Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NZS 3604:2011 Timber-framed buildings is one of the primary standards used in the New Zealand construction industry. Its release earlier this year introduced many changes that all designers and builders need to be familiar with.
IN THiS SECTiON
Why revise NZS 3604? Key changes in NZS 3604:2011 Revised wind and earthquake bracing Snow loading Corrosion zones Timber treatment has just got simpler Roof framing and trusses Engineered wood products now included NZS 3604 committee recognised
BUILD 124 June/July 2011 33
A standard represents the thinking on a subject at the time it was written. As soon as it is published, the world moves on. Recently, NZS 3604:2011 Timber-framed buildings was released, which considered the many changes since 1999.
tandards can only ever be a snapshot in time. The knowledge on the subject grows, construction practices change, other standards are revised and occasionally a major event occurs that causes a stop and rethink. All of these happened in the case of the review of NZS3604:1999 Timber framed buildings . NZS 3604 was last revised in 1999 and then amended in 2000 and again in 2006 to incorporate the revised timber grading regime introduced by Amendment 4 to NZS 3603 Timber structures standard .
This is perhaps an expected result for an event that was between 60% and 80% of the design value of an ULS (ultimate limit state a return period of one in 500 years) event in Canterbury. liquefaction not addressed Many foundations (especially concrete slabs) were badly aected by liquefaction. The resultant lateral spreading often caused irreparable damage to a superstructure that would otherwise have performed well. There was a lot of discussion about how to address this in NZS3604:2011. In the time available before publication, it was not possible to include soundly based solutions for foundations on sites potentially subject to liquefaction. One of the major stumbling blocks is how to reliably identify a site that needs an enhanced foundation to cope with liquefaction, because such a solution will inevitably add signicantly to the cost of constructing a timberframed building. This has not yet been resolved but solutions are starting to emerge.
removal of all weathertightness details from NZS3604 Section 4 Durability and Section 11 Building envelope.
NZS 3604:2011 will be cited later this year, so you need to know what the changes are.
hile many current projects will be designed in accordance with the 1999 version of NZS 3604, new work should be designed following the 2011 version. Do not use information from both the old and new versions it must be one or the other. Once the 2011 version is cited in the compliance documents in mid 2011, the 1999 version should not be used. The 2011 version is a completely new document with many changes, so it is not possible to purchase replacement pages a new standard must be purchased from Standards New Zealand.
revision of the corrosion zone denitions in Section 4 geothermal zones now require specic design to address the selection of metal components to resist corrosion a revision of the illustrations, with additional gures included such as isometric drawings showing the denitions of spans and loaded dimensions introduction of a new single timber grade, structural grade (SG), to cover both visual and machine stress-graded timber the term No. 1 framing grade is removed SG8 as the default timber grading to simplify the span tables (span tables for grades SG6 and SG10 are included as appendices at the end of each section) how good ground is to be determined revision of Figure 3.1, which illustrates the relationship of a foundation to sloping ground simplied wind bracing tables the default table gives the requirements for a high-wind zone, and for other wind zones, the high-wind zone is multiplied by a factor to give the requirements for that wind zone, e.g. 0.7 to give the requirement for a medium-wind zone revision of the earthquake zone boundaries revision of the requirements for the maximum BU/m for wall bracing elements and the minimum capacity of internal and external bracing lines. revision of foundation edge details, particularly the location of bottom plate xings where the edge is formed by masonry header blocks revision of the roof truss section, with design responsibility placed on the truss supplier.
introduction
of soil classications for earthquake bracing demand in Section 5 a DPC is now required between all timber and concrete/concrete masonry new clause 4.4.4 to cover the durability of xings in ACQ and CuAZ-treated timber requirements for the design of cantilevered decks including the design of the balustrade loads and xing of balusters.
BUILD 124 June/July 2011 35
AS/NZS1170:2002 has had a big influence on the bracing demand provisions of NZS3604:2011. However, there are also changes throughout the bracing section, and this article looks at the more significant ones.
ne of the primary reasons for updating NZS3604 was that the loading standard NZS4203 was superseded by the joint loading standard AS/NZS 1170:2002 Structural design actions, which was cited in New Zealand Building Code clause B1 Structure in December 2008.
Wind demand
The existing wind zones have been retained, but an extra-high wind zone has been added to increase NZS3604 coverage of more exposed building sites without having to use specic engineering design. These include the hilltop locations and coastal areas where Kiwis are increasingly building to get views and water access.
