Browse Forums Building Standards; Getting It Right! Re: Frames without timber noggings? 22Aug 13, 2017 9:35 am Designer,Engineer (Civil,Const & Envir),Builder,Concrete & Masonry Contract.Struct Repairs Re: Frames without timber noggings? 23Aug 13, 2017 9:50 am 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Frames without timber noggings? 25Aug 15, 2017 8:51 am Designer,Engineer (Civil,Const & Envir),Builder,Concrete & Masonry Contract.Struct Repairs Re: Frames without timber noggings? 27Aug 24, 2017 1:44 am nomnomnom Wow! Now I've seen it all. A builder refusing to put in Noggins. What a tool (excuse the pun) Kindly refer your builder to AS 1684.4, being the Australian standard on Residential framing. Para 6.2.1.5 - requires your builder to have noggins. See page 47 here... http://mikestrade.sydneyinstitute.wikis ... ied%29.pdf Good luck with it mate. Take lots of photos and get a building inspector to check everything from now on at all stages. Carefully consider when your make your progress payments, until you are happy and all issues in your building report rectified to your absolute satisfaction. Keep photos and notes of every stage. The one thing I have learned is they really don't care and will tell you any "pork pie" to try and do the bare minimum and get away with it. Don't let them make a mug of you. If you have a suspicion, Google it, call the manufacturer of the product and ask their technical support line, make a post on this forum and ask your building inspector. Good luck with it. Aren't these metal notches the same as shown on page 87 as Metal Bracing? Re: Frames without timber noggings? 28Aug 25, 2017 9:03 am Extract below from AS 1684.2 Part 2 Non-Cyclonic Residential timber framed construction. This documents seems to imply the noggins are the norm. Noggins also restrict/limit the amount of twisting of studs that can occur. They also provide stiffening to load bearing studs. Without noggins thee load bearing studs may need to be thicker. "6.2.1.5 Nogging Where required, stud walls shall have continuous rows of noggins, located on flat on on edge, at 1350 mm maximum centres (see figure 6.6) ...................................." Re: Frames without timber noggings? 29Aug 25, 2017 9:41 am TomP Engineers are at the forefront of innovation (This one is) The codes allow for innovation they also state the min. requirements. If builders want to go down the path of equivalent, quickest & cheapest option then put up proofs, because I don't have a problem with alternate methods as long as they are equivalent or better than what is in the standards & fit for purpose. Years ago Builders/Contractors got away with whatever they wanted without fear of criticism & retribution...these days the battlers & Punters only want a FAIR GO BTW, Welcome to the forum & Social media Designer,Engineer (Civil,Const & Envir),Builder,Concrete & Masonry Contract.Struct Repairs Re: Frames without timber noggings? 30Aug 26, 2017 6:42 am Tom P It seems everyone on this forum stubbornly opposes any form of innovation unless it has been pre-approved by the government. Does the government have some huge construction research department I don't know about? Houses in Australia used to be built using solid stone and mortar. When builders started using 110 bricks was everyone up in arms about it? OMG has this been approved by the government!! Don't use any new construction unless the government has legislated it!!! Then builders started using 90 bricks. OMG the government literature only says 110 bricks, your house is gonna fall down!! Timber houses used to be built using only jarrah. Was everyone complaining when builder's started using pine? Where does it say in the legislation that builder's can use pine!! Get your builder to rip everything down cause I can't see where the government says we can use pine!! Then builder's started using steel studs. What government organisation has approved the use of steel studs!?!?! They must be inferior!! Damn builders trying to rip off the regular bloke again!! It's just a fact that the BCA and standards lag behind innovation by DECADES. And if an innovation has been tested and patented then it is AGAINST THE LAW for government to add it the the BCA. Yes you read that right. Patented new innovations CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE BCA OR TO ANY STANDARDS. Why hasn't Solarspan been added to the code?? Does that mean builders only use Solarspan when they want to save money (even though they cost more than a standard roof)?? Why hasn't ICF walls been added to the code? Are reinforced concrete ICF walls weaker than 70x35 pine??? People on this forum would certainly want you to think so. I somewhat agree. At the end of the day is the metal ribbon straps are in the engineering plans or deemed an unacceptable alternative then it's compliant. Doesn't make them better than noggins but compliant. Having said that I've seen some noggins installed that are a miracle aren't falling off having been nailed within 5mm of the edge. Re: Frames without timber noggings? 