`

A Review of Thermal
Bridging Mitigation
Provisions and Thermal
Break Provisions NCC
2022

DECEMBER 4

LittleShrub Pty Ltd

Authored by: Talis Krumins
Web: www.littleshrub.com.au

1
Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 7
Background............................................................................................................. 8
Definitions ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Section 1- Review of NCC 2022 to determine the extent to which thermal bridging
and thermal break provisions overlap ...................................................................... 9
Background..................................................................................................................................... 9
Research Goals ............................................................................................................................... 9
Research Scope ............................................................................................................................... 9
Identifying a thermal bridge ......................................................................................................... 10
Walls ............................................................................................................................................. 13
Provisions in review .................................................................................................................. 13
13.2.5 ................................................................................................................................... 13
(5) .................................................................................................................................... 13
(4) .................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 13.2.5q ....................................................................................................................... 13
Table 13.2.5t ........................................................................................................................ 13
Review of 13.2.5 – Thermal Break Provisions ............................................................................ 14
Current clause wording of (5) ............................................................................................... 14
Analytical analysis of thermal breaks .................................................................................... 15
General Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 15
Effects of ventilation ............................................................................................................ 15
Defining ventilation ......................................................................................................... 15
Analysis of ventilation of air-spaces in a lightweight clad wall with battens ..................... 16
Effects of a thermal break .................................................................................................... 18
Summary of thermal break provisions .................................................................................. 18
Review of 13.2.5(4) – Thermal Bridging Mitigation Provisions ................................................... 19
General ................................................................................................................................ 19
Methods............................................................................................................................... 19
Review of Table 13.2.5q ............................................................................................................ 20

2
 General ................................................................................................................................ 20
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 20
Review of Table 13.2.5t ............................................................................................................ 20
General ................................................................................................................................ 20
Effects of the thermal bridging mitigation provisions ........................................................... 20
With thermal break (WB) ................................................................................................. 20
No Thermal Break (NB) .................................................................................................... 23
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 23
Note on installing reflective insulation ................................................................................. 24
Summary of the thermal break and thermal bridging mitigation provisions for walls ................ 24
Recommendations for NCC 2025 .............................................................................................. 25
Section Notes for Walls............................................................................................................. 26
Roofs .................................................................................................................... 27
Provisions in review .................................................................................................................. 27
13.2.3 ................................................................................................................................... 27
(7) .................................................................................................................................... 27
(3)(b)................................................................................................................................ 27
Table 13.2.3t ........................................................................................................................ 27
Table 13.2.3u ....................................................................................................................... 28
Review of 13.2.3(7) - Thermal Break Provisions ........................................................................ 29
Clause wording ..................................................................................................................... 29
Practical implications ........................................................................................................... 29
Typical construction methods and thermal breaks ............................................................... 30
Summary .............................................................................................................................. 30
Review of 13.2.3(3)b - Thermal Bridging Mitigation Provisions ................................................. 31
General ................................................................................................................................ 31
Methods............................................................................................................................... 31
Review of Table 13.2.3t ............................................................................................................ 31
Review of Table 13.2.3u ............................................................................................................ 32
General ................................................................................................................................ 32

3
 Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 33
Summary of the thermal break and thermal bridging mitigation provisions for roofs ............... 34
Recommended for NCC 2025 .................................................................................................... 34
Section notes for Roofs ............................................................................................................. 34
Section 2 - Compare and contrast Volume One Class 2 sole-occupancy units & the
Housing Provisions, and identify whether the differences are appropriate. ............. 35
Background................................................................................................................................... 35
Research Goals ............................................................................................................................. 35
Walls ............................................................................................................................................. 35
Thermal breaks ......................................................................................................................... 35
Provisions in review.............................................................................................................. 35
J3D6 ................................................................................................................................. 35
13.2.5(5) .......................................................................................................................... 35
Differences between Section J Requirement and Housing Provisions ................................... 36
Appropriateness of differences of Thermal Break ................................................................. 36
Thermal bridging mitigation...................................................................................................... 37
Provisions in review.............................................................................................................. 37
13.2.5(4) .......................................................................................................................... 37
J3D8 ................................................................................................................................. 37
Differences between Section J Requirement and Housing Provisions ................................... 38
Appropriateness of differences of Thermal Bridging Mitigation ............................................ 38
Roofs............................................................................................................................................. 39
Provisions in review .................................................................................................................. 39
J3D5 ..................................................................................................................................... 39
13.2.3(7) ............................................................................................................................... 39
Thermal Breaks ......................................................................................................................... 39
Thermal Bridging ...................................................................................................................... 40
Provisions in review.............................................................................................................. 40
J3D7(3) ............................................................................................................................ 40
13.2.3(3) .......................................................................................................................... 40

4
 Differences between Section J Requirement and Housing Provisions ................................... 41
Appropriateness of differences of Thermal Bridging Provisions ............................................ 41
Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 41
Recommendations for NCC 2025 .................................................................................................. 41
Section 3 - Consider sandwich panel construction, including comparing and
contrasting treatment of walls and roofs. .............................................................. 42
Background................................................................................................................................... 42
Research Goals ............................................................................................................................. 42
Provisions in review...................................................................................................................... 42
13.2.3 ....................................................................................................................................... 42
(8) ........................................................................................................................................ 42
(9) ........................................................................................................................................ 42
Table 13.2.3x ............................................................................................................................ 43
13.2.5 ....................................................................................................................................... 43
(6) ........................................................................................................................................ 43
Review of 13.2.3(9) ....................................................................................................................... 44
Review of 13.2.5(6) ....................................................................................................................... 44
General ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Using Sandwich Panels in Walls ............................................................................................ 44
Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 45
Summary of changes recommended to NCC 2025 ........................................................................ 45
Section 4 - Recommendations for NCC 2025 ........................................................... 46
General ......................................................................................................................................... 46
Out of scope observations ............................................................................................................ 46
Part 10.8.1 ................................................................................................................................ 47
(2) ........................................................................................................................................ 47
Table 13.2.3s ............................................................................................................................ 47
General alignment to NatHERS ................................................................................................. 47
Table 13.2.5r ............................................................................................................................. 48
Definition Total R-Value ............................................................................................................ 48

5
Use of term “shading device” in tables J3D8a and J3D8b .......................................................... 48

6
Executive Summary
LittleShrub Pty Ltd has been commissioned by the Australian Building Codes Board to conduct a
comprehensive review of the National Construction Code (NCC) 2022 thermal bridging mitigation
provisions. The focus of the review is on the interaction between the new provisions in clauses
13.2.5(4) and 13.2.3(3)(b) and the existing provisions of the code.

Section 1 of the review focuses on the existing thermal break provisions. It examines the necessity of
thermal breaks in lightweight constructions with entirely metal frames, taking into account various
ventilation conditions. The section emphasises that the new thermal bridging mitigation provisions
should not replace the need for thermal breaks, but rather complement them. It presents a series of
flowcharts outlining best practices for implementing thermal bridging mitigation based on the
findings of the report.

