ICBEST 2014

June 09-12, 2014, Aachen, Germany

A Weatherproofing Risk Matrix for Multi-Storey Buildings

Dianne Johnson1, Karl Jones2, Peter Lalas3 and John Sutherland2

1
Capital Improvements Ltd, Wellington, New Zealand
2
Mott MacDonald NZ Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand
3
Janus Facades Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia
Corresponding author: Peter Lalas, peter@janusfacades.com

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.

2 New Zealand Building Code Residential Risk Matrix

The external moisture (weathertightness) section of the New Zealand Building code has an acceptable
solution (deemed to satisfy) document that contains a risk matrix. This acceptable solution E2/AS1
Lalas Johnson Jones & Sutherland A Weatherproofing Matrix for Multi-storey Buildings

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.

2.1 The Risk Matrix 15

Our matrix introduced by this paper is referred as the Risk Matrix 15. The purpose of the Risk Matrix
15 is to help in assessing the weathertightness risk of medium rise buildings (residential and
commercial) and the relevance of this analysis for the selection of appropriate wall cladding systems.
It is not intended to be a compliance tool. Rather it should be an informative, easy to use, facilitator
of informed decision making that elucidates risks otherwise overlooked.

3 E2/AS1 Risk Matrix Factors

In considering the development of a new risk matrix it is potentially useful to compare to the E2/AS1
Risk Matrix guidance document 2013. The six risk factors in the E2/AS1 Risk Matrix and their scores
ranges are:
• Wind zone (scoring range of 0-2)
• Number of storeys (scoring range of 0-4)
• Roof/wall junctions(scoring range of 0-5)
• Eaves width (scoring range of 0-5)
• Envelope complexity (scoring range of 0-6)
• Deck design (scoring range of 0-6)
Of these factors, wind zones or more accurately in our case wind pressures, envelope complexity and
deck design are relevant to the Risk Matrix 15. The number of storeys is not considered relevant
given that a taller building will typically experience higher wind pressures which is already covered
under a separate heading. Eaves are not typically included in multi-storey buildings and would only
benefit the top two or so stories, if at all and so are not considered relevant.
Lalas Johnson Jones & Sutherland A Weatherproofing Matrix for Multi-storey Buildings

4 Success Factors in Multi-storey Building Cladding

In this section we seek to identify and discuss the factors/parameters that are critical determining
factors in the success or otherwise of building envelope installations. We present a table under each
category that is a first attempt at identifying a scoring system and risk category under which various
options might be placed. Quantification of risk scores and interpretation of risk categories is discussed
in section 5.

4.1 Façade Design Wind Pressures

Design Wind pressures should be determined in accordance with the wind effects Standard, AS/NZS
1170.2[2] by an experienced Façade or Wind Engineer or by carrying out a wind tunnel test.
Façade wind pressures should be given in terms of typical and corner pressures, including all local
pressure factors and both Serviceability Limit State (SLS) and Ultimate Limit State (ULS). SLS
pressures are used to check member deflections for ergonomic comfort considerations and ULS
pressures are used to check structural adequacy.

Table 1. ULS Design Wind Pressures (corner pressures)

Risk Design Wind Pressure Risk

Category Score
Low To 1.5kPa 1-2
Medium 1.5-2.5kPa 3-4
High Greater than 2.5kPa >5

4.2 Geometric Complexity

The Risk Matrix has an item of “Roof-Wall Junctions” which relates to façade system complexity. It
is considered that increased complexity brings increased risk.

Table 2. Façade Geometric Complexity

Risk Description Risk

Category Score
Simple rectangular structure.
Low 1-2
Less than 2 internal corners.
Complex plan , with most floors similar.
Medium Recesses within the façade. 3-4
Balconies over habitable spaces.
High Geometric complexity with varying floor plans.
High Non vertical façade. >5
Multiple recesses

4.3 Types of Facade Systems

The choice of façade system or façade type can contribute to the envelope risk. Different systems
such as a unitised curtainwall or precast concrete walls have different inherent weathertightness
properties. One building can have several different façade systems. Two different types of
curtainwall on one building may constitute two different systems. A façade system may include
details such as windows, doors and balcony and/or structural penetrations. These are not considered
separate systems, but their interfaces must also be addressed.
In Table 3 we consider generic descriptors related to the critical features of the most commonly used
façade systems in New Zealand and Australia, we then provide in Table 4 some typical examples with
a risk score for each.
Lalas Johnson Jones & Sutherland A Weatherproofing Matrix for Multi-storey Buildings

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).

Table 3. Types of Façade Systems.

Risk System Characteristics Risk

Category Score
Prefabricated systems that utilise accurate fabrication techniques.

Engineering responsibilities easily defined and design completed

to local standards.

Building movements accommodated by mechanisms that are

comprehended by simple rational analysis.

Weathering systems do not rely on exposed sealants, no

Low 1-2
flashing tapes or foam tapes. Limited use of site applied sealant in
well protected positions.