A conscious decision was made to keep the maximum wind speeds for each zone the same as before, so as to avoid redesign of standard components such as windows. It also allows a product or system with an Appraisal for a certain wind zone to remain unchanged. There are minor changes in the determination of the topographic class, and the ground roughness categories have been reduced from three to two. These changes were partly a result of the new loading standard and also the drive to simplify the process.
Earthquake demand
The changes here are more signicant and result mainly from changes in the loading standard. The maps of the earthquake zones have been signicantly changed (see Figure 1). These reect our greater knowledge of the overall seismicity of New Zealand, which is improved with every event. It is worth noting that the base maps were drawn before the recent Canterbury earthquakes and may be subject to revision as the data is processed. Both maps show the increasing inuence of the major faults, for example, the Alpine fault in the South Island. Subsoil classification added A new provision is the introduction of subsoil classication. This was done with some reluctance by the committee because it is not intuitive and adds complication to the design process. However, there is overwhelming evidence from past earthquakes of the strong correlation between building damage and subsoil type. The principle is that a building on a rock site will suer much less damage in an event than one with a deep layer of soft soil overlying the bedrock. As yet, there is no simple way to determine the soil parameters leading to this classication, and the services of a geotechnical engineer will be required to interpret the existing data where the signicance of the proposed building justies the expense. There are a number of agencies working on this and it is expected that local Territorial Authorities will have access to this information in due course. Meantime, the earthquake demand tables in NZS3604 are derived for the most conservative solution (soil type D or E), and reduction factors are provided for those who go to the trouble to classify their sites. If wind demand governs the design of the building (as it does for most cases), then nothing further needs to be done.
Figure 1: The new earthquake zones. For detailed maps, see NZS 3604:2011 Figure 5.4.
The citing of AS/NZS1170 Structural design actions in December 2008 introduced a number of changes to snow loading on buildings, and these have resulted in changes in NZS3604.
By Roger Shelton, BRANZ Senior Structural Engineer
SNOw lOaDiNg
he snow loads quoted in NZS3604:2011 are ground snow loads. Snow loads on a buildings roof can be considerably less than this, depending on roof pitch and shape. Snow loads in the 1999 version of NZS3604 are 0kPa, 0.5 kPa and 1.0kPa.
NZS 3604:2011 Timber-framed buildings and other standards mentioned in Build, can be purchased from Standards New Zealand by phoning 0800 735 656 for members or by visiting the website www.standards.co.nz.
In the 2011 version of NZS 3604, some changes have been made to the corrosion map, mainly with the atmospheric corrosivity classification system.
By Zhengwei Li, BRANZ Corrosion Scientist
COrrOSiON zONES
he severity of atmospheric corrosion is now categorised into ve groups based on the corrosion rates of mild steel given in AS/ NZS 2312:2002 Guide to the protection of structural steel against atmospheric corrosion by the use of protective coatings and ISO 9223:1992 Corrosion of metals and alloys Corrosivity of atmospheres Classication.
Now the classication of New Zealand atmospheric environments is aligned with related standards, including AS/NZS 2312 and AS/NZS 2728, except they are now referred to as zones instead of categories.
Micro-climate considered
NZS 3604:2011 recognises that micro-climate, as well as macro-climate, aects the corrosion performance of a metal and the durability of a structure. Components corrode at quite dierent rates when installed at dierent locations on the same building because design features can signicantly inuence the local climate surrounding a component. For example, a sheltered surface may accumulate more airborne salt particles due to the lack of rain washing, making a mildly corrosive environment more aggressive toward metals. Pollutants, such as oxides of nitrogen and sulphur released by industry or agriculture, can also accelerate the deterioration of metals. When assessing the aggressivity of a given environment, if microclimatic factors are found to be signicant and outweigh macro-climatic parameters, NZS 3604:2011 recommends a more severe corrosion category is used for materials selection (see clause 4.2.4).
38 BUILD 124 June/July 2011
The treated timber framing system that came into effect on 4 April this year allows a single hazard class, H1.2, to be used for all enclosed radiata pine and Douglas fir framing.
hanges to the system for treated timber framing are contained in Building Code Acceptable Solution B2/AS1. The previous system required up to four minimum levels of treatment, including untreated, H1.1, H1.2 and H3.1, depending on where in the building the timber was to be used. In addition, there were some timber uses and locations that were either unclear or omitted, and this caused ongoing confusion within the industry.
many of the secondary elements, such as valley boards and ceiling battens, can be H1.2 treated (except cantilevered decks). The following are special provisions included in the changes. Untreated Douglas fir framing Because Douglas r has been shown to have some natural durability over that of radiata pine (though not as good as H1.2 treated framing), untreated Douglas r has been included for use in dened low-risk designed houses. This will be of benet to those wishing to have chemicalfree construction. Provided all the conditions are met for the design of a house, untreated Douglas r framing can be used (see Table 2). Farm buildings The changes also clarify the use of untreated framing for farm buildings. Untreated radiata and Douglas r framing can be used if framing is: protected from direct wetting, and has no internal linings, and is not in ground contact, and is not used in a building with living accommodation.