Section 2 addresses the differences in wording between the thermal break requirements specified in
Section J and the Housing Provisions. It concludes that despite the variations in wording, the
functional requirements of both sets of clauses are essentially the same. Therefore, it suggests
interpreting these provisions with a consistent understanding. Additionally, this section highlights the
absence of thermal bridging mitigation options for walls and proposes potential solutions to address
this gap.

Section 3 delves into the treatment of sandwich panels in walls. It establishes a compliance path for
walls that incorporate sandwich panels, which aligns with the requirements for other lightweight wall
constructions. However, it emphasises that the thermal bridging provisions for sandwich panels are
limited to calculating the Total R-Value in accordance with AS/NZS 4859.2 and referencing Table
13.2.5q.

The review provides valuable insights and recommendations for improving the effectiveness and
clarity of the thermal bridging mitigation provisions in the NCC 2022. The findings will inform future
updates and refinements to ensure consistent and appropriate application of the code.

7
Background
LittleShrub Pty Ltd has been engaged by the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) to assess the
degree of overlap between the existing thermal break provisions and the new provisions aimed at
mitigating thermal bridging in the National Construction Code 2022 (NCC 2022). All types of
constructions that require thermal breaks also require one of the thermal bridging mitigation
provisions, but not all thermal bridging mitigation provisions require a thermal break. Therefore,
identifying the instances of the types of constructions that require a thermal break confines the scope
of this project.

Definitions
The following definitions are provided to facilitate the discussion in this report. However, “thermal
bridge”, “thermal break” and “thermal bridging mitigation” are not defined terms in the NCC.

Thermal bridge: is a pathway of low thermal resistance in comparison to the rest of the
representative construction.

Thermal break: is a material of relatively low thermal conductivity that is strategically located in the
pathway(s) of least thermal resistance to lessen the detrimental effects of a bridge.

Thermal bridging mitigation: refers to additional strategies required, specific to certain construction
types, to compensate for highly bridged envelope components.

8
Section 1- Review of NCC 2022 to determine the
extent to which thermal bridging and thermal break
provisions overlap
Background
With the introduction of NCC 2022 there has been some discussion within industry with respect to
the existing thermal break provisions that were present in NCC 2019 and the introduction of the new
thermal bridging provisions of NCC 2022 Volume Two. The conversation is centred on whether to use
the provisions in conjunction with one another, or in substitution of one another. This review will
focus on the intent and objectives of each provision and provide guidance on how to navigate the
provisions.

The intent of thermal bridging mitigation clauses in NCC 2022 is to ensure that overall thermal
performance of a metal-framed construction element such as a wall, roof or floor is at least 90% -
95% of a timber-framed equivalent. The intention of thermal break provisions is to avoid the worst
effects of localised excessive thermal conductance through a thermal bridge, as well as improving
overall thermal performance.

Research Goals
• Determine the extent to which thermal breaks and thermal bridging mitigation overlap and
determine if both are required
• Determine when each provision is required
• Review the effectiveness and limitations of the thermal bridging mitigation provisions
• Discuss avenues for refinements to thermal break mitigation provisions for NCC 2025

Research Scope
This research is limited to the overlap of thermal break and thermal bridging mitigation provisions.
Where there are thermal bridging mitigation provisions that do not meet the definition of either
13.2.5(5) or 13.2.3(7) they will be excluded from scope.

9
Identifying a thermal bridge
For better context, it is useful to be able to identify a thermally bridged pathway. In some envelope
systems, this is easy to identify, such as in a lightweight wall where both the cladding and internal
lining are fixed to the same studs (i.e., direct fix). In this instance, there are two pathways of heat
flow:
1. Through the frame,
2. Through the insulation.

With the introduction of more framing elements, there are more complex thermal bridging pathways.
For instance, consider a lightweight clad wall with metal battens perpendicular to the frame (Figure
1). This type of frame would have four distinct thermal pathways (Figure 2).

1. Through the air-space and insulation,

2. Through metal battens and insulation,
3. Through the air-space and metal studs,
4. Through the metal battens and metal studs.

From the descriptions above, it is possible to deduce the thermally bridged layers: those layers
without insulation, or pathway 3 and 4.

Figure 1 (Left) - Lightweight clad wall with metal frame and metal battens

Figure 2 (Right) - Thermal impression, lightweight clad wall with metal frame and metal battens. Thermal pathways numbered.

10
The more complex the framing system, the more challenging it may be to deduce the thermally
bridged pathway(s). Therefore, relying on an analytical means of determining these thermally bridged
paths might be more appropriate. AS/NZS 4859.2: 2018 (4859.2) provides a process for determining
the thermal resistance of bridged areas by effectively area weighting the thermal resistance of those
pathways. The method within 4859.2 uses the isothermal planes method to separate the bridged
zones. In this method, the thermal resistance of the bridged zones between the homogeneous
internal and external layers is determined. These values are then added to the thermal resistance of
the internal and external homogeneous layers, as well as the air-film resistance, to determine the
total R-Value. This process can be illustrated schematically in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Schematic diagram of heat flow using isothermal planes method

To demonstrate the analytic means of determining thermally bridged paths in more detail, consider
the calculation presented in Table 1. The calculation in this table is representative of the diagram
shown in Figure 1. The area of the calculation that has a background of grey corresponds to the
bridged components and correlates to the grey background in Figure 3. It is demonstrated in Table 1
that pathway 3 and pathway 4 have the lowest thermal resistance. Therefore, this confirms the
previous statement, and it is these pathways that are considered bridged, as they have significantly
lower thermal resistance compared to pathway 1 and 2. 4859.2 is particularly useful for more
complicated systems with more than four thermally bridged pathways.

In conclusion, in this scenario, wherever the metal stud frame exists, there is a thermal bridge.

11
Separate gradients Winter Summer
R- R-
Pathway 1 (80.8385%) mm eIn eOut Separate gradients Winter Summer
value value
R- R-
Outdoor air-film (90°) 0 0 0 0 0.9 Pathway 1 (80.8385%) mm eIn eOut
value value
Fibre Cement (R0.024) 0 0 6 0.9 0.9
Outdoor air-film (90°) 0 0 0 0 0.9
1500mm² Ventilated air-space (90°/90°) 0.04 0.04 28 0.9 0.9 Fibre Cement (R0.024) 0 0 6 0.9 0.9
Sarking e0.9/e0.9 (R0.000) 0 0 1 0.9 0.9 1500mm² Ventilated air-space (90°/90°) 0.04 0.04 28 0.9 0.9
Unventilated air-space (90°/90°) 0 0 2 0.9 0.9 Sarking e0.9/e0.9 (R0.000) 0 0 1 0.9 0.9
90mm Glasswool R2.0 (R2.000) 2.106 1.913 90 0.9 0.9 Unventilated air-space (90°/90°) 0 0 9 0.9 0.9
Plasterboard 10mm (R0.059) 0.059 0.059 10 0.9 0.9 90mm Glasswool R2.0 (R2.000) 2.106 1.913 90 0.9 0.9
Indoor air-film (90°) 0.12 0.12 0 0.9 0 Plasterboard 10mm (R0.059) 0.059 0.059 10 0.9 0.9
Total 2.325 2.132 137 Indoor air-film (90°) 0.12 0.12 0 0.9 0
Total 2.325 2.132 144

