flooding and erosion due to more intense rainfall
in places;
• Increased soil moisture variation resulting in greater ground
movement impacting on foundations and plumbing services;
• Increased localised hailstorms; and
• Increased risk of heat stress and increased energy demand due
to longer periods of higher temperatures.
How will more extreme weather impact on
natural hazards?
Planning and Building
The 2012 Productivity Commission Report Barriers to Effective
Climate Change Adaptation7 states that in some cases, the
vulnerability of people and buildings to climate change impacts
will depend on how well building standards (which generally
control how to build) and planning regulations (which generally
control where to build) are integrated.
The weight of scientific analysis tells us that there are likely to be
more extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heat
waves in the future.
There is little doubt temperatures are rising. The impact on
rainfall appears more variable around the country. However, the
impact of these changes on extreme natural hazard events is not
always apparent.
For example, where planning schemes can identify areas that
are bushfire prone and the level of bushfire hazard, building
regulation can then specify a construction standard for a building
in a given area to better manage bushfire risk.
The future changes for wind and cyclones appear minimal at
this stage. An investigation by JDH Consulting in 20115 reviewed
recent studies of climate change effects on tropical cyclones. The
studies indicate that in the Australian Region, the total number
of cyclones has diminished. However, there is evidence that the
number of more severe events has increased. Simulations of
future climate, with projected increases in CO2 concentrations,
also predict fewer cyclones, but further increases in more severe
tropical cyclones. One of the more significant scenarios is the
possibility of a greater risk of a severe cyclone affecting SouthEast Queensland.
The Productivity Commission Report also states ‘it is appropriate
that the NCC does not contain standards to manage some natural
hazards which would be better managed by the planning system
(for example, the current NCC does not contain standards for
storm surge)’.
ABCB Achievements in 2012-13
In 2012-13, the ABCB completed a number of projects concerning
the adequacy of the NCC in relation to natural hazard impacts and
climate change adaptation. The projects include:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2012
Report Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to
Advance Climate Change Adaptation6 found:
• Completion of an assessment of the adequacy of the current
cyclonic wind provisions taking climate change into account;
• It is likely that there will be increasing temperatures, increasing
proportion of total rainfall from heavy falls, increasing
droughts and sea level rises; and
• ABCB Flood Standard (referenced in NCC 2013) and Information
Handbook completed together with an associated Regulatory
Impact Statement;
• A low confidence in any long-term (i.e. 40 years or more)
increase in tropical cyclone activity (i.e. intensity, frequency, or
duration). But it is likely that there will be a pole ward shift in
the tropical storm tracks.
• Natural disasters monitored to determine whether current NCC
provisions are appropriate;
• Monitored progress of revised Australian Standards for roller
doors, roof tiles and shed design criteria resulting from the July
2011 Cyclone Yasi investigation; and
• Undertook research into acceptance criteria for the design and
construction of private bushfire shelters.
JDH Consulting, 2008, Impact of Climate Change on Design Wind
Speeds in Cyclonic Regions.
6
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_Full_Report.
pdf
5
7
14
Productivity Commission 2012, Barriers to Effective Climate Change
Adaptation, Report No. 59, Final Inquiry Report, p. 204, Canberra
Issue 11
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
ABCB Future Work Program
Conclusion
The ABCB will be undertaking several activities in 2013-14
including:
Ensuring new buildings and plumbing systems will be sufficiently
resilient in the face of natural hazards affected by extreme
weather events will in all likelihood change the way buildings
are designed and constructed. It will also stretch the capacity
of the ABCB to maintain national consistency and minimum
performance standards for new building and plumbing work,
whilst ensuring the NCC continues to meet its objectives of safety
and health, amenity and sustainability.
• Developing a discussion paper on the impact of future
extreme weather events on the NCC for public consideration;
• Finalising an ABCB policy statement outlining the principles to
be used by the ABCB to guide its approach to future weather
events when considering Proposals for Change to the NCC;
• Reviewing the ABCB’s 2010 report on possible NCC adaptation
measures to identify priority areas for further investigation;
To achieve this, the ABCB needs to obtain relevant data and
information, undertake appropriate investigations and research,
and continually engage with its stakeholders to ensure there are
ample opportunities for input. In addition, the ABCB needs to
ensure that all the potential impacts of proposed changes are fully
identified and analysed before final decisions are made.
• Continuing to monitor natural disasters to determine whether
the current NCC provisions are appropriate; and
• Transparently and formally incorporate the body of work relating
to resilience of buildings and plumbing systems in the face of
extreme weather, into the ABCB’s annual work programs.
However, judging by the ABCB’s past achievements in areas
including disability access, energy efficiency, natural hazard
mitigation, health and safety, it is highly likely that the ABCB can
deal effectively with this and other future challenges.
The ABCB has a number of initiatives underway to address the
issue of extreme weather events and building resilience. As a
number of the measures are climate and location dependant
(e.g. cyclones, flood, bushfire), accordingly there are differing
requirements in the NCC.
For further information, please contact the ABCB office on
1300 134 631
Building Sealing Requirements and Open Front Shops,
Cafes and Restaurants
Why have building sealing requirements?
Each element within the Deemed-to-Satisfy (DtS) Provisions of
Section J of NCC Volume One is part of a whole system to ensure
the building achieves a level of energy efficiency. Building sealing
is an integral part of this system and the control of air leakage
will have a major impact on the building’s thermal performance
and its heating and cooling requirements. This article discusses
the requirements for the sealing of windows and doors, as well
as requirements associated with open fronted shops, cafes and
restaurants.
Restricting air infiltration through doors and openable windows
is a cost effective and simple measure to help reduce air flow
between conditioned and non-conditioned spaces. In addition
to unnoticed air leakage, drafts caused by poorly sealed external
openings and construction gaps can affect a building occupant’s
sense of comfort; causing an increase in the use of heating and
air-conditioning. Leakage of humid air into an air conditioned
building can also increase energy use for dehumidification.
NCC Energy Efficiency Requirements
From the Performance Requirement level, building sealing
requirements contribute to facilitating the efficient use of energy
within the building. At the DtS level, NCC Volume One, J3.4 covers
specific sealing requirements of windows and doors to meet this
requirement.
The DtS Provisions only apply to the envelope of conditioned
spaces. A conditioned space is a defined term in the NCC, and in
the context of a Class 6 building (café, restaurant or shop) means
a space that has its temperature controlled by air-conditioning
where the input energy is in excess of 15W/m².
There are also requirements in J3.4(d) for entrances of a building
leading directly into a conditioned space. The entrance must
have an airlock, self-closing door, revolving door or the like.
This prevents large volumes of conditioned air from escaping
or non-conditioned air coming into the building. There are also
concessions to this provision. The first is where the floor area
of the conditioned space is small (less than 50m2). The second
15
BULLETIN
exemption has been a concession in the code since 2006 as a
result of a submission to the 2005 Energy Efficiency Commercial
Building Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), and
recognises buildings designed to have open fronts such as cafes
and restaurants for alfresco dining should be covered by different
requirements.
The concession, J3.4(d)(ii)(A), states that where there is a 3m
unconditioned zone between the main entrance (including
an open front) and the conditioned space, then J3.4(d) is not a
requirement. This provision also has to be used in conjunction
with J3.4(d)(ii)(B) whereby all other entrances are required to
be self-closing doors. The requirements of the concession are
illustrated in Figure 1:
Figure 1: Illustration of the provision of NCC Volume One J3.4(d)(ii)(A)
Why are cafes, restaurants and open front shops
treated differently?
There are amenity benefits for these types of buildings to have
an open frontage for purposes such as alfresco dining and ease
of customer access. There is a recognised contribution to the
quality of public spaces and urban life through increased social
interaction, outdoor lifestyles and a deterrent for street crime
through casual surveillance. It also provides an active street front
which can contribute to increased business activity.
How can energy use be minimised for cafes,
restaurants and shops with open fronts?
Recent research has been undertaken by the ABCB Office,
investigating alternative ways for energy use to be minimised
when a building has an open front.
For those owners and occupiers interested in how to decrease
energy consumption, there are some building and airconditioning control strategies that can be implemented while
still having an open fronted shop, café or restaurant. Some of
these options include:
• at the building design stage limit the amount of shop front that
can be opened;
applied to the scenario of an open fronted restaurant
• make sure the air-conditioning system has the appropriate
controls to be able to limit the air conditioning capacity when
the shop front is open;
The requirements for fitting seal strips to windows and doors are
outlined in J3.4(a), and these provisions also contain exemptions
such as:
• set the thermostat closer to the outside temperature when the
shop front is open; and
• the window or door complies with Australian Standard 2047.
This Standard contains acceptable provisions for window
sealing;
• when practical, limit the openness, such as only having half of
the bi-fold doors open.
• the door is a fire door or smoke door; as any seal might
compromise its integrity; and
Further explanatory information on the energy efficiency
provisions for commercial buildings can be found in the Energy
Efficiency Provisions for Volume One Information Handbook,
available free for download from the ABCB Website.
• the window or door is a roller shutter door, roller shutter grille,
or other security device that serves the purpose of out-of-hours
security only.
16
Issue 11
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
Standards Australia “Spring into Action”
By Alison Scotland,
National Sector Manager, Standards Australia
This year has been advancing at a rapid pace, with some great
progress for the extended team at Standards Australia. Our
technical committees have released a number of standards for
public comment, and look forward to some productive feedback
from the building and construction sector. In addition, the second
round of project prioritisation for 2013 has closed. We have some
interesting projects submitted for our technical committees, and
are working towards commencing them in 2014.
The revised standard is now available for public comment. Our
technical committee has been working solidly on this body of
work, and we would invite all practitioners with an interest in
these standards to comment through the process.
Structural Design Actions
The revision of Parts 0 and 4 within the AS/NZS 1170 series
(Structural Design Actions) is about to commence.
These documents are called up within the NCC, and form a vital
part of understanding loading requirements.
Building Australia’s Future Conference 2013
We were excited to be involved in September’s Building Australia’s
Future Conference, held at Brisbane’s Sofitel. The event was a
huge success, and we would like to thank the Australian Building
Codes Board for their organisational prowess.
All the materials design Standards rely on it for the basis of design
and the design safety criteria. Product Standards also rely on it for
setting the performance criteria for safety and serviceability.
The need for the revision comes as a response to
recommendations by New Zealand reviews of design following
the Christchurch earthquake and relationship to legislative
requirements. The committee is also considering alignment with
more recent published ISO standards.
The various talks were interesting and topical, highlighting areas
of our industry that might benefit from future standardisation
activities. Mindful of this, Standards Australia is aware that
we have to evolve as the industry does. Professor Rao was
appropriate to quote Ghandi, by saying, “We need to be the
change we want to see”.
Slip resistance – the next step
Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways and ladders
AS 4586-2013 Slip resistance classification of new pedestrian
surface materials was published earlier in the year. This standard
provides methods of measuring the frictional characteristics of
existing pedestrian surfaces in wet and dry conditions. Now it’s
time to turn our attention to the test methods for this standard
(Appendix D).
The revision of AS 1657 Fixed platforms, walkways, stairways
and ladders - Design, construction and installation, should be
published by the time you read this article. The new document
is representative of current industry practice and community
expectations.
Following the last round of project prioritisation, a project will be
initiated to explore the current available testing materials.
The original slip resistance test boots are no longer in production,
and a new test boot will have to be sourced.
We have received your comments and appreciate the responses.
It is a big win for workplace health and safety, with improved load,
guardrail and fixed ladder requirements. Issues of fall protection
have been tackled, and we anticipate a better alignment with
existing standards.
Proposing new projects – Next round will open
February 2014
Thermal insulation of dwellings
Standards Australia welcomes proposals to amend, revise, or
develop new Australian Standards. We recently completed the
second round for 2013.