31Aug 26, 2017 2:15 pm It comes across to me that the builder is taking a short cut to try and save some money ,the purpose of the noggin is to prevent the studs from twisting that's why they are at a maximum spacing as in AS 1684. , this approach speaks volumes on the builder and poor workmanship , to be charged 2k to put them in is also outrageous, you also could not do it for a 100 bucks either As others have said get yourself a independent inspector best money you will spend on your project, Re: Frames without timber noggings? 32Aug 26, 2017 6:55 pm Tim65 ........you also could not do it for a 100 bucks either As others have said get yourself a independent inspector best money you will spend on your project, Ok I took a calculated guess in assuming Noggins 30 l/m internal wall? 30 x $3.50 = $105, & I left out the nails $10 but by my estimation, If you look hard enough you would probably find some scrap pine and a clip of nails in the site bin. What's an independent inspector going to do... Hire an engineer on your behalf to argue the point? , LOL' "Have my Engineer talk to your engineer"..sounds like "Have my lawyer talk to your lawyer" Sometimes, It's not worth the effort arguing, if you can fix it yourself I've done it many times on a site visit myself Designer,Engineer (Civil,Const & Envir),Builder,Concrete & Masonry Contract.Struct Repairs Re: Frames without timber noggings? 33Aug 31, 2017 5:35 pm If the builders is taking these kind of short cuts I would be concerned about the quality of the build full stop hence my comment about a independent inspector especially if the op has limited construction knowledge You don't need a engineer to quote As1684 requirements , if the builder knows things are getting checked it might keep him on his toes Re: Frames without timber noggings? 34Aug 31, 2017 9:23 pm Tim65 You don't need a engineer to quote As1684 requirements If the work is compliant as per a certified Performance Solution that is written into the contract, then AS1684 means diddly. Unfortunately, the OP hasn't posted as to whether he/she has subsequently sighted this. 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Frames without timber noggings? 35Sep 04, 2017 11:41 pm Tom P It seems everyone on this forum stubbornly opposes any form of innovation unless it has been pre-approved by the government. Are you seriously suggesting that unapproved non compliant materials and/or products should be ok to use? The National Construction Code (NCC) and the Building Code of Australia (BCA) are performance based which allows for new technology and innovation. The Government provides the legislative framework which also denotes hierarchy but it is industry experts who provide the certification to have innovations approved provided those innovations meet the Performance Solutions of the BCA which is Parts 1 & 2 of the NCC. The OP hasn't replied as to whether a certified Performance Solution as provided for in the BCA was used. Ethically, contractual Performance Solutions should be brought to the attention of the new home buyer by the builder pre contract signing or else found during the pre contract signing examination and discussed. Many certified Performance Solutions are nevertheless introduced as nothing more than hidden cost saving measures. Unethical builders and tradesmen would have a field day if they were allowed to use non compliant materials, products or design measures as Tom P has suggested be allowed but don't think that it doesn't already happen. If the OP's frames were not a certified performance solution or do not comply with the Australian Standards, then they do not meet the code and are not compliant. I think that just about everyone on this forum would agree (as Tom P has noted for the wrong reasons) that non adherence to the code and the use of non compliant materials and products is wrong. Tom P When builders started using 110 bricks was everyone up in arms about it? OMG has this been approved by the government!! Don't use any new construction unless the government has legislated it!!! Then builders started using 90 bricks. OMG the government literature only says 110 bricks, your house is gonna fall down!! You are saying that houses use to be built without existing government approval, can you substantiate your claim? Tom P Timber houses used to be built using only jarrah. Was everyone complaining when builder's started using