R- R-
Pathway 2 (7.3490%) mm eIn eOut R- R-
value value Pathway 2 (7.3490%) mm eIn eOut
value value
Outdoor air-film (90°) 0 0 0 0 0.9 Outdoor air-film (90°) 0 0 0 0 0.9
Fibre Cement (R0.024) 0 0 6 0.9 0.9 Fibre Cement (R0.024) 0 0 6 0.9 0.9
50mm flange x 1.15 Top Hat (R0.013) 0.013 0.013 28 0.9 0.9 50mm flange x 1.15 Top Hat (R0.013) 0.013 0.013 28 0.9 0.9
Sarking e0.9/e0.9 (R0.000) 0 0 1 0.9 0.9 Sarking e0.9/e0.9 (R0.000) 0 0 1 0.9 0.9
Unventilated air-space (90°/90°) 0 0 2 0.9 0.9 Unventilated air-space (90°/90°) 0 0 9 0.9 0.9
90mm Glasswool R2.0 (R2.000) 2.106 1.912 90 0.9 0.9 90mm Glasswool R2.0 (R2.000) 2.106 1.912 90 0.9 0.9
Plasterboard 10mm (R0.059) 0.059 0.059 10 0.9 0.9 Plasterboard 10mm (R0.059) 0.059 0.059 10 0.9 0.9
Indoor air-film (90°) 0.12 0.12 0 0.9 0
Indoor air-film (90°) 0.12 0.12 0 0.9 0
Total 2.298 2.104 144
Total 2.298 2.104 137
R- R-
R- R- Pathway 3 (10.8281%) mm eIn eOut
Pathway 3 (10.8281%) mm eIn eOut value value
value value Outdoor air-film (90°) 0 0 0 0 0.9
Outdoor air-film (90°) 0 0 0 0 0.9 Fibre Cement (R0.024) 0 0 6 0.9 0.9
Fibre Cement (R0.024) 0 0 6 0.9 0.9 1500mm² Ventilated air-space (90°/90°) 0.04 0.04 28 0.9 0.9
1500mm² Ventilated air-space (90°/90°) 0.04 0.04 28 0.9 0.9 Sarking e0.9/e0.9 (R0.000) 0 0 1 0.9 0.9
Sarking e0.9/e0.9 (R0.000) 0 0 1 0.9 0.9 Thermal Break R0.2 (R0.200) 0.2 0.2 7 0.9 0.9
92mm x 45 x 1.15 Steel Stud (R0.076) 0.076 0.076 92 0.9 0.9
92mm x 45 x 1.15 Steel Stud (R0.076) 0.076 0.076 92 0.9 0.9
Plasterboard 10mm (R0.059) 0.059 0.059 10 0.9 0.9
Plasterboard 10mm (R0.059) 0.059 0.059 10 0.9 0.9
Indoor air-film (90°) 0.12 0.12 0 0.9 0
Indoor air-film (90°) 0.12 0.12 0 0.9 0
Total 0.495 0.495 144
Total 0.295 0.295 137

R- R- R- R-
Pathway 4 (0.9844%) mm eIn eOut Pathway 4 (0.9844%) mm eIn eOut
value value value value
Outdoor air-film (90°) 0 0 0 0 0.9
Outdoor air-film (90°) 0 0 0 0 0.9 Fibre Cement (R0.024) 0 0 6 0.9 0.9
Fibre Cement (R0.024) 0 0 6 0.9 0.9 50mm flange x 1.15 Top Hat (R0.013) 0.013 0.013 28 0.9 0.9
Sarking e0.9/e0.9 (R0.000) 0 0 1 0.9 0.9
50mm flange x 1.15 Top Hat (R0.013) 0.013 0.013 28 0.9 0.9
Thermal Break R0.2 (R0.200) 0.2 0.2 7 0.9 0.9
Sarking e0.9/e0.9 (R0.000) 0 0 1 0.9 0.9
92mm x 45 x 1.15 Steel Stud (R0.076) 0.076 0.076 92 0.9 0.9
92mm x 45 x 1.15 Steel Stud (R0.076) 0.076 0.076 92 0.9 0.9
Plasterboard 10mm (R0.059) 0.059 0.059 10 0.9 0.9
Plasterboard 10mm (R0.059) 0.059 0.059 10 0.9 0.9 Indoor air-film (90°) 0.12 0.12 0 0.9 0
Indoor air-film (90°) 0.12 0.12 0 0.9 0 Total 0.467 0.467 144
Total 0.267 0.267 137

Totals Totals
R- R- R- R-
Elements mm Elements mm
value value value value
Total 0.865 0.846 Total 1.447 1.385

Table 1 (Left) – 4859.2 Calculation of lightweight clad wall with metal battens, no thermal break and a ventilated cavity

Table 2 (Right) – 4859.2 Calculation of lightweight clad wall with metal battens, with thermal break and a ventilated cavity

Note: The calculations in these tables, the battened cavity is assumed to be ventilated. This is common practice to prevent build-up of
moisture, even if not a requirement of the NCC. Accordingly, the cavity makes a minimal contribution to the Total R-Value and the
materials to the outside of the cavity make no contribution to the R-Value. The significance of assumptions about ventilation is
considered further in section Effects of ventilation of this report.

12
Walls
Provisions in review
13.2.5
(5)

Note: 13.2.5(5) serves as the main intersection point of this review and confines the scope of this report. To be included in scope, a
thermal bridging mitigation provision must also meet the definition of 13.2.5(5).

(4)

Note: Table 13.2.5p, 13.2.5r, 13.2.5s and 13.2.5u are not caught by clause 13.2.5(5) as they related to heavyweight walls or masonry
veneer walls and therefore fall out of scope of this analysis

Table 13.2.5q

Table 13.2.5t

13
Review of 13.2.5 – Thermal Break Provisions
Current clause wording of (5)
This section will review the current wording of 13.2.5(5) and seek to interpret the influence of the
current wording in terms of its functional application. One potential area of interpretation is related
to the phrase "metal-framed" in the sentence "A metal-framed wall that forms part of the building
envelope must have a thermal break...". A key question for code users is; if a metal stud frame wall
has metal battens, then are the metal battens considered part of the “metal-frame” and therefore
does the thermal break requirement apply?

NCC 2022 does not provide a definition for "metal-frame". To answer this question from a
grammatical perspective, it is useful to reword the clause by incorporating dictionary definitions of
critical words to better define their meaning.

The most critical word in this sentence is “framed”.

• Frame is defined as: “the rigid supporting structure of an object such as a vehicle, building,
or piece of furniture”.
• Structure is defined as “the arrangement of and relations between the parts or elements of
something complex”
By combining these definitions, the phrase "A metal-framed wall that forms..." in 13.2.5(5) can be
reworded as “A metal rigid supporting structure of parts or element of something complex that forms
part of the building envelope must have a thermal break...”

