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 – Ray.Loveridge@abcb.gov.au
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 abcb.office@abcb.gov.au 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 info@pointsbuild.com.au 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.