pine? Where does it say in the legislation that builder's can use pine!! Get your builder to rip everything down cause I can't see where the government says we can use pine!! Legislated codes and Standards states criteria which must be met. No secrets there, have a look. Tom P It's just a fact that the BCA and standards lag behind innovation by DECADES. The BCA was formulated to accept innovation provided such innovation is certified to meet the performance requirements of the BCA.....and that is a fact! Tom P And if an innovation has been tested and patented then it is AGAINST THE LAW for government to add it the the BCA. Yes you read that right. Patented new innovations CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE BCA OR TO ANY STANDARDS. Why hasn't Solarspan been added to the code?? What law? Do you really expect SolarSpan or any other proprietary products to be specified in the BCA or in the Australian Standards? Houses are built using SolarSpan, it meets the code. EDITED: Typos. 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Frames without timber noggings? 36Sep 05, 2017 9:45 am Tim65 Thats nonsense, mate ".... hence my comment about a independent inspector especially if the op has limited construction knowledge You don't need a engineer to quote As1684 requirements , if the builder knows things are getting checked it might keep him on his toes" The codes are quite simple if the builder follows AS1684 then it will be compliant... no need for an Engineer If it's non-compliant then you better find an engineer to check & sign off on the structure according to AS1720 Timber Structures, where it will have to be certified equivalent or better than what's specified in AS1684. OT, The Battlers & Punters shouldn't be forced to pay extra for basic compliance, that advice should be free Designer,Engineer (Civil,Const & Envir),Builder,Concrete & Masonry Contract.Struct Repairs Re: Frames without timber noggings? 37Sep 05, 2017 11:27 pm Hi everyone, Sorry for the absence for a while - due to work, family and other commitments - and thanks very much for all the comments and views. I think this discussion has raised a few very interesting issues - such as what is defined as acceptable industry practice, and how far can we take innovative methods and "green" and "alternative" solutions, and what is deemed compliant and by whom??? As a person with very little experience in the industry, I find it difficult to get my head around what is and what isn't acceptable, and how that's determined. There also seems to be a lot of gaps in the interpretation of BCA and other standards, and the industry seems to be mostly "self" administered/governed. I have read through relevant bits of AS1684 and done a lot of research on this. The issue I see is that the nogging bits in the code don't specify whether they need to be "traditional" timber noggings or whether they can be metal "ribbon noggings" or other alternative solutions. It also doesn't state what may be other alternative nogging systems (as stated in earlier post, I did find a research paper published by a Melbourne uni years ago on the various noggings systems used and their stress-bearing effectiveness, which mentioned that builders in Australia did apparently use metal ribbons noggings at some stage in history). So if the metal straps system is considered equivalent in structural terms as the traditional timber noggings, then are they deemed compliant? No one seems to know... As a layperson, I guess I can only take comfort in the fact that: a) the frame fabricator has assured me that those frames are complaint (although I have not sighted any paperwork to this effect), and b) we have managed to get some traditional noggings put in as additional support (although we need to pay). As an update on costs: so far the builder has not issued the variation on the noggings and we are hoping that given not the whole house had to be done, the final bill will be less than the $2K estimated. Let's see. As a consumer, I can say, though, that I feel gypped about not be told of the "innovative/alternative" solution frames that were to be used by the builder at any stage throughout the quotation/contract negotiation/build process. But that might just be a "communication" and/or business ethics issue with my builder. It doesn't definitively rule out the fact that the frames used may (just may) be deemed compliant to code. I still feel gypped, though.. It seems that so far no one else has come across a similar framing system or these issues, so hopefully this discussion would provide some poor bugger, like me, in the future with some useful advice and insights. Cheers, Newbie2017 Re: Frames without timber noggings? 