I am the business manager of an Auckland building company and also currently studying quantity surveying. Every month, we receive Build with its accompanying material. I read through it all and highlight points to talk to staff about in our team meetings.
This is such a fabulous resource, I thought I should let someone know that we really value it. The information you publish is so crucial to the ongoing education of the building industry.
ELENA IRVING: AUCKLAND
Comment Thank you so much for the positive feedback. Great to know that we are delivering useful information.
It was good to see the impractical footing widths given in NZS 3604:2011 corrected in the Build 153 article Reinforced footings cover. However, I was surprised to read ‘for foundation walls to concrete slabs, the horizontal bars are typically D12 and vertical starter bars are R10’. This is another NZS 3604 oddity.
In over 20 years, I have rarely seen R10 vertical starter bars used in Auckland and never specified them myself. Using plain round R10 starters does not provide sufficient anchorage into the floor slab. After the Canterbury earthquakes, the requirements for floor mesh were changed to ductile steel, so the mesh could resist the earthquake forces pulling apart the slab. These requirements are completely negated if instead the slab just pulls away from the footing. We typically specify D12 starters at 600 mm spacing with a minimum lap length with the mesh of about 500 mm.
BRUCE TRICKER: AUCKLAND
Comment Thanks for your email. In this Build article, we wanted to clarify the NZS 3604:2011 minimum requirements. NZS 3604:2011 allows plain round R10 starter bars in the slab edging situation. The absence of bar deformations permits tighter bend radii for starter bars where the slab is tied to the foundation wall.
D12s can be used as the starter bars, but the increased bar diameter and bent radii would need to be allowed for with an increased foundation width.
The article in Build 152 Aiding the visually impaired has a substantial error.
Figure 2 on page 39 shows the same colour doors and carpet. This does not comply with NZS 4121:2001 Design for access and mobility – Buildings and associated facilities clause 4.10.41(c), which states that ‘Doors and floors must be of a contrasting colour’.
It would also not meet the contrast requirements of Building Code clause D1 Access routes clause 7.0.4.
WAYNE SAPWELL: CHRISTCHURCH
Comment Thanks for your email. We agree that the example in Figure 2 would not meet the requirements of NZS 4121:2001.
D1 clause 7.0.4 is less specific. It requires that accessible doors shall be a colour that contrasts with their surroundings. The commentary clause indicates the difficulty in finding a panelled door in a panelled wall, indicating contrast is required between wall and door. There is no indication of floor contrast.
Either NZS 4121:2001 or D1 can be used to show compliance. If the compliance path chosen was NZS 4121:2001 the door and floor would require contrast – this is best practice.
If D1 was the chosen compliance path, the door would be required to contrast with the walls, but not with the floor, and should have contrasting furniture.
Articles are correct at the time of publication but may have since become outdated.