Overall responsibility for design, fabrication and installation

by a contractor/subcontractor experienced with the system.

More than 10 years successful history of use of similar

systems on similar buildings.

Systems with some off site fabrication and some on site

fabrication.

Engineering of system requires coordination by multiple parties

and design or testing completed to less familiar standards that are
not cited in New Zealand or Australian building codes.

Building movements accommodated by mechanisms that are

comprehended by more complicated rational analysis.
Medium 3-4
Weathering systems incorporate some exposed sealants in
protected locations and some site applied sealants to stable
substrates. No flashing tapes or site applied foam tapes.

Overall responsibility for design, fabrication and installation

by no more than two contractors/subcontractors experienced with
the system.

5-10 years successful history of use of similar systems on

similar buildings.
Lalas Johnson Jones & Sutherland A Weatherproofing Matrix for Multi-storey Buildings

Systems with mainly site fabrication.

Engineering of system by multiple parties and design or testing

completed to unfamiliar standards or to methods not codified.

Building movements accommodated by mechanisms that are

comprehended by complicated rational analysis or unable to be
rationally assessed.

High Weathering systems incorporate exposed sealants and site

applied sealants to stable substrates. Flashing tapes and site
applied foam tapes.

Overall responsibility for design, fabrication and installation by

more than two contractors/subcontractors experienced with the
system.

Less than 5 years successful history of use of similar systems

on similar buildings.

Table 4. Example Scoring for Types of Facade Systems

System Comments Risk

Score
Panelised
(or Aluminium framed and glass visions, spandrels that are any
1
Unitised) panel material (glass, metal granite & etc.); factory assembled.
curtainwall
Only pressure-equalising and drained stick curtainwall
systems are acceptable. This generally excludes pressure-plate
Stick
systems. Stick systems are assembled on site and so have a
System 3
greater reliance on site workmanship. Stick systems also have a
curtainwall
limited movement joint capability compared with panelised
curtainwall systems
Pre-cast concrete panels are a single skin (the thickness of the
concrete panels) system, as detailed NP:PCH-2009 Precast
Concrete Handbook (available from Standards Australia
infostore.saiglobal.com) [3]. The horizontal and vertical joints
between concrete panels must be pressure-equalised and drained.
Precast Interfaces, especially with windows, doors and balconies must
Concrete also be specifically designed to be pressure-equalised and drained.
2(5)
With punch Pre-cast concrete panels are usually designed by one company
windows and installed by another with windows installed by a different
party. Each without connection and separately employed by the
Main Contractor. If the Main-Contractor (the builder) does not
adequately co-ordinate this work and ensure that adequate
installation drawings are provided and engineering is coordinated,
then the indicated score of 2 should be increased to 5.
Lalas Johnson Jones & Sutherland A Weatherproofing Matrix for Multi-storey Buildings

This is cladding of any durable sheet material (e.g. compressed

Cladding fibre cement (CFC) sheet, solid aluminium zinc-alume or
built in-situ “Colorbond” steel panels or aluminium composite panels used as
with RAB, a rainscreen. The airseal is made of an air barrier of metal or CFC
5
Rainscreen sheet. The cavity is formed by installing battens/rails onto the air
& cavity barrier and fixing the rainscreen to the battens. The system is
battens usually fixed to a timber or galvanised steel infill frame and has
integral windows and doors and often balcony penetrations.

4.4 Number of Different Systems

‘Different systems’ includes different façade systems, but also doors and windows, canopies and decks.
Consideration should be given to increasing scores to account for penetrations to the façade, such as at
decks & balconies, piping and electrical cables & etc. these should be considered as an interface to be
properly considered and designed.
There is a tendency in the industry to apply a number of different façade systems to one building to
provide architectural diversity. Each façade system is designed and installed by one or two different
subcontractors. This is often done without consideration of increased complexity of detailing at
interfaces and resolving practicalities of coordination. Often main contractors do not proactively
manage and co-ordinate this issue. Quantity surveyors do not accurately cost the complexity of the
various systems. They typically consider the costs of systems only without considering interface costs
accurately which leads to false representation of cost savings available, often without understanding of
risks involved.
The risk related to number of systems in one façade is considered an important factor as more
systems result in more interfaces and more different interfaces and the risks quickly escalate as shown
in table 5. The number of systems as a measure is considered more appropriate than number of façade
subcontractors as a single subcontractor with multiple systems will still have a number of additional
interfaces to deal with which increases risk. The consideration of what constitutes a system is
important given the number of rainscreen cladding systems that are installed over air barriers by others
often with a timber frame by someone else. Therefore we consider that for systems that are installed
by multiple contractors, the score should be at least doubled.
As presented in the examples of table 6, precast with punch windows are low risk (given the
qualifications indicated above), therefore 1-2 systems (the precast and the windows) is considered low
risk. Once another system is added into the envelope or combining a rainscreen system (by one façade
sub-contractor over an RAB (by another sub-contractor) then the installations typically become more
complicated and risky, on that basis the doubling of systems installed by multiple subcontractors
seems fair given that takes a score to 3 and out of the low risk category. The transition to high risk
category is the next consideration, in our experience two different systems over air barrier by others
and a window system tends towards a high risk so perhaps a 5 or more systems score is appropriate.