38Sep 06, 2017 2:21 am Newbie2017 I think this discussion has raised a few very interesting issues - such as what is defined as acceptable industry practice, and how far can we take innovative methods and "green" and "alternative" solutions, and what is deemed compliant and by whom??? As a person with very little experience in the industry, I find it difficult to get my head around what is and what isn't acceptable, and how that's determined. There also seems to be a lot of gaps in the interpretation of BCA and other standards, and the industry seems to be mostly "self" administered/governed. Hi Newbie. I know that it is a bit to take in. I'll try to precise it to the basics. At the compliance level as seen in the BCA hierarchy pyramid that I posted in post 23, you will see that Prescriptive Solutions, otherwise known as Deemed To Satisfy (DTS) and Australian Standards, are on the left and Performance Solutions aka Alternative Solutions are on the right. Being on the left or right means nothing, they are both on the same level of hierarchy. There are no definitive "Green Solutions" but a Performance Solution can obviously be green by personal definition. To be certified as compliant, a Performance Solution must be proven by an industry expert to satisfy the BCA's performance requirements which are above it on the BCA hierarchy pyramid. Because your frames possibly/probably don't satisfy the Australian Standards, they have to be certified as a Performance Solution and have current certification. If not, then they are not compliant because they don't meet the code unless something that covers their compliance is also mentioned in the BCA or else referenced in the BCA to another Standard. Note that I haven't checked the BCA and framing is also well outside my area of expertise but many things are also mentioned within the BCA. You can download the 3 Part NCC free of charge, framing is covered in Part 2. The builder should provide you with proof of compliance should you ask for it. Being told that the metal straps are greener is BS, sequestering carbon is greener than using metal straps and pine is a plantation timber. The BCA can be vague and not always interpretation defined in its attempt to be flexible. This allows opportunistic interpretations that has brought it into public criticism on different occasions, I have previously posted comments on Homeone about criticisms made in the NSW Parliament several years ago about the BCA during the high fronted guttering fiasco and there have been questions asked about its role in the current non compliant building cladding investigation. 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. Re: Frames without timber noggings? 39Sep 06, 2017 11:15 am newbie2017 "As a layperson, I guess I can only take comfort in the fact that: a) the frame fabricator has assured me that those frames are complaint (although I have not sighted any paperwork to this effect), and b) we have managed to get some traditional noggings put in as additional support (although we need to pay). As an update on costs: so far the builder has not issued the variation on the noggings and we are hoping that given not the whole house had to be done, the final bill will be less than the $2K estimated." Quote You've been ripped on so many levels..If I were you I would be lodging a complaint with the Dept of Commerce/ Fair trading in your state. Designer,Engineer (Civil,Const & Envir),Builder,Concrete & Masonry Contract.Struct Repairs Re: Frames without timber noggings? 40Sep 06, 2017 12:55 pm BIMguy (and others), if you want to show a quote from another post, just click Reply at the bottom left and the post will be inserted in your reply box. You can delete the text that you don't want. If you want to reply to more than one passage, just click on Copy in the top right hand corner of the other poster's pasted text that appears in the box you are replying to and that box will appear as many times as needed. To remove any excess boxes, just press the X next to Copy in the boxes you want removed. 3in1 Supadiverta. Rainwater Harvesting Best Practice using syphonic drainage. Cleaner Neater Smarter Cheaper Supa Gutter Pumper. A low cost syphonic eaves gutter overflow solution. This certainly doesn't look good. I would be engaging with an independent inspector to have a look at this. As for the unscheduled site visits, most builders are quite… 1 28312 Elvis has left the building... The site supervisor quit after 2 month on the project. I guess he was just instructed to bark at people, but didn't like when he was… 26 20895 Hi, I contracted a Builder to do a Garage to Bedroom + ensuite conversion (Class 1a), the Builder engaged the Certifier and Engineer and received BDA from the Certifier… 0 5006 |