Whilst it is not referenced in the NCC, AS 3999 Bulk Thermal
Insulation - Installation requirements is an important standard
that has captured public attention in recent times. The Standard
was revised in response to the outcomes of a coronial enquiry.
For details in relation to the proposal process, or to download a
copy of the Proposal form, please visit our website.
17
BULLETIN
Watermark Certification Scheme Review
The WaterMark Certification Scheme (the Scheme) is a mandatory
scheme for plumbing and drainage materials and products to
ensure they are fit for purpose and appropriately authorised for
use in plumbing installations.
The Plumbing Code of Australia (PCA) (Volume Three of the
National Construction Code Series) requires certain plumbing and
drainage products to be certified through the Scheme and listed
on the Watermark Product Database (WMPD). The Scheme is based
on a single trademark, the WaterMark, which must be displayed
on the material or product upon the granting of a Certificate of
Conformity, with two levels of certification (Level 1 and Level 2).
Consistent with responsibility for the PCA transferring to the
ABCB, Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers through the
Building Ministers Forum (BMF) agreed to the ABCB assuming
responsibility for the management and administration of the
Scheme. The previous administrator, Standards Australia, has
divested itself of the Scheme, which transferred to the ABCB on
25 February 2013.
The current Scheme was launched in 2005, 11 certification bodies
have been accredited under the Scheme and a total of 742 issued
certificates are listed on the WMPD, covering an estimated 44,000
- 64,000 plumbing products certified under the Scheme.
Joint industry workshops with participants representing industry
(manufacturers, suppliers, designers and installers), scheme
participants (testing laboratories, standards writing bodies,
certification bodies and accreditation bodies) and the State
and Territory regulators were held in Sydney and Melbourne in
August. There was rigorous discussion as participants shared
their views on the performance of the current Scheme and future
directions.
Scheme Review
A full review of the Scheme is being undertaken to:
(i) consider the policy objectives of the Scheme and to determine
whether its objectives remain valid and whether the Scheme
rules remain appropriate for securing those objectives;
(ii) determine the costs and benefits of the Scheme;
(iii)examine the effectiveness and efficiency of the Scheme’s
operation and its interaction with other relevant schemes and
laws; and
Additional workshops with the certification bodies and with
the State and Territory regulators were held in July and August
respectively. Follow-up interviews with stakeholders are
presently being undertaken and a series of stakeholder survey
forms will be made available on the ABCB website to enable all
stakeholders to provide specific comment on the operation of the
Scheme and its future.
(iv)make recommendations where appropriate as to the future
need for the Scheme and its operation and governance,
including possible reform options.
Review Process
Following this initial stakeholder engagement, a Draft Report will
be released in late 2013 for public comment.
The Review has commenced through engagement with the
States and Territories, industry and other key stakeholders. A cost
benefit analysis of the Scheme will be undertaken to determine
the net benefit to government, industry and the community. The
purpose of the engagement and analysis is, within the context
of the Terms of Reference, to examine the performance of the
Scheme and its participants, the performance of similar schemes,
including in other countries, and future options and their impacts.
A Final Report will then be presented to the ABCB for
its consideration, prior to being referred to the BMF for
consideration.
Further information about the Review, including the Terms of
Reference, can be found on the ABCB website
18
Issue 11
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
Coming soon - Online NCC Training
Online learning is an increasingly important medium and the ABCB has embarked on an ambitious program to deliver a range of online
training courses about the National Construction Code (NCC).
Working with specialist online training provider, Pointsbuild Pty Ltd. the courses are expected to be available from early 2014. The
undertaking forms a key part of the ABCB’s strategy to raise awareness and understanding of the NCC.
The online NCC courses will cover a range of topics from an overview of the Building Regulatory Framework and understanding
Performance Requirements, to Energy Efficiency Provisions for both commercial and residential buildings, the Disability Access
provisions, and the Plumbing Code of Australia. The availability of online NCC training will complement the ever-expanding ABCB
Education and Awareness Framework and will provide practitioners with more choice and increased access to the information they
need.