To further clarify, clause 13.2.5 makes distinctions among three components:

• Metal-frame
• Lining (assuming it is present)
• Cladding

Therefore, through the process of elimination, the "metal-frame" must exclude the lining and
cladding components. It is now possible to deduce that the metal-frame refers to the metal, rigid
supporting structure. This definition would include the metal battens, and as a result, the thermal
break requirements apply to any frame, with or without battens, that consists of an entirely metal
frame. However, this analysis is purely grammatical, and further evidence of the importance of a
thermal break will be explored analytically in the Effects of a thermal break section.

14
Analytical analysis of thermal breaks
General Assumptions
To consider the impact of thermal breaks analytically in the scenario illustrated in Figure 1, it is critical
to discuss the impacts of cavity ventilation. In this review, LittleShrub analysed the values used by the
ABCB, Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS), and the National Association of Steel
Framed Housing (NASH) for the air-space in this situation, assuming the air-space is bound by non-
reflective surfaces. All three bodies seemingly used values that are attributed to unventilated air-
spaces bound by non-reflective surfaces rather than ventilated air-spaces. This assumption will likely
result in the overstatement of the total thermal resistance, as will be explored in the Effects of
ventilation and is tightly coupled to the effectiveness of thermal breaks.

Effects of ventilation
Defining ventilation
In the case of a lightweight metal frame wall with metal battens, an important calculation assumption
that needs to be determined is whether the cavity formed by the battens is considered ventilated.

In accordance with 4859.2 Clause 4.2, a well-ventilated air-space in a wall is considered to have an
aggregated opening area of 1500mm² per metre. Lightweight clad walls on battens can be considered
well-ventilated, unventilated, or somewhere in between. For instance, lightweight walls usually have
continuous drainage cavities at the bottom side of the cladding. If the battens are vertical, then there
is no compartmentalisation of the air-space for the length of the wall, and these would be considered
well-ventilated.

Similarly, if the battens are horizontal but the cladding is vertically profiled, such as a corrugated
metal sheet, there is also no compartmentalisation of the air-space for the length of the wall, and
these would be considered well-ventilated. This is because airflow is permitted at a level greater than
1500mm² per metre through the ridges of the corrugations.

However, if a flat fibre cement sheet is used as the cladding and there are horizontal battens, then it
is possible to achieve compartmentalisation of the air-space, and an unventilated air-space is formed.
It is not the purpose of this advisory document to discuss all possible scenarios. When there is doubt,
a well-ventilated air-space should be adopted as the conservative assumption.

15
 Analysis of ventilation of air-spaces in a lightweight clad wall with battens
Consider the wall in Figure 4. To assess the effectiveness of ventilation, we will consider the following
scenarios using AS/NZS 4859.2:

Without thermal break With thermal break

• Unventilated with • Unventilated with
o R1.5 insulation o R1.5 insulation
o R2.0 insulation o R2.0 insulation
o R2.5 insulation o R2.5 insulation
• Ventilated with • Ventilated with
o R1.5 insulation o R1.5 insulation
o R2.0 insulation o R2.0 insulation
o R2.5 insulation o R2.5 insulation

All cases have a membrane/sarking with high emissivity (e0.9/e0.9) on both sides; thus, the air-space
is considered to be bound by non-reflective surfaces. The thermal break being utilised is a strip-type
thermal break that matches the width of the studs and is located between the metal studs and
sarking.

Figure 4 – Ventilated lightweight metal frame wall with metal battens

16
As indicated in Figure 5, if:
• the air-space does not have a thermal break, ventilating the air-space reduces the Total R-
Value by approximately 30%,
• the air-space has a thermal break, ventilating the air-space reduces the Total R-Value by only
approximately 15%.
This plot demonstrates the tightly coupled dynamic between thermal breaks and the ventilation of an
air-space bound by non-reflective surfaces. Both unventilated and ventilated cavities experience a
significant reduction in the Total R-Value without a thermal break. It can also be inferred that as the
insulation R-Value increases, so does the importance of the thermal break.

Figure 5 – Effects of ventilation and thermal breaks on the Total R-Value

17
Effects of a thermal break
Figure 5 allows for a comparison between the total thermal resistance of the same wall construction
with and without a thermal break (Figure 6). The significance of a thermal break, whether with or
without a ventilated air-space, cannot be underestimated. As demonstrated in Figure 6, the modelled
scenario shows a minimum 23% reduction in the Total R-Value, highlighting the crucial role of a
thermal break, even in wall systems with metal battens.

Figure 6 – Reduction of Total R-Value

Summary of thermal break provisions

This section has focused on the significance of the thermal break provision without concurrently
considering the thermal bridging mitigation provisions. Analysing the thermal break provisions in
isolation is relevant because thermal bridging mitigation, such as the use of a reflective airspace,
becomes ineffective if the airspace is ventilated. Hence, a thermal break must be employed when
utilising an entirely metal frame (including sub framing components like metal battens) structure with
lightweight cladding. To provide clarity, it is recommended that NCC 2025 address this issue by
introducing a definition for the term "metal-framed" or by developing guidance material.

18
Review of 13.2.5(4) – Thermal Bridging Mitigation Provisions
General
The thermal bridging mitigation provisions have been newly introduced to the housing provisions of
NCC 2022. In the context of this Research Scope, Clause13.2.5 (5) simply directs users to utilise either
Table 13.2.5q or Table 13.2.5t as appropriate.

Table 13.2.5q requires users to complete a Total R-Value calculation in accordance with 4859.2 based
on the required insulation R-Value from Table 13.2.5(2). Whereas Table 13.2.5t mandates a
prescribed minimum insulation R-Value along with one of three measures.

Methods
Various methods of compliance are available, and a flowchart has been developed for their
utilisation. This flowchart and other flowcharts only consider the Research Scope and should not be
regarded as a comprehensive list of requirements for any specific development. The foundation of
this research was based on the Deemed-to-Satisfy (DtS) elemental provisions within the NCC. While
the NatHERS) pathway can be used to satisfy the performance requirements of the NCC, reviewing
NatHERS is beyond the scope of this project and has not been incorporated into these flowcharts or
research.

Figure 7 – Flowchart of thermal bridging mitigation provisions for walls

19
Review of Table 13.2.5q
General
Table 13.2.5q requires performing an AS/NZS 4859.2 calculation to determine the minimum Total R-
Values, taking into account thermal bridging. It's important to note that when developing the table, a
thermal break was assumed to be in place. As discussed in the No Thermal Break (NB) section of this
document, there are limited cases where a thermal break can be omitted while still meeting the
minimum requirements of the table. Generally, a thermal break will be a necessary strategy for
designers to achieve compliance.

Summary
In NCC 2022 a thermal break is still required for compliance to Table 13.2.5q. However, in future
editions of the NCC, it is recommended to exclude the thermal break provision when performing a
4859.2 calculation to provide more flexibility to designers. A thermal break would then likely be an
outcome rather than a code requirement

Review of Table 13.2.5t

General
Table 13.2.5t gives three options to mitigate thermal bridging:
1. install reflective insulation outside the frame to create a minimum 20 mm reflective airspace
between frame and cladding,
2. increase insulation between frames by R0.5,
3. add a layer of continuous insulation with an R-Value of at least R0.30 on the inside or the
outside of the frame.
This section will review these three parts with and without the use of thermal breaks.

Effects of the thermal bridging mitigation provisions

With thermal break (WB)
This section will explore the relative Total R-Value performance of the same wall structure with the
three types of thermal bridging mitigation options outlined in Table 13.2.5t. All wall types will include
the addition of a thermal break as required by 13.2.5(5).

20
Figure 8 – Wall build up for R0.3 continuous insulation

Figure 9 – Wall build up for plus R0.5 method and reflective insulation (sarking reflective or not depending on scenario)

21
Figure 10 demonstrates the effects of all three methods with different ventilation conditions between
the cladding and membrane. To provide additional context, a direct fix wall without battens,
indicated as "No Batten WB" in the key, has also been included in.

Based on the graph, the effectiveness of the three methods can be ranked as follows:
1. Continuous R0.3 insulation with an unventilated cavity
2. Reflective insulation with an unventilated cavity
3. Continuous R0.3 insulation with a ventilated cavity
---------- approximate position of Table 13.2.5q requirements-----------------------
4. Plus R0.5 insulation between stud frames with an unventilated cavity
5. Plus R0.5 insulation between stud frame with a ventilated cavity
6. Plus R0.5 insulation without battens
Note: Reflective membranes must have an unventilated air-space adjacent to the membrane to be effective.

It is important to note that reflective membranes must have an unventilated air-space adjacent to the
membrane to be effective. All methods, except for Plus R0.5 insulation between stud frames with a
ventilated air-space and Plus R0.5 insulation without battens, are considered approximately
equivalent to Table 13.2.5q. The reflective insulation option must be used in conjunction with an
unventilated air-space, as discussed in the Effects of ventilation. The Plus R0.5 insulation between
stud frames method should not be used for either a ventilated cavity or a metal-framed lightweight
wall without battens.

Figure 10 – Comparison of R-Value using different thermal bridging mitigation options of Table 13.2.5t with strip thermal break R0.2
consistent with 13.2.5(5)

22
 No Thermal Break (NB)
As already indicated in this review, the requirement of a thermal break to be used in conjunction with
the thermal bridging mitigation provisions was intended by NCC 2022. Figure 11 demonstrates how
all methods fall short of the requirements of Table 13.2.5q, perhaps with the exception of a
continuous R0.3 insulation in combination with an unventilated air-space. This supports the notion
that thermal breaks must be used in conjunction with a suitable thermal bridging mitigation option of
Table 13.2.5t.

Figure 11 – Comparison of R-Value using different thermal bridging mitigation options of Table 13.2.5t with no thermal break consistent
with 13.2.5(5)

Summary
It is demonstrated in this section that the thermal bridging mitigation provisions need to be used in
conjunction with the thermal break provisions. This will result in an outcome approximately
equivalent to the requirements of Table 13.2.5q. The ABCB should review the plus R0.5 insulation
method as it is more common than not for this method to be ineffective. The only time it is effective
is when it’s used in conjunction with an unventilated air-space bound by non-reflective surfaces,
which is an uncommon construction type.

23
Note on installing reflective insulation
In Table 13.2.5t, reflective insulation has been given a new definition. AS 4200.1 describes reflective
insulation with an emissivity of ≤0.05, whereas Table 13.2.5t redefines this as ≤0.1. Additionally, the
term "reflective airspace" could be more accurately described as an air-space bound by reflective
surfaces since air itself cannot be reflective. As discussed in the Effects of ventilation section, if the
air-space is ventilated, there will be no contribution to thermal performance. To improve the clarity
of this section and better describe its intent, it would be more appropriate to state: "Install reflective
insulation between the outside of the studs and inside of the battens to create a minimum 20 mm
unventilated air-space bound by at least one reflective surface between the frame and cladding."

Summary of the thermal break and thermal bridging mitigation

provisions for walls
• A wall with a primary metal frame (metal studs) and a secondary metal frame (metal battens)
must comply with the thermal break provisions of 13.2.5(5)
• A thermal break with an in-situ R-Value of 0.2 must be used in conjunction with any thermal
bridging mitigation provision.
• If choosing the continuous R0.3 insulation strategy, it is possible to substitute it with R0.5
continuous insulation to satisfy both the R0.2 thermal break and the R0.3 continuous
insulation thermal bridging mitigation provision.
• The plus R0.5 method should never be used on a lightweight clad wall that does not have
secondary framing members such as battens, as it is ineffective.

Figure 12 can be utilised as a best practice guide based on the findings of this section. Please note
that currently, the R0.3 continuous method is not permitted by Table 13.2.5t for >0 to ≤1.5. However,
it is the most effective method and should be considered as an option across the full range of added
R-values.

24
Figure 12- Best practise flow chart of Table 13.2.5t

Recommendations for NCC 2025

• The requirement of the need to use a thermal break could be removed when completing an
AS/NZS 4859.2 calculation, as the calculation will determine if it is necessary or not. However,
the practical likelihood of needing a thermal break to meet compliance is still high.
• The plus R0.5 insulation thermal bridging mitigation provisions should be completely
removed, as they are generally ineffective or limited to use only with an unventilated air-
space bound by non-reflective surfaces.
• Change the wording of the thermal bridging mitigation provision to: "Install reflective
insulation between the outside of the studs and inside of the battens to create a minimum 20
mm unventilated air-space bound by at least one reflective surface between the frame and
cladding."
• Include the continuous R0.3 method for any added R-Value.
• Provide a definition of "metal-framed" in the glossary section.
• The requirements of Table 13.2.5q and the performance of the thermal bridging mitigation
provisions do not align when considering high percentage framing ratios or heavy gauge steel.
Therefore, it is recommended to include minimum and maximum framing parameters for the
thermal bridging mitigation options. For example, studs ≥450mm, BMT ≤1.15mm, etc.
• Change wording of 13.2.5(5) to “A metal-framed wall that forms part of the building envelope
must have a thermal break installed on all surfaces normal to the direction of heat flow of the
primary framing components (typically studs, nogs, top and bottom plate), consisting of a
material with an in-situ R-Value of not less than R0.2."
25
Section Notes for Walls
The calculations in this section employ conservative assumptions that represent the worst
combination of materials rather than typical combinations. For example, they utilise metal studs with
a base metal thickness (BMT) of 1.15 mm at 450 mm centres on a 2400 mm high wall. It is important
to note that walls using different parameters may perform better than indicated in this section. The
purpose of these calculations is to compare walls with similar configurations, rather than aligning
with the minimum requirement Total R-Value tables of the NCC. However, this does not diminish the
recommendations provided in this report.

