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 Sentences (7) and (8) and Sentences (1) and (2) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98, 102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00 and 283/01 (the Ontario Building Code ). AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by David Sheps, Project Manager, Metro Toronto Housing Corporation, for the resolution of a dispute with Steve Franklin, Director, Building Division, East District, City of Toronto, to determine whether the proposed foam plastic insulation and metal cladding system provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences (7) and (8) when considering Sentences (1) and (2) of the Ontario Building Code at 1021 Birchmount Road, Toronto, Ontario. APPLICANT RESPONDENT PANEL PLACE David Sheps, Project Manager Metro Toronto Housing Corporation, Toronto, Ontario Steve Franklin Director, Building Division East District City of Toronto Michael Steele, Chair-Designate Robert De Berardis Fred Barkhouse Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING January 24, 2002 DATE OF RULING July 16, 2002 APPEARANCES Andrew Holford, Engineer Norman Lee & Associates Ltd. Markham, Ontario Agent for the Applicant Arthur Jammer Building Plan Examiner City of Toronto Designate for the Respondent

2 -2- RULING 1. The Applicant David Sheps, Project Manager, Metro Toronto Housing Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, has received an order to comply under the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, to remedy certain alleged deficiencies with respect to renovations conducted at 1021 Birchmount Road, Toronto, Ontario. 2. Description of Construction The Applicant has undertaken certain renovations/repairs to an existing Group C, residential apartment building. The structure is 12 storeys in building height and 1922 m 2 (20,688 ft 2 ) in building area. It is comprised of noncombustible construction and is equipped with fire alarm and standpipe and hose systems. The building is constructed of reinforced concrete slabs supported on concrete columns and walls. The exterior is brick veneer construction which is supported on the edge of the concrete slab at each floor level. The work that has been carried out on this building involved the repair of the concrete balconies and replacement of balcony railings. In addition, repairs to the building envelope have been undertaken, including the installