PDF | 2 MB - Australian Building Codes Board

ABCB response:
The Consultation RIS proposed that market failure has occurred in the form of
insufficient information about risk, and uses this as the rational for government
intervention in the market. This RIS maintains that the revised Standard
improves information for designers through inclusion of the best available
local and international information, international harmonisation and simplified
provisions based on improved understanding of earthquake actions. While
consumers may not see the benefit first hand from these improvements, cost
benefits should flow from the improved information available to designers and
engineers.
On the issue of effects on houses, the Consultation RIS noted that the vast
majority of residential structures are not required to be specifically designed
for earthquakes. The construction systems already in place for wind
resistance are generally adequate for earthquake resistance. Moreover, the
proposed measures do not significantly alter the building measures required
for residential structures. This RIS maintains that view but offers the following
comments on the concerns raised.
Regarding anchoring to resist a 0.5 kN load, this provision only applies to
some houses where the earthquake hazard is greater than 0.11 or the
geometry is outside Figure A1. In such cases, houses will need to be
designed or checked to determine they comply with Clause A2. However,
given the small number of houses that would be effected, and the minimal
anchorage that would be required to resist a 0.5 kN load, this RIS considers
the impact to be minor.
Similar minor impacts relate to the view that the existing ACP's details for wall
to roof connection may be inadequate to resist the 0.5 kN / metre force.
Removal of the ACP Part 3.10.2 may require adjustment to Parts 3.3.1 and .2
for masonry, to advise when the ACP is acceptable to resist earthquake.
Again, given the small number of houses effected, and the minimal anchorage
that would be required, this RIS considers the impact to be minor.
Regarding the issue of class application, it is agreed that Appendix A is for
housing only. A 10a building (non-habitable) that is an Importance Level 2
building would need to be designed for earthquake to the new Standard.
However it is considered that most 10a buildings associated with housing are
Importance level 1 buildings. The impact, therefore, is minimal.
The ABCB has discussed these issues with the Western Australian
Department of Housing and Works who are satisfied with the ABCB's
response.
ABCB Regulation Impact Statement (RIS 2007-03)
38