H5 post if in contact with ground Key: Figure 1: New treatment requirements for timber framing. H1.2 H3.2 H5
Refer to NZS 3602:2003 for other framing choices, such as larch or macrocarpa. Solvent-based treatments removed Solvent-based treatments are no longer required for framing. Previously, some parts of the building, such as enclosed at roof framing, required H3.1 treatments using light organic solvent preservatives (LOSP). Now that H3.1 is no longer required, LOSP treatments can be avoided. The changes also conrm the removal of LOSP treatments from the H1.2 category. At present, this leaves only boron (pink-coated) framing for H1.2. It is expected that a future amendment of NZS 3640 will consider other H1.2 treatment options such as water-based azoles. In the meantime, pink framing will be the norm on construction sites.
Enclosed roof framing and trusses H1.2 H1.2 H1.2 H1.2 H1.2 Sarking and framing not protected from solar-driven moisture through absorbent cladding materials. Enclosed at roof framing and associated roof members. Enclosed skillion roof framing and associated roof members. Valley boards and boards supporting ashings or box gutters, and ashings to roof penetrations and upstands to roof decks. All roof trusses, including gable-end trusses, roof framing, ceiling and eaves framing, purlins and battens. Framing and other members within or beneath a parapet. Framing and other members within enclosed decks or balconies (see H3.2 for cantilevered decks). Framing and other members within enclosed cantilevered decks (including joist trimmers, nogs and blocking). Framing and other members supporting enclosed decks or balconies (including cantilevered decks). Battens used behind cladding to form a cavity (H3.1 treatments can be either solvent-based or boron. H3.1 boron treatments supplied grey primer-painted). All other exterior wall framing and other members including exterior and boundary joists. Internal walls.
Enclosed wall framing protected from the weather H1.2 H1.2 H3.2 H1.2 H3.1 H1.2
Mid-oor framing H1.2 All mid-oor framing, including boundary joists, ceiling framing and ceiling battens and double top plates. Interior ooring.
Other framing None Wall framing and roof framing (including trusses) protected from the weather, in unlined and unoccupied farm buildings and outbuildings, except buildings with high internal humidity, such as saunas, spas and so on. Framing exposed to the weather and above ground. Framing such as fence posts and landscape timbers that is exposed to the weather and is in contact with the ground. Framing such as house piles, poles and crib walling that is exposed to the weather and is in contact with the ground.
H3.2 H4 H5
Note 1: Note 2: Note 3:
For structural use of other species, refer to NZS 3602:2003 Tables 1 and 2. For non-structural use of radiata pine, Douglas r and other species, refer to NZS 3602:2003 Table 3. A higher treatment level also satises the level specied in this table.
Table 2: Low-risk house conditions when untreated Douglas r can be used for framing.
All the following conditions must be satised:
Is a stand alone, single household unit of no more than two storeys (as dened in NZS 3604) that is designed and constructed to NZS 3604. Is situated in wind zones no greater than high as dened in NZS 3604. Has a building envelope complexity no greater than medium risk and a deck design no greater than low risk as dened by the risk matrix in the Acceptable Solution E2/AS1. Has drained and vented cavities complying with E2/AS1 behind all claddings. Uses roof and wall cladding systems and details meeting E2/AS1. Has a risk matrix score of no more than 6 on any external wall face, as dened in E2/AS1. Has a simple pitched roof with hips, valleys, gables or monopitches, all draining directly to external gutters.* Has a roof slope of 10 or more. If it has a skillion roof, the roong material is corrugated iron or concrete, metal or clay tiles for adequate ventilation. Has eaves 450 mm wide or more for single-storey houses and eaves 600 mm wide or more for 2-storey houses.
*The roof does not have internal or secret gutters, concealed gutters behind fascias or any roof element nishing within the boundaries formed by exterior walls (e.g. the lower ends of apron ashings, chimneys, dormers, clerestorey, box windows).
ROOf framiNg
Selection tables
Selection tables have been rationalised and the number reduced. Light and heavy roofs are combined in one table, and the extra-high wind ment with adjustment zone is the default require factors for the other wind zones. Also, all tables default to the SG8 timber grade. Other grades have been moved to the appendix at the back of the section. This reects the dominance of SG8 framing timber in the market.
