Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Abstract
The New Zealand Building Code Acceptable (Deemed to Satisfy) Solutions for External Moisture
(weathertightness) includes a Risk Matrix which gives the designer an indication of a number of the
influencing factors that lead to success, or failure, of cladding systems for residential buildings up to 3
storeys. Weathertightness failure is not limited to this category of buildings. Many multi-storey
buildings in New Zealand have weatherproofing problems because facade components such as
windows, balcony doors and cladding have been installed without due consideration to the increased
exposure, imposed building movements and risk of these components in multi-storey buildings. This
paper is a first attempt to document the performance parameters and a risk matrix for buildings up to
15 storeys. The intent is to identify key success/failure parameters for the buildings and formulate a
matrix that allows key decision makers to understand weathertightness risks associated with various
cladding related decisions/approaches. The matrix is not intended as a compliance tool, rather it
should be an informative, easy to use, facilitator of informed decision making, that elucidates risks that
may be otherwise overlooked.
1 New Zealand Building Industry Context
The New Zealand (NZ) Building industry is a relatively immature one when it comes to designing and
constructing tall buildings. There are a limited selection of frontline construction companies who have
an established track record and/or capability to plan and construct medium to large commercial and
apartment buildings. NZ has never been able to build up a cadre of experienced site managers and
construction staff due to successive financial crises which have regularly decimated/ hollowed out the
industry by sending trades people into premature retirement or to alternative geographic locations to
continue work in the industry.
There is an even shallower pool of options with respect to subcontractors who are capable of taking
on all aspects of cladding design and installation. There are some cladding and curtain wall
subcontractors who are developing skills.
The general approach is to extrapolate small building technologies and in the recent past it would
not have been unusual to have tall buildings proposed that are no more than a vertical arrangement of
fifteen floors of basic residential windows and cladding. Unfortunately this does still happen and was a
significant contributor of the leaking building syndrome’ striking multi-storey apartments. The NZ
building industry has a tendency to understate risk and overcompensate with unsustainable enthusiasm.
This paper is timely in its attempt to balance enthusiasm with knowledge and awareness and put
rational and comparative tools in the hands of the designer.
and the matrix within it addresses buildings within the scope of NZS 3604:2011 Timber Framed
Buildings, Category 1 Buildings or Category 2 Single Household or Commercial under 10m. The risk
matrix can be found on the Web by searching for “E2 Risk Matrix, New Zealand”. The matrix was
largely developed as a tool to help lead to prioritise cavity based cladding solutions in New Zealand at
a time when there was some resistance to this within the building industry. In terms of intent the
document [1] itself states “This guidance document is aimed at designers, builders and building
consent officials to help in assessing the weathertightness risk of low rise, timber-framed buildings
using the risk matrix in Acceptable Solution E2/AS1 (“E2/AS1”) for Clause E2 External Moisture of
the New Zealand Building Code.”
The acceptable solution presents reasonable practice details that have a good track record of
success and assists those with limited knowledge in resolving compliant solutions cost effectively and
avoid the need to demonstrate code compliance. Standardisation of detailing leads to some familiarity
in industry.
• The E2/AS1 Risk Matrix usefully provides explanation and examples to make it easier to
• Assess the building envelope design and environmental factors which effect
Weathertightness
• Decide when a cavity solution must be provided
• Calculate a risk score for the building
• Use this risk score to identify wall claddings/systems that can be expected to function
adequately within the risk parameters
• Adjust the risk score to improve the likelihood of a successful building façade.
The E2 / AS1 Risk Matrix is easily understood and can be used by building developers, architects,
builders and owners to manage the design/construction risks associated with their envelope.
Only systems which are pressure-equalising and drained are considered, as face-sealed systems will
typically not be allowed in New Zealand by local government authorities. It is also assumed that the
chosen systems have been performance tested to a recognised façade (or window) testing Standard and
that they have a proven Performance Rating (performance wind pressure, air leakage and water
penetration test pressure).
Little experience
Medium Some staff have experience on similar buildings for different 3-4
companies
High No experience of similar building >5
40mm and ultimate of 100mm. Conventional façade systems may not be able to tolerate such
serviceability movements and remain serviceable.
Façade designers must determine the movement requirements for its façade system and in
particular obtain the values of the building structure’s movements from the building structure engineer.
As summarised in table 10 we have indicated a simple scoring value for each of the chosen parameters.
A lower score indicates a lower risk. The three risk categories indicate the following:
• Low; this is a minimum risk indication which gives the best chance of successful
performance in service
• Medium; the risk of inadequate performance is higher than the writers recommend; the
designer should consider re-design of the higher-scoring parameters to reduce the risk to
the “low” category. Alternatively, be aware of the risks and manage then with good
design and installation quality control.
• High; the risk of inadequate performance is too high and the writers recommend a major
review to reduce the risk, back towards the “low” category.
The reader may wish to add importance values to each of the parameters or possibly increase the
scores of the parameters which are perceived to be more important. This possibly complicates the
matrix to an unreasonable extent.
6 Conclusion
This paper has been written as a first attempt to improve the awareness of participants in the building
industry of the difficulties in designing and building the facades of medium-rise concrete and steel
structure buildings compared with timber-structure houses up to 3 stories. It provides a point score so
that different façade options can be compared and the reviewer can determine which option gives the
lesser risk of failure. The failure risk can also be reduced by addressing the options with an identified
high risk. The user of the Risk Matrix 15 is free to vary the point scores as they deem appropriate for
their project.
We expect that application of the Risk Matrix 15 will improve the understanding in the building
industry of the parameters to be considered in façade design and improve building industry outcomes.
References
[1] Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment. (2014). Acceptable Solutions and Verification
Methods – For New Zealand Building Code Clause E2 External Moisture. Third edition –
amendment 6, New Zealand
[2] Standards New Zealand., Standards Australia. (2002). AS-NZS1170 Structural Design Actions.,
New Zealand, Australia.
Lalas Johnson Jones & Sutherland A Weatherproofing Matrix for Multi-storey Buildings
[3] National Precast Concrete Association Australia :PCH-2009 Precast Concrete Handbook
[4] Standards New Zealand., Standards Australia. (2008). AS-NZS4284 Testing of Building Facades.,
New Zealand, Australia.