BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No BUILDING CODE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended. AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence (1) of Regulation 403, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Beverly Hills Home Improvements, for resolution of a dispute with John DeVries, Chief Building Official, Town of Richmond Hill, to determine whether the proposed use of Panelcraft Honeycomb Roof System honeycomb sandwich panels in a sunroom provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (1) of the Building Code at 42A Graydon Crescent, Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE John Witten Beverly Hills Home Improvements Mississauga, ON John DeVries Chief Building Official Town of Richmond Hill Tony Chow, Chair Susan Friedrich Gary Burtch Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING July 7, 2005 DATE OF RULING July 7, 2005 APPEARANCES Bart Bremmers CraftBilt Materials Ltd. Markham, ON Agent for the Applicant Michael Janotta Deputy Chief Building Official Town of Richmond Hill Designate for the Respondent

2 - 2 - RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has applied for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct sunroom addition to the existing dwelling at 42A Graydon Crescent, Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario. The subject building is a two storey single detached dwelling comprised of combustible construction that is not equipped with a standpipe and hose system, fire alarm system or a sprinkler system. The construction in dispute involves the proposed use of Panelcraft Honeycomb Roof System honeycomb sandwich panels to construct the roof of the sunroom addition. The roof panels are comprised of 114 mm (4½ in) thick sandwich panels with extruded H connectors, consisting of an aluminium outer skin, which is bonded to a cellulose honeycomb filler. The length of the panel, shown on the plan, from top of wall to ridge beam is 3.45 m (11 ft 4 in) and has a governing load condition of 80 lb/ft 2. The Applicant feels that the sandwich panel is suitable for use as a roof and that the panel meets the serviceability and structural requirements of the Code. The Respondent s position is that the information provided was not adequate and therefore, the municipality was unable to accept a design based on Sentence (1) of the Code. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Design Requirements (1) Buildings and their structural members including formwork and falsework shall be designed to have sufficient structural capacity and structural integrity to resist safely and effectively all loads and effects of loads and influences that may reasonably be expected, having regard to the expected service life of buildings, and shall in any case satisfy the requirements of this Section. 3. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant explained the history of the dispute by saying that he is the manufacturer of the sandwich panels in question and that these types of panels have been selling for more than 25 years in Canada. The Applicant applied for a building permit in order to construct a sunroom addition using the Panelcraft Honeycomb Roof System and the permit was denied by the municipality. The reason for the Town of Richmond Hill s denial of the permit was, in the opinion of the Agent, due to the innovative design of the sandwich panels. The Agent believes that the sandwich panels provide sufficiency of compliance with the requirements of the Building Code. He advised the Commission that he provided allowable load tables to the municipality when he applied for the building permit. The Agent explained that he became aware of the municipality s concern regarding the safety factor being used in March. He argued that he has worked with many engineering firms over the years and they have all been satisfied with using a safety factor of 1.5. It appears to the Agent that the Town of Richmond Hill is not satisfied with a safety factor of 1.5. The Agent stated that Craft-Bilt retained the services of a third-party professional engineer to determine the appropriate safety factor and deflection to be used when building with aluminium

3 - 3 - and it was determined that a safety factor of is appropriate. As supported by the testimony of the professional engineer appearing at the hearing on behalf of the Applicant, the Commission was advised that the current version of CSA S157 Strength Design in Aluminium, using a load factor of 1.5 and a resistance factor of 0.8, gives an overall factor of The Agent advised that, as result of this finding, new tests were performed and new load tables were prepared using the revised safety factor of The panels used for testing are described as 3.7 m (12 ft) with extruded H connectors. According to the allowable load charts for honeycomb core sandwich panels, submitted to the Commission as Exhibit 7, a 114 mm (4½ in) thick honeycomb core panel with H stiffener results in a maximum allowable roof load (PSF) of 90 psf lbs per square foot. The Agent also maintained that L/120 is adequate deflection. Originally the Agent had considered L/60 to be acceptable as competitors use L/60 and engineer designers use L/60 based on past experiences for aluminium. However, L/120 has been applied to this application in an attempt to be consistent with a BMEC authorization for a slightly different product. He also noted that the United States Building Code references L/120 as being adequate for aluminium. When questioned as to how the product before this Commission differs from the product approved by the Building Materials Evaluation Commission (BMEC), the Agent responded by saying that the product approved by BMEC had a polystyrene core and this product has a honeycomb core. In summary, the Agent argued that the substantial evidence submitted by the experts in attendance at the hearing on behalf of the Applicant supports his position that this proposal meets the requirements of the Building Code. In closing, he stated that he believes that he has shown that this product achieves sufficiency of compliance with the provisions of Sentence (1). 4. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that in his view the Applicant has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate the product complies with the provisions of the Code and therefore, the municipality was unable to issue a building permit. The Designate explained that it was difficult to understand the data provided by the Applicant and advised that answers were not provided to the many questions that arose during the process of reviewing the permit application. The municipality was not convinced that the proposed use of the subject sandwich panels would provide the same level of safety as would be required by the Code. The Designate elaborated by saying that deflection and safety is the main issue. He informed the Commission that the Applicant had used safety factors ranging from 1.5 up to 3 and the municipality sought clarification on what should be the appropriate safety factor. The Designate contended that a safety factor of 1.5 is not appropriate and claimed that a safety factor of closer to 3 would be more acceptable. He also noted that the municipality has never been provided with information regarding the durability of this product. Upon being questioned as to whether an 80 lb psf load had been agreed upon, the Designate agreed that this was the case. In summation, the Designate indicated that the municipality was not comfortable with the data provided. He reiterated his opinion that the municipality had not received sufficient information to determine whether the use of the sandwich panels would achieve compliance with the requirements of the Code.

4 Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed use of Panelcraft Honeycomb Roof System honeycomb sandwich panels in a sunroom provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (1) of the Building Code at 42A Graydon Crescent, Town of Richmond Hill, Ontario. 6. Reasons i) The Commission was satisfied that the expert testimony, documentation and data provided by the Applicant, signed and sealed by a professional engineer, demonstrated sufficiency of compliance with Sentence (1) of the Code. ii) The proposed Panelcraft Honeycomb Roof System built using 114 mm (4½ in) thick sandwich panels with extruded H connectors, consisting of an aluminium outer skin which is bonded to a cellulose honeycomb filler, has been designed for a snow load accumulation of 80 psf lbs per square foot. The anticipated accumulation in this area of the province would be significantly lower than 80 psf. iii) This decision is site-specific and only applies to the sunroom addition located at 42A Graydon Crescent, Richmond Hill, Ontario.

5 - 5 - Dated at Toronto this 7 th day in the month of July in the year 2005 for application number Tony Chow, Chair Susan Friedrich Gary Burtch