BUILDING CODE COMMISSION

Transcription

1 Ruling No Application No. B 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 Article of Regulation 350/06, as amended, (the Building Code). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Rick Henbid, Calhoun Super Structures, for the resolution of a dispute with John Spolnik, Chief Building Official,, to determine whether the proposal to construct a steel building system with fabric cladding, which is not CSA A660 certified, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article of Division B of the 2006 Building Code at 4995 Governors Road, Lynden, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE Rick Henbid Calhoun Super Structures Toronto, ON John Spolnik Chief Building Official Tony Chow, Chair Leslie Morgan Gerry Egberts Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING November 10, 2010 DATE OF RULING November 10, 2010 APPEARANCES Al Wassink Wassink Brothers Construction Lynden, ON Agent for the Applicant Don Jeffrey Building Inspector Designate for the Respondent Essam Ishak Building Engineer Designate for the Respondent

2 RULING 1. Particulars of Dispute The Applicant has applied for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a single storey, 267 m², Group F Division 3 occupancy building, comprised of a series of steel truss frames covered with a fabric membrane, which is located at 4995 Governors Road, Lynden, Ontario. The building in question falls within the scope of Part 9 of the Building Code. Division B, Subclause (1)(c)(i) requires the design of the building to be in accordance with Part 4 of the Building Code while using the loads and deflection and vibration limits specified in Part 9 of the Code. Article of Division B of the Code requires steel building systems to be manufactured by companies certified in accordance with the requirements of CSA A660, Certification of Manufacturers of Steel Building Systems. The term steel building systems is not a defined term in the Building Code. However, the term is defined within the standard as, an integrated assembly of manufactured steel structural components and cladding components specifically designed by the manufacturers to support transfer loads and provide a complete or partial building shell. The plant that manufactures the proposed steel building systems is not currently certified in accordance with the requirements of CSA A The standard requires steel building systems to be designed, fabricated and erected in conformance with the Building Code. The standard also outlines the requirements for independent audit of the manufacturer to demonstrate that the design, fabrication and erection will be in conformance with the Building Code. The Building Code is an objective based Code and under Division A, Clause (1)(b) an alternative solution to an acceptable solution in Division B is permitted. At dispute is whether the CSA A standard applies to the subject building, and further, whether or not the proposed building, which is not CSA certified, provides sufficiency of compliance with the minimum requirements of the Building Code. 2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute Division A, Article Compliance with Division B (1) Compliance with Division B shall be achieved, (a) by complying with the applicable acceptable solutions in Division B, or (b) by using alternative solutions that will achieve the level of performance required by the applicable acceptable solutions in respect of the objectives and functional statements attributed to the applicable acceptable solutions in Supplementary Standard SA-1. Division B, Steel Building Systems (1) Steel building systems shall be manufactured by companies certified in accordance with the requirements of CSA-A660, Certification of Manufacturers of Steel Building Systems.

3 Division B, Subsection Steel Design Basis for Structural Steel (1) Buildings and their structural members made of structural steel shall conform to CAN/CSA-S16, Limit States Design of Steel Structures. 3. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant submitted that a building permit application was made to the to construct a fabric clad steel building. The Agent explained that under the plan review process, he was notified by the municipal inspector that the manufacturer of the fabric covered steel building must be certified to CSA A as per Article of the Building Code and that since the supplier of the structure in this case was not A660 certified, the building permit could not be approved. The Agent submitted that he was disputing the decision made by the municipality to deny the building permit. He argued that the CSA A contains no provisions that pertain to a fabric clad structure. More specifically, the Agent stated that this standard does not provide any specifications for fabric cladding, as in the case of the subject structure. As such, the Agent further argued that it was not reasonable for the municipality to request the Applicant to comply with a standard when it would be impossible to follow the standard as the standard does not include the specifications for certification of the cladding. The Agent submitted that he had obtained an opinion from Quasar, the certifying body for the A standard and further reported that in Quasar s opinion, the standard did not apply to fabric covered buildings as there is no standard for fabric in the A document. The Agent advised the Commission that a newer version of CSA A660 has been developed, which includes provisions for fabric cladding, however, presently the newer version of the standard was pending and had not yet been adopted by the National Building Code or the Ontario Building Code, as a result, the current Ontario Building Code s reference to the CSA A was in effect and the new version of the standard was not applicable in this case. The Agent submitted that the subject steel structure has been reviewed and certified by a professional engineer to have been designed to comply with Subsection of Division B of the Building Code and therefore, the proposed structure should be deemed to sufficiently comply with the Building Code. 4. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that the Applicant s proposed building is to be used as an accessory structure on the subject property for the purpose of storage. The Designate advised that the proposed building is a series of in-line clear span steel frames that are produced, welded and assembled at the manufacturer s production facility. The Designate maintained that the proposed structure is required to be certified in accordance with CSA A Certification of Manufacturers of Steel Building Systems as required by Sentence (1) of the Building Code. The Designate argued that

4 CSA A does not provide any distinction for steel building systems covered with a membrane and therefore he believes the standard is applicable in this case. The Designate submitted that CSA A defines steel building system as an integrated assembly of manufactured steel structural components and cladding components specifically designed by the manufacturers to support transfer loads and provide a complete or partial building shell. The Designate maintained that there is no exemption in CSA A for steel building systems covered with a membrane, fabric or otherwise. In summary, the Designate maintained that in his view the subject steel structure as proposed is subject to Sentence (1) of the Building Code and such must be certified to CSA A Commission Ruling It is the Decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed fabric clad steel structure provides sufficiency of compliance with Subsection of Division B of the Building Code and further, it is the Commission s Decision that Article of Division B of the 2006 Building Code is not applicable in the matter at 4995 Governors Road, Lynden, Ontario. 6. Reasons i) Article of the Building Code states, Steel building systems shall be manufactured by companies certified in accordance with the requirements of CSA- A660, Certification of Manufacturers of Steel Building Systems. The term steel building system is not a defined term in the Building Code. CSA A does not have design provisions for fabric covered structures. It is the Commission s opinion that Article of Division B of the Building Code is not applicable to the subject fabric clad steel structure. ii) The 2006 Building Code is an objective based Code. Division A, Clause (1)(b) of the Code permits an alternative solution to an acceptable solution in Division B. The subject steel structure has been reviewed and certified by a professional engineer to have been designed to comply with Subsection of Division B of the Building Code.

5 Dated at Toronto this 10 th day in the month of November in the year 2010 for application number B Tony Chow, Chair Leslie Morgan Gerry Egberts