ROOf TruSSES
By Stephen Walker, FTMA Chairman and WPA Board member
A high proportion of residential buildings use timber nail-plated roof trusses to form the roof structure. NZS 3604:2011 includes provisions for their use.
Fixings
The xings have been rationalised so that the same xing type is consistent throughout the section. A summary table is provided in NSZ 3604:2011 Table 2.2.
revious versions of NZS 3604 put most of the emphasis on close-coupled roof framing design and construction and left nail-plated roof trusses to the realm of specic engineering design. Roof truss information was in the commentary in the 1999 standard, making it informative. NZS 3604:2011 has moved it into normative text (where it is mandatory) and updated the requirements to reect current industry practice.
Purlins
The scope of purlins on edge has been greatly increased. This was driven by the increasing use of monopitch roofs with no rafters, and purlins spanning across walls. The deeper members also accommodate the greater insulation thicknesses now required by the Building Code. In the previous version of NZS 3604, purlin tables provided for extra xings around roof edges and ridges, reecting the greater wind uplift in these areas. Very little area was often left as the body of the roof, and it proved unrealistic to expect designers and installers to determine when and where extra xings were required. The solution has been to provide the requirements for extra xings over the whole roof in the tables.
Limitations applied to roof trusses are: span no greater than 12 m eaves overhang shall not exceed 750 mm measur ed horizontally from the face of the support spacing no greater than: 900 mm for heavy roof claddings 1200 mm for light roof claddings resultant loads not exceeding 16 kN in either an upwards or downwards direction ground snow load may not exceed 2 kPa. Clause 10.2.2.3 sets out the three levels of documentation required for each project: Producer Statement (design) for the design software used. Design statement by the accredited fabricator listing the specic project design particulars. Manufacturing statement by the fabricator conrming that the truss installation is in accordance with the design statement and truss layout plan. It is critical that designers receive and review roof truss documentation before completing the design of the supporting structure.
a
Roof bracing
This has been simplied with bracing demand now related only to roof weight and area roof shape is irrelevant. Options for providing roof bracing are widened and made more exible and include: sarking structural ceiling diaphragm directly attached to the underside of the rafters combinations of roof plane bracing and roof space bracing. Note that roof bracing, like wall bracing, is the responsibility of the building designer.
44 BUILD 124 June/July 2011
FiXiNgS raTiONaliSED
By Roger Shelton, BRANZ Senior Structural Engineer
Fixings are the Achilles heel of timber buildings. Wind and other damaging hazards find the weakest link in the building, and failure will start there. This is almost always the fixings.
esigners will, with some incentive, use selection tables to arrive at suitable sizes for most principal members. Fixings, however, are ignored or left to the builder. Downwards gravity loads are fairly self-evident to the person on the job, but uplift due to wind loads is not particularly intuitive. For these reasons, NZS 3604 has tables of xings covering dierent situations. After several revisions, these were fragmented in NZS 3604:1999 and inconsistent through the document.
xing type has a unique capacity depending on its conguration, load direction and in-service environment. For example, 2/M12 bolts are used in xing types I and O. Fixing type I is used to connect a ridge beam to its supporting studs in a dry internal environment, whereas type O is used to connect a veranda beam to a post
that may be exposed to the weather and uses reduced properties appropriate for timber with a moisture content greater than 18%. The basis of the xing capacities and the way they were derived will be updated in the BRANZ report The engineering basis of NZS 3604, which will be published shortly.
Table 1: Fixing type and capacity reference guide (Table 2.2 from NZS 3604:2011 Timber-framed buildings, reproduced with permission from Standards New Zealand).
Fixing Description type Alternative xing capacity (kN) 0.7 4.7 8.5 16.0 4.7 7.0 4.7 8.5 16.0 24.0 3.0 9.8 13.0 4.7 6.8 13.7 25.5 0.55 0.8 2.4 5.5 10.10, A10.10, 10.12, A10.12, 15.9, A15.9 10.8, A10.8, 15.8, A15.8 10.5, A10.5 10.1, A10.1, 10.7, A10.7, 10.11, A10.11 10.14, 10.15, 15.6, A15.6, 15.10, A15.10 10.2, A10.2, 15.7, A15.7 See table
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U
2/90 3.15 end nails 2/90 3.15 end nails + 2 wire dogs 2/90 3.15 end nails + strap xing (see Figure 8.12) 4/90 3.15 end nails + 2 strap xing (double stud) 2/90 3.15 skew nails + 2 wire dogs 2/90 3.15 skew nails + strap xing (see Figure 10.6) 10/90 3.15 nails (5 each side) 1/M12 bolt 2/M12 bolts 2/M16 bolts 6/90 3.15 nails 2/M12 bolts 2/M16 bolts 6/100 4.0 HDG nails (hand driven) 2/M12 bolts (see Figure 9.3 (C)) 2 HDG at straps (see Figure 9.3 (B)) 2 HDG tee straps (see Figure 9.3 (A)) 1/90 3.15 nail 2/90 3.15 nails 1/10 g self-drilling screw, 80 mm long 1/14 g self-drilling type 17 screw, 100 mm long
8.18
Figure 1: Type E xing used in NZS 3604:2011 is always 2 skew nails plus 2 wire dogs in this conguration.