The benefits of delivering online NCC training are wide-ranging and include:
#
Feature
Benefit
1
Learning in your own time
saving time and money; there’s no time off work or need to travel
2
Improving your technical, commercial
and legal know-how
staying informed about changing regulations and their implications
3
Easily assist to fulfil requirements for
licence/accreditation renewal
streamlined processes
4
More effective learning / better staff
productivity
not only does delivery of courses online reduce required learning time, it can
also improve mastery and retention of the training material. This richer learning
environment maximises the way many people retain information.
5
Flexible delivery / distance delivery
interactive e-Learning can be delivered in many formats (such as via portable storage
device, CD-ROM’s, or over the Internet).
6
Reduced time
e-Learning can reduce the time practitioners take to train by 25% to 50%. This
improvement is largely due to higher retention which can result from the visual and
auditory nature of the medium, and the specific feedback for employees, reduced
time and the more timely feedback to trainees on course assessment.
Each course will be approximately an hour in duration and is likely to be recognised by Continuing Professional Development (CPD)
schemes.
Pointsbuild Managing Director, Michael Tomlinson, is enthusiastic about working with the ABCB: “we are delighted to have been awarded
this contract, and are looking forward to working with the ABCB, and key industry stakeholders to raise awareness of the NCC through a
series of easy to use, interesting and informative online courses. We recognise that practitioners need not just technical information but also
information that helps them better manage their businesses or comply with Australian regulations. We are pleased to be helping all building
professionals to both access important information and assist in
fulfilling their licencing requirements.”
The first courses to be delivered by Pointsbuild represent a pilot
for the ABCB, not only in the sense of its participation in online
training, but if successful, expanding into other areas.
Training and education features prominently in many of the surveys
that the ABCB conducts with the users of the NCC and practitioners
more broadly. While it is not a registered training organisation, the
ABCB is conscious of the critical role training and education plays in
developing and maintaining a competent construction industry.
For more information about Pointsbuild visit
www.pointsbuild.com.au or contact Pointsbuild on 1300 892 829 or
[email protected]
Look out for more information about online training in the coming
editions of the ABR, and on the ABCB website: www.abcb.gov.au
19
BULLETIN
CPSISC - National Training Package
Project Update
Construction and Property Services Industry Skills Council (CPSISC) represent the
workforce training and skills development needs of the construction and property
services industry. CPSISC is responsible for maintaining the qualifications and units of
competency within its training packages.
Over the past twelve months, CPSISC has undertaken and completed a major review
of the following existing qualifications: Certificate III in Concreting and Certificate III
in Demolition along with the development of a new qualification – Certificate IV in
Demolition Supervision. These redeveloped and new qualifications will be included
in the Case for Endorsement to be lodged with the National Skills Standards Council
(NSSC) who are scheduled to meet on Thursday 5 December 2013. It is expected that these revised and new qualifications will be
available for implementation in early 2014.
Final draft concreting and demolition qualifications and units of competency can be viewed by clicking here.
A project to review and redevelop the building surveying qualification framework has also commenced along with a separate project to
develop a new Certificate IV in Building Design Drafting.
Training Package Redesign Project
In late 2013 CPSISC will be undertaking a major redesign of the CPC08
Construction, Plumbing and Services Training Package.
This Training Package redesign is a result of national policy adopted by
the National Skills Standards Council and the release of the new Standards
for Training Packages. The new standards for training packages can be
downloaded from the NSSC website
CPSISC views this redesign of the training package as an opportunity to review and update the content, whilst also making the training
package clearer and easier to interpret. The redesigned training package model also allows for strengthening the requirements for
assessment, including assessment conditions, a key factor in our strategy to improve training quality across the construction and
plumbing and services sectors.
You can follow the training package redesign process and are encouraged to provide comment and feedback as draft material is
developed. This can be done by visiting the CPSISC website and advising, via the linked email of the sector activities most relevant
to you and providing your contact details. This will ensure that you are included on the CPSISC national ‘Training Package Redesign
stakeholder database’ to be informed of future updates.
20
Issue 11
The Australian Building Regulation Bulletin
How Have Housing Energy Efficiency Requirements Made a Difference?