It should be noted that while some methods do not require a secondary framing member, this
analysis incorporates the use of secondary framing members (metal battens) in all cases. This was
done to reduce the number of permutations and allow for better comparison between methods
without introducing additional variables. Additionally, all calculations presented indicate the Summer
R-Value.

26
Roofs
Provisions in review
13.2.3
(7)

(3)(b)

Table 13.2.3t

27
Table 13.2.3u

28
Review of 13.2.3(7) - Thermal Break Provisions
Clause wording
The interpretation of roofs is slightly different from walls due to the wording in 13.2.3(7). Unlike the
term “framed” in 13.2.5(5), the use of the pronoun “those” in 13.2.3(7) specifies that the metal
framing referred to is the one where the ceiling lining is connected to the same members as the roof
cladding. From a practical perspective, this significantly limits the number of roof types that would
require thermal breaks.

For example, truss roofs generally do not require thermal breaks as the ceiling is not fixed to the
same frame members as the cladding. Figure 13 illustrates a situation where thermal break provisions
do apply, whereas Figure 14 depicts a scenario where they do not, as the roof lining is not directly
connected to those metal purlins.

Figure 13 (Left) – Metal roof with metal purlins and a ceiling lining fixed directly to those metal purlins

Figure 14 (Right) - Metal roof with metal purlins and a ceiling lining fixed to metal battens

Practical implications
Unlike walls, the air-space between the internal lining and insulation in roofs is typically considered
unventilated, while the space between the top of the insulation and the metal cladding is typically
considered ventilated to meet the requirements of Housing Provisions Clause 10.8.3 (1). As a result,
the analysis of air-space ventilation is not typically required, which reduces the number of
permutations under consideration. However, the impact of thermal breaks in roofs is similar to that
in walls. Since thermal breaks were found to be necessary for walls, they are also necessary for roofs.

29
Typical construction methods and thermal breaks
Typical construction practices for roofs of this nature often involve one of five methods:

1. No insulation or sarking between metal roof sheet and frame:

a. Dedicated thermal break is required.
2. Sarking between metal roof sheet and frame:
a. Dedicated thermal break is required.
3. Thermal break sarking in-situ R0.2 between metal roof sheet and frame:
a. The sarking material serves as the thermal break, and an additional thermal break is
not required.
4. Foil-faced glasswool:
a. If the foil-faced glasswool has a Declared R-Value of ≥R0.4, it can be considered a
thermal break when conducting a 4859.2 calculation. Crushed insulation can be used
without requiring a spacer.
5. Non compressible sandwich panel:
a. If the roof sheet is an insulation sandwich panel with an R-Value of ≥R0.2, it can be
considered a thermal break, and an additional thermal break is not required.
Summary
Unlike walls, the dimensions and spacing of purlins in roofs can vary widely based on expected spans
and loads, resulting in a wider range of percentage improvement when introducing a thermal break.
However, thermal breaks are still a critical requirement for roof types like those indicated in Figure
13.

Considering more typical construction practices, such as using crushed foil-faced glasswool over
purlins in addition to insulation between purlins, the foil-faced glasswool itself already serves as a
thermal break. Therefore, a dedicated thermal break material is often not required.

30
Review of 13.2.3(3)b - Thermal Bridging Mitigation Provisions
General
The thermal bridging mitigation provisions have been newly introduced in NCC 2022. To mitigate
thermal bridging in lightweight roofs, 13.2.3(3)(b) directs users to either refer to Table 13.2.3t or
Table 13.2.3u.

Table 13.2.3t requires users to perform a Total R-Value calculation in accordance with AS/NZS 4859.2,
based on the required insulation R-Value as applicable. Whereas Table 13.2.3u requires users to meet
a prescribed minimum insulation R-Value along with one of two specified measures.

Methods
A flowchart in Figure 15 provides an illustrative method for complying with the requirements of
thermal breaks and thermal bridging in the NCC's DtS provisions.

Figure 15 – Flowchart of roofs for compliance with thermal breaks and thermal bridging mitigation options

Review of Table 13.2.3t

Table 13.2.3t in the NCC specifies a minimum Total R-Value requirement that takes into account the
thermal bridging of the roof structure. If a metal-framed flat, skillion, or cathedral roof also meets the
definition of 13.2.3(7) as discussed in the Review of 13.2.3(7) - Thermal Break Provisions, then a
thermal break must be introduced as required. Unlike walls and floors that use AS/NZS 4859.2, no
method is specified for the calculation method of roofs. Convention would probably dictate to use
4859.2, but this is not mandated.

31
Review of Table 13.2.3u
General
The roof construction model considered in this analysis utilised C/Z Steel Purlins with dimensions of
203mm (depth) x 75mm (width) x 2.4mm BMT, spaced at 600mm and 900mm centres, and with a
pitch of 15°. The variations in thermal performance were examined by adjusting the ceiling insulation
and continuous insulation according to Table 13.2.3u.

The main impact of thermal performance in roofs will be from the centres of the framing materials.
Option 1 and Option 2 of Table 13.2.3u can be more or less effective than each other depending on
the density of the framing materials, as indicated by Figure 18. As a generalisation, as the framing
density and the minimum ceiling insulation R-Value increase Option 1 becomes less effective to
Option 2.

Under certain framing scenarios with larger spacing and lighter gauge steel, Option 1 or Option 2
could be approximately equivalent to the requirements specified in Table 13.2.3t.

Figure 16 (Left) - Option 1 of Table 13.2.3u

Figure 17 (Right - Option 2 of Table 13.2.3u

32
Figure 18 - Comparison of the Option 1 and 2 of Table 13.2.3u

Note: The horizontal axis uses the values from the left column of Table 13.2.3u, for instance; where Option 1 reads R3.0 on the
horizontal axis, this is using a R6.0 insulation between purlins.

Limitations

Unlike walls, which typically span up to 3 meters between restraints, roofs can vary greatly in span
length. The span of the roof is closely related to the material selection of the purlins and their
spacing, which in turn influences the thermal performance. Additionally, roofs may need to
accommodate additional imposed actions such as solar panels, air-conditioning equipment, or snow
loads. These varying factors make it challenging to define a typical or conservative roof structure,
including the materials and sizes of its components.

Using tables within the NCC to mitigate thermal bridging in roofs is likely to result in significant
variations in performance from building to building. The effectiveness of the thermal bridging
mitigation provisions may not consistently achieve their intended purpose due to the diverse nature
of roof structures and the associated factors involved.

33
Summary of the thermal break and thermal bridging mitigation
provisions for roofs
Due to the varied nature of roofs, it is recommended that for roofs with high framing ratios or high
gauge steel in the primary framing components, AS/NZS 4859.2 should be used in conjunction with
Table 13.2.3t to effectively mitigate thermal bridging. When opting for continuous insulation as the
method of thermal bridging mitigation, common roofing insulation can be used instead of dedicated
thermal break strips.

Recommended for NCC 2025

• Code users who rely on the Review of Table 13.2.3t as their compliance method should be
exempted from the requirements of 13.2.3(7) to provide designers with more flexibility.
AS/NZS 4859.2 should be specified as the standard for calculations.
• Reconsider the use of thermal bridging mitigation tables and instead utilise AS/NZS 4859.2 for
all cases pertaining to roofs described in 13.2.3(3)(b).
o Alternatively, limit the scope of applicability by introducing minimum framing centres
and flange to BMT ratio criteria.