Note: Capacities are associated with xing type, not fasteners. See individual selection tables for the appropriate xing type for the application.
ver the past 10 years, LVL and glulam products (collectively termed engineered wood products or EWPs) have become more prevalent in residential construction, particularly in lintels, beams, rafters and oor joists where larger section sizes of solid timber have become less available or are unable to span the distances required. Currently, it is estimated that over a third of lintels used in prenailed wall frames use LVL or glulam timber.
requirements of an SG grade and be marked in the same manner as an SG grade in accordance with NZS 3622. While few manufacturers of EWPs are likely to do this, there is one example in the marketplace of LVL studs provided as being SG 8. Proprietary grade Otherwise a proprietary grade can be used. This can be a dierent size from the solid timber member being substituted and have dierent engineering properties (usually better) as long as: it is a framing member for a building within the scope of NZS 3604:2011 any loadbearing reaction from the member is not greater than 16 kN in either an upwards or downwards direction the selection charts or software used have been engineered as a minimum in accordance with B1/VM1. The loadbearing reaction gure is a conservative approach 16 kN was near the upper limits of loads generated by the solid timber members already selectable in NZS 3604 and likely to be substituted with EWPs, even though other framing members generate higher resultant loads. It was also the gure recommended for the loadbearing reaction limit for roof trusses. Documentation will need to be provided to support the charts or software used to select proprietary grades (see commentary clause 2.3.9.6). This should include a producer statement (design) from a chartered professional engineer covering the engineering basis of the selection charts or software used.
level of treatment for EWPs is not listed in NZS 3602, a conservative approach has been taken in NZS 3604:2011 by requiring the same level of treatment that would be required for kilndried radiata pine to comply with NZS 3602. When read in conjunction with the recent amendment to B2/AS1, it would appear that a minimum level of H1.2 would apply for LVL in many cases. Speciers and builders should note, though, that few producers of LVL provide an H1.2 option at present, so the H3.1 LOSP treatment is most likely to be provided when treatment is required.
The committee that updated NZS 3604 Timber-framed buildings has been awarded the Standards New Zealand 2010 Committee of the Year Award.
ommerce Minister Simon Power and Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson honoured the committee members and their employers at awards breakfasts held in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. NZS 3604 is one of the primary standards used in the New Zealand construction industry. The limited technical review was needed to update the standard to reect the needs of industry, changes in materials, industry practice and related standards, including loadings. A technical committee comprised of 22 industry representatives (see below) with expertise in areas directly related to NZS 3604 was appointed to conduct the review. Under the leadership of architect and committee Chair Don Bunting, the committee established ve industry-specic work groups. A leadership group advised the committee and provided policy guidance. Once cited in B1/AS1 later this year, the NZS 3604:2011 committees work will provide the industry with a means of complying with the New Zealand Building Code for timber-framed buildings. This means designs and plans in accordance with NZS 3604:2011 will be deemed to comply with the Building Code and must be accepted by Building Consent Authorities. This provides the sector with a cost-eective and ecient way to design, build and inspect a house that meets the performance requirements of the Building Code. BRANZ Senior Structural Engineer Roger Shelton, also received additional recognition with a Standards New Zealand 2010 Meritorious Service Award for his input.
The NZS 3604 technical committee: (back row, from left) Eddie Bruce, Colin Hill, Colin Clench, Jamie OLeary, Don Bunting, Ian Garrett, Richard Merrield, Allan Walters, Doug Gaunt and Graeme Lawrence; (front row, from left) Warwick Banks, Hans Gerlich, Ernest Lapish, Michael Middlebrook, John Yolland, Stuart Hayman, Craig Watkin and Roger Shelton. Not present: Bruce Anderson, David Barnard, Mark John Ash, Stephen Walker and Scott Gibbons.
BUILD 124 June/July 2011 47