Energy efficiency requirements for new housing were first
introduced into the Building Code of Australia (BCA), Housing
Provisions in 2003. The BCA is part of the National Construction
Code series. The objective was to reduce energy use and hence
greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, Australians have been able
to enjoy electricity and gas savings by living in energy efficient
homes with reduced consumption of operational lighting, heating
and cooling energy.
and ceiling has increased from a Total R-Value of 2.7 to 5.1. The
insulation (from 2003 to 2013) for external walls increased from a
Total R-Value of 1.4 to 2.8.
• Generally, the higher the R-Value, the better the thermal
performance.
• Save up to 45% on heating and cooling energy with a wellinsulated roof and ceiling, and an additional 20% with wall
insulation (source: yourhome.gov.au)
The graphic on the next page depicts two typical Australian
residential properties – a 2003 house (3 NatHERS stars) and a 2013
house (6 NatHERS stars). Both houses are located in Adelaide,
climate zone 5. The two hypothetical houses can be compared
and contrasted to highlight the development in energy efficiency
requirements. The following topics are highlighted: roof lights,
insulation (roof and ceiling), insulation (external walls), heated
water system, artificial lighting, and glazing and shading. The
specifics of these topics is explained and detailed below. To
represent the typical contrast of a residential home from 2003
with that of 2013, the graphic also illustrates adjustment in
furnishing and finishes.
Glazing and Shading
The typical construction of windows and roof lights is compared
between 2003 and 2013. Single clear glass, aluminium framing is
construction typical to 2003 residential buildings, whereas double
glazed, clear glass, aluminium framing is construction typical to 2013.
• Higher performance glazing is required for larger glazed areas
and in certain orientations.
• Selection of the appropriate glazing and permanent shading
devices for your climate zone is a key element of passive design.
• Shading can block up to 90% of heat gained from direct
sunlight (source: yourhome.gov.au).
A Comparison of 2003 and 2013 Houses
• Appropriate shading of glass and openings reduces unwanted
heat gain in summer, improves comfort, and saves on building
cooling costs.
The two hypothetical residential properties illustrated in the
energy efficiency infographic – a 2003 house and a 2013 house
– depict the evolution of a typical Australian home. The changes
reflect the implementation of stronger minimum energy
efficiency requirement in the BCA increasing from a 3 to 6 star
energy rating. Note: any values stated are indicative only.
Heated Water System
Electric energy used to power heated water systems was typical of
2003 when there were no BCA requirements in place. Renewable
or low GHG intensity energy powered heated water systems are
typical of the 2013 BCA requirements.
What’s in a Star?
An increase in NatHERS stars typically means a decrease in
household energy consumption. NatHERS is the Nationwide
House Energy Rating Scheme. Approximate values calculated from
NatHERS star criteria shows the difference in energy consumption,
measured in units of kilowatt hours per metre squared per annum,
between NatHERS star ratings (source: nathers.gov.au). In Adelaide,
it is estimated that: one NatHERS star is equivalent to 133 units, three
stars is equivalent to 63 units, and six stars is equivalent to 26 units.
Depending on the climate you live in, solar hot water systems can
provide between 50% and 90% of your hot water for free just by
using the sun’s energy.
Artificial Lighting
Traditional incandescent light bulbs were typical of 2003 when
there were no BCA requirements. Energy efficient lighting
solutions (such as compact fluorescent or LED bulbs) are typical to
meet 2013 BCA requirements.
How do we use Energy?
The use of energy in a typical household is broken down into a
pie graph with the following distribution: Standby energy 3%,
Cooking 4%, Refrigeration 7%, Other Appliances 16%,
Lighting 7%, Water Heating 25% and Heating and Cooling 38%
(source: yourhome.gov.au).
The use of efficient lighting solutions was required with the
introduction of the lighting provisions in 2010.
Fluorescent light bulbs use about 25% of the energy of traditional
light bulbs.
Items covered by the BCA include heating and cooling, water
heating and lighting which collectively makes up 70% of total
energy consumption.
Click here to download the infographic
Disclaimer
While the ABCB has made every effort to ensure that the material in this
document is accurate and up to date, such material does in no way constitute
the provision of professional advice. The ABCB gives no warranty or guarantee
and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to the
accuracy, reliability, currency or completeness of any material contained
herein. Users should seek appropriate independent professional advice prior
to relying on, or entering into any commitment based on material within this
document in relation to building or related activities. Its interpretation in no
way overrides the approvals processes in any jurisdiction.
Thermal Performance
A comparison is shown for roof and ceiling insulation and external
walls insulation between 2003 and 2013. The unit of measure is
the minimum Total R-Value in metres square per Kelvin per Watt.
Total R-Value includes the added insulation and the building
construction. The minimum Total R-Value for insulation of the roof
21
How Have Housing Energy Efficiency Requirements Made A Difference?
Energy efficiency requirements for new housing were first introduced into the Building Code of Australia (BCA) Housing Provisions in
2003. The objective was to reduce energy use and hence greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, Australians have been able to enjoy
electricity and gas savings by living in energy efficient homes with reduced consumption of operational lighting, heating and cooling
energy.
2003
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Climate Zone: 5
2013
What’s in a Star?[1]
NatHERS
Rating
2003-2013, A Comparison
The two hypothetical residential properties illustrated above - a 2003 house and a 2013 house - depict the evolution of a typical Australian
home. The changes reflect the implementation of stronger minimum energy efficiency requirements in the Building Code of Australia (BCA)[3],
increasing from a 3 to 6 star energy rating. Note: Values stated below are indicative only.
Energy Consumption
kWh/ m² per annum
Thermal Performance
133
63
2003
Standby
34
38
Cooking
Refrigeration
7
16
25
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
*
Other
Appliances
7
Lighting
Water Heating
Approximate values calculated from NatHERS star criteria
Source: YourHome (4th edition, 2010), Baseline Energy Estimates
The BCA is part of the National Construction Code Series
Total R-Value includes added insulation and building construction (m².K/w)
Source: YourHome (4th edition, 2010)
Typical Construction:
[4]
6
Total min. R-Value
How do we use energy?[2]
Coverage of BCA
Energy Efficiency
Requirements
Roof lights
Heated Water System
Electric energy
Renewable or low
GHG intensity energy
2003
(no BCA requirements)
2013
2013
26
Heating
and Cooling
Glazing & Shading
Windows
Insulation
5.1
5
2013 Double glazed clear glass,
aluminium framing
4
3
2.7
2
1.4
1
0
2.8
Roof &
Ceiling
External
walls
Generally, the higher the R-value
the better the thermal performance.
Save up to 45% on heating and
cooling energy with a well
insulated roof and ceiling, and
an additional 20% with wall
insulation.*
2003
Single clear glass, aluminium framing
Higher performance glazing required
for larger glazed areas and in certain
orientations.
Selection of the appropriate glazing
and permanent shading devices for
your climate zone is a key element of
passive design.
Shading can block up to 90% of
heat gained from direct sunlight.*
Appropriate shading of glass and
openings reduce unwanted heat
gain in summer, improves
comfort, and saves on building
cooling costs.
Depending on the climate you live in,
solar hot water systems can provide
between 50% to 90% of your hot water
for free just by using the sun’s energy.
Artificial Lighting
Traditional
Incandescent
CFL or LED
2003
(no BCA requirements)
2013
Energy efficient
lighting solutions
The use of efficient lighting solutions was
required with the introduction of the lighting
provisions in 2010.
Fluorescent light bulbs use about 25%
of the energy of traditional light bulbs.
Disclaimer: While the ABCB has made every effort to ensure that the material in this document is accurate and up to date, such material does in no way constitute the provision of professional advice.The ABCB gives no warranty or guarantee and accepts no legal liability whatsoever arising from or connected to the accuracy, reliability,
currency or completeness of any material contained herein. Users should seek appropriate independent professional advice prior to relying on, or entering into any commitment based on material within this document in relation to building or related activities. Its interpretation in no way overrides the approvals processes in any jurisidiction.