Table 5. Number of Systems.

Risk Number of Systems Risk

Category Score
Low 1-2 1-2
Medium 3-5 3-4
High >5 >5
Lalas Johnson Jones & Sutherland A Weatherproofing Matrix for Multi-storey Buildings

Table 6 presents some examples of how this scoring might work:

Table 6. Number of Systems Scoring Examples.

Systems Description Score calculation Risk

precast concrete with punch 1+1=2 Low
windows
1 curtainwall with composite 1+(1x2)+1=4 Medium
aluminium rainsceen over
RAB and windows
1 curtainwall and composite 1+(1x2)+(1x2)+1+ High
aluminium rainscreen over 1+1=8
RAB and terracotta tiles over
RAB with windows and
precast with punch windows

4.5 Façade Contractor Experience

In the New Zealand context there are not many medium to large commercial buildings and a limited
number of experienced sub-contractors. There is a model of procurement for aluminium framed
systems with a “Prime die holder” who develops and markets systems and a network of franchisee
businesses who undertake fabrication. This is more suitable to domestic construction but
unfortunately is often applied to multi-storey commercial where the inherent separation of system
designers from system documenters, and from system fabricators and installers creates risks of gaps in
communication of requirements and understanding of system limitations.

Table 7. Façade Contractor Experience

Risk Description Risk

Category Score
Good experience >10 Years
Has successfully completed many similar systems on similar
Low 1-2
buildings

Little experience
Medium Some staff have experience on similar buildings for different 3-4
companies
High No experience of similar building >5

4.6 Building Movements

A building façade must be able to tolerate all reasonably expected building movements without
compromising weathertightness integrity. For example interstorey-drift due to Seismic effects, edge
beam deflection due to self-weight and imposed loads as well as thermal effects and column
shortening. For curtain walls, these effects typically require a horizontal joint of 25mm or so every
floor and a 10mm joint at each mullion. Other systems such as pre-cast concrete require less as the
concrete material expansion due to temperature changes is less.
A typical value for inter-story drift is 5 to 6mm for Serviceability and 20mm for the Ultimate
condition. However, recently structures of some buildings have been designed to be lightweight and
so much more flexible. Some buildings have been quoted with a serviceability inter-storey drift of
Lalas Johnson Jones & Sutherland A Weatherproofing Matrix for Multi-storey Buildings

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.

Table 8. Building movements

Risk Description Risk

Category Score
building seismic serviceability movements <6mm horizontal
Low 1-2
vertical differential serviceability <10mm
building seismic serviceability movements 6-15mm horizontal
Medium 3-4
vertical differential serviceability 10-15mm
building seismic serviceability movements 15-40mm horizontal
High >5
vertical differential serviceability 15-35mm

4.7 Performance Testing

All façade systems should be performance tested so that their performance rating can be determined.
A building with a number of systems should have both systems tested including their interface. There
is a tendency in New Zealand and Australia to have façade systems tested separately. The result of
this is that façade systems are installed with the interfaces which have an unknown performance rating.
Many façade systems, such as cladding are not covered by a local standard and so are often
installed untested and with an unknown performance rating.
The accepted façade testing Standard in New Zealand and Australia is AS/NZS 4284[4]. This
applies pressure and suction to the external face of the façade specimen and includes cyclic variation
of the water penetration test pressures.
The performance test should include a structural test at serviceability pressures, air leakage test,
water penetration test, serviceability seismic racking, repeat water penetration test, ultimate structural
test and ultimate seismic racking.

Table 9. Performance Testing

Risk Description Risk

Category Score
all façade systems for the building have been performance tested
Low in one specimen, including all interfaces to project specific 1-2
conditions.
façade systems for the building have been performance tested
Medium 3-4
separately, without project interfaces being tested
High façade systems for the building have not been performance tested >5

4.8 Other considerations

For this paper we have not considered the following:
• complications of accepting a foreign fabricator who manufacture overseas, where
inspection of testing and fabrication is difficult and expensive
• the ability to maintain the façade, we consider this does not affect the initial performance
of the façade, but may affect its longevity.
Lalas Johnson Jones & Sutherland A Weatherproofing Matrix for Multi-storey Buildings

5 Informing Decision Making

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.

Table 10 The Risk Matrix 15 – Scoring Summary

Risk Category
Parameter Low Medium High
Design Wind Pressure 1-2 3-4 >5
Façade Complexity 1-2 3-4 >5
Façade Type 1-2 3-4 >5
Number of Systems 1-2 3-4 >5
Façade Contractor
1-2 3-4 >5
Experience
Building Movements 1-2 3-4 >5
Performance Testing 1-2 3-4 >5
Total Score 7-14 21-28 >35

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.