Section notes for Roofs

Analysing roofs from a general perspective is challenging. The sectional properties of materials used
for purlins, rafters, battens, or similar components vary significantly based on the expected span and
imposed loads, which are optimised by structural engineers. Therefore, any analysis presented in this
section is of a general nature and may not encompass all possible construction scenarios, nor reflect
conservative or common construction practices.

34
Section 2 - Compare and contrast Volume One
Class 2 sole-occupancy units & the Housing
Provisions, and identify whether the differences are
appropriate.
Background
This section examines the wording of J3D5 and J3D6, as well as the Housing Provision requirements
for a thermal break (13.2.5(5) and 13.2.3(7)). Some confusion has arisen from the slightly different
wording of the provisions for thermal breaks found in Volume 1 compared to the Housing Provisions.
The purpose of this section is to analyse the wording of each clause and determine if there is a
functional difference.

Research Goals
• Identify functional differences of thermal break wording between Volume 1 and the Housing Provisions

Walls
Thermal breaks
Provisions in review
J3D6

13.2.5(5)

35
Differences between Section J Requirement and Housing Provisions
The texts are not identical. The differences are as follows:
In the J3D6 text:
• The condition (a) mentions "the same metal frame" for walls without a wall lining or with a wall lining
fixed directly to the metal frame.
• The condition (b) mentions "metal sheeting fixed to a metal frame" as one of the cladding options.

In the Housing Provisions 13.2.5(5) text:

• The condition (a) mentions “the metal frame” for walls without a wall lining or with a wall lining fixed
directly to the metal frame.
• The condition (b) mentions “metal sheeting fixed to the metal frame” as one of the cladding options.

Overall, the texts have minor differences in wording, but the main requirements and exceptions
remain the same. Even though Section J introduces the words “same metal frame” and “the metal
frame” making it sound more specific, as discussed in Current clause wording of (5) the meaning is
still consistent with the broader interpretation of a metal frame as a structure that provides shape or
strength to a building.

In the context of a wall, a possible exception to this rule is a double stud wall. Even though it is a
single wall, there are two independent structures or frames that make up the wall, and therefore a
metal frame double stud wall would not be subject to this clause. However, if a secondary framing
member in the form of metal battens is introduced and directly attached to the primary framing
member (the studs), compliance with the thermal break provisions would be required.

Appropriateness of differences of Thermal Break

While there are some wording differences, this does not change the meaning of the clauses.
Therefore, these clauses, from a functional point of view, can be considered identical.

36
Thermal bridging mitigation
Provisions in review
13.2.5(4)

J3D8

37
Differences between Section J Requirement and Housing Provisions
While 13.2.5(4) provides a route to use a thermal bridging mitigation option, J3D8 provides no such
route. Instead, J3D8 only provides the AS/NZS 4859.2 calculation route for walls that are not
spandrels. It is unclear why this route is absent, especially considering that a thermal bridging
mitigation option route is included for roofs.

Furthermore, the minimum R-Value requirements in J3D8(1)(a) take into account different factors
when determining the minimum value. For example, J3D8(1)(a) uses a ratio of opaque wall elements
to floor area to modulate the minimum requirement, whereas the comparable Housing Provisions of
Tables 13.2.5a to 13.2.5e use combination of wall type, overhang, solar absorbance and wall height to
modulate the minimum requirement. The rationale for this approach is explained in Section 1.3 of
Sustainable Building Specialist - technical report on DtS Elemental Provisions for NCC 2022.

Appropriateness of differences of Thermal Bridging Mitigation

The absence of thermal bridging mitigation options in J3D8 is inconsistent with both the Housing
Provisions and J3D7(3). Using Table 13.2.5t as the primary reference point is unsuitable because it is
based on wall insulation R-Value, while J3D8 is expressed in terms of Total R-Value. It would be
beneficial to develop a new set of tables that align with the principles described in the Walls section
for future use. This would ensure consistency and provide clearer guidance for compliance with
thermal bridging requirements in J3D8.

38
Roofs
Provisions in review
J3D5

13.2.3(7)

Thermal Breaks
The wording of the thermal break provision for roofs in both 13.2.3(7) and the Housing Provisions
J3D5 is identical, and therefore no analysis is required.

39
Thermal Bridging
Provisions in review
J3D7(3)

13.2.3(3)

40
Differences between Section J Requirement and Housing Provisions
There are no functional differences between the thermal bridging mitigation provisions for metal-
framed roofs in J3D7(3) and 13.2.3(3)

Appropriateness of differences of Thermal Bridging Provisions

No functional differences.

Summary
The differences in wording between Volume 1 and Volume 2 for both roofs and walls do not result in
any functional differences in the clauses. However, there is a lack of thermal bridging mitigation
options in J3D8.

Recommendations for NCC 2025

• To avoid confusion among code users, it is recommended to homogenise the wording in both
Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the code so that there are no text differences between them
regarding thermal break provisions.
• Develop thermal bridging mitigation provisions specifically for use in conjunction with J3D8,
following the principles outlined in the Walls. These provisions should address the
requirements and considerations for mitigating thermal bridging in roof constructions.

By implementing these recommendations, the code will provide clearer and more consistent
guidance for code users, ensuring a harmonised approach to thermal bridging mitigation in both walls
and roofs.

41
Section 3 - Consider sandwich panel construction,
including comparing and contrasting treatment of
walls and roofs.
Background
The purpose of this clause is to ensure that sandwich panels are installed in a continuous manner
over the metal structure, minimising thermal bridging except for necessary point connectors such as
metal screws used to fasten the metal sheets.

By conducting research on the minimum requirements and potential issues related to sandwich panel
walls, it will be possible to gain a comprehensive understanding of the performance and practical
considerations associated with this construction method.

Research Goals
• Identify the minimum requirements for walls when utilising a sandwich panel construction.
• Identify any potential issues or challenges associated with the use of sandwich panels in wall
construction.

Provisions in review
13.2.3
(8)

(9)

42
Table 13.2.3x

13.2.5
(6)

43
Review of 13.2.3(9)
Clause 13.2.3(8) simplifies the requirements for the use of sandwich panels in roofs. It stipulates that
those intending to use sandwich panels in roofs must comply with the provisions outlined in 13.2.3(9)
which directs users to refer to Table 13.2.3x. It is important to note that these calculations are based
on Total R-Value, which conventionally requires the use of AS/NZS 4859.2 for calculations.

Review of 13.2.5(6)
General
Clause 13.2.5(6) eliminates the requirement for a thermal break when utilising sandwich panels in
construction. However, this provision is typically irrelevant when considering sandwich panels, as
they generally have an insulation value of R0.2 or higher. Therefore, in their typical application,
sandwich panels can be considered a thermal break by definition.

Using Sandwich Panels in Walls

Clause 13.2.5(6) primarily focuses on what not to do when using insulated panels in walls. However,
there remains a question of what measures should be taken when utilising insulated sandwich panels
in wall construction. As insulated sandwich panels are still considered lightweight wall constructions,
the provisions outlined in 13.2.5(2), 13.2.5(3), and 13.2.5(4) should still be followed.

Figure 19 – Clause 13.2.5 external walls

A code user would need to use 13.2.5(2) to determine the minimum required added R-Value for wall
insulation based on factors such as climate zone, wall solar absorptance, wall height, and extent of
any overhang. Once these factors are determined, utilising Table 13.2.5q becomes the appropriate
method for determining the R-Value of a sandwich panel.

44
Figure 20 – Table 13.2.5q

Summary
When using sandwich panels in walls, it is important to determine the required insulation R-Value
based on the relevant factors outlined in 13.2.5(2). The solar absorbance should be limited to 0.7 for
climate zones 1-5. The Total R-Value can then be calculated using AS/NZS 4859.2 and Table 13.2.5q.

Summary of changes recommended to NCC 2025

To streamline the process and eliminate the need for a 4859.2 calculation when using sandwich
panels, the following changes are suggested:

• Provide diagrams illustrating typical applications that do not require a 4859.2 calculation.
• Develop separate tables for roofs and floors specifying the required R-Value of insulation
panels to meet the requirements of Table – Table 13.2.5q. These tables can be based on
different materials such as Mineral Wool, EPS, XPS, Polyurethane foam, and phenolic foam.
Alternatively, determine the worst-case material and create a table based on that.

These changes would simplify the compliance process for using sandwich panels and provide clear
guidance on the required insulation values.

45
Section 4 - Recommendations for NCC 2025
General
The in-scope recommendation for NCC 2025 are at the end of each section that are reviewed.

Out of scope observations

In various parts of the NCC, alternative routes to compliance are provided. While these routes are
intended to be approximately equivalent, perfect alignment may not always be possible due to the
varying nature of their implementation. However, it has been observed that in some areas, the
alignment between routes is not close enough, resulting in significant disparities in performance
based on the chosen compliance route. It should be noted that this project focused specifically on
exploring these variances within the context of thermal bridging mitigation provisions, but instances
of misalignment were found in other areas as well.

The housing provisions of NCC 2022 have relied on NatHERS to establish compliance thresholds for
alternative methods. This means that NatHERS serves as the baseline, and other compliance methods
aim to achieve an equivalent outcome to a NatHERS 7-star building. However, the current
implementation of DtS (Deemed-to-Satisfy) elemental provisions in the NCC has resulted in complex
and cumbersome requirements that mimic the considerations of a NatHERS simulation. As a result,
following the DtS elemental provisions can be difficult and time-consuming, particularly in tropical
climates where the provisions may lead to dead-end pathways.

Considering the complexity of the provisions, it is likely that NatHERS will become the preferred and
practical means of compliance, as the DtS elemental provisions present challenges in terms of
usability. It is important to address this issue and make the elemental provisions more user-friendly
and streamlined.

It should be noted that while these observations were made during the project, they were beyond
the scope of the specific research and may require further investigation and analysis.

46
Part 10.8.1
The vapour permeance test of ASTM E96 may not be suitable for testing insulation materials,
particularly glasswool. Issues may arise with sealing the edges of the sample to achieve one-
dimensional moisture transfer, as noted by AWTA Product Testing. Further investigation is needed to
ensure that mandated testing is appropriate for the specified criteria.
(2)
The limitation on the vapour permeance level for continuous insulation materials located external to
the primary insulation layer, as required in climate zones 4-8, requires further consideration. Closed
cell rigid insulation on the external side of metal frame walls can be an effective measure for
controlling condensation, which is commonly used in many parts of Europe. The intent of the NCC is
to set a minimum standard, but this clause may not have established the criteria boundaries
correctly. While it may address interstitial condensation in some scenarios, it also restricts other
scenarios where prohibited materials could result in less interstitial condensation than permitted
materials.

Table 13.2.3s
The introduction of a completely new term, "Ceiling Total R-Value," lacks a described method of
completion. AS/NZS 4859.2 does not provide a documented procedure for completing this
calculation. A clear procedure should be provided to achieve the values in this table.

General alignment to NatHERS

Due to time constraints, the project did not thoroughly explore the Chenath engine of NatHERS and
compare its alignment with the thermal bridging considerations of 4859.2. However, limited
observations suggest that there may be fundamental differences in the underlying assumptions
driving the calculations. NatHERS appears to take a "typical construction" approach, whereas 4859.2
considers the specific aspects of a given envelope system.

In NatHERS, adjustments to framing ratios or framing materials are not considered and do not affect
the building's performance. Instead, a "typical metal frame" is assumed. To align these approaches
and provide fairness to NCC elemental provisions users, a stipulated "typical assumption" should be
provided for those completing a Total R-Value calculation for comparison purposes. This typical
assumption could serve as an upper bound unless the actual construction deviates and offers more
favourable conditions. Alternatively, the Chenath engine could be adjusted to incorporate the same
considerations as 4859.2. Other areas of misalignment, such as cavity ventilation and the effective R-
Value of cavities, should also be further addressed through additional work and consideration.

47
Table 13.2.5r
The minimum Total R-Values specified in this section do not specify whether they refer to summer or
winter conditions. It is recommended to update the table to include clear indications of the
applicable conditions, such as "Minimum Total R-Value (Summer)" and "Minimum Total R-Value
(Winter)," to provide clarity and avoid any confusion regarding the intended performance
requirements.

Definition Total R-Value

The definition of "Total R-Value" in the glossary should be updated to include the phrase "when
calculated in accordance with AS/NZS 4859.2." This clarification will ensure consistency across
different sections of the code where Total R-Value is referenced.

Use of term “shading device” in tables J3D8a and J3D8b

In Tables J3D8a and J3D8b, it is recommended to replace the term "shading device" with "shading
projection" to align with the terminology used in the code. While "shading device" is not a defined
term in the definitions section, it is described as "shading provided by an external shading device such
as a shutter, blind, vertical or horizontal building screen with blades, battens or slats." However,
these examples do not typically involve an "overhang" as mentioned in the description. Using the
term "shading projection" would be more consistent
with the terminology used in Figure 22, which refers
to external permanent projections such as verandas,
balconies, fixed canopies, eaves, shading hoods, or
carports.

Regarding the interpretation of solar absorbance in

relation to shading projections, it can be reasonably
inferred that if no shading device is added (which is
not necessary), any solar absorbance would be
acceptable when shading projections are less than
300mm in climate zone 2. The same principle could be
applied to climate zones 4 and 5 when the wall-to-
floor area is equal to or greater than 45%. However, in
this scenario, it is important to provide specific
guidance on what is considered allowable in these
circumstances. Unlike in climate zone 2, the word
"any" is not used in relation to solar absorbance in the
code provisions for climate zones 4 and 5.
Figure 21 – Figure S37C7

48
Figure 22 -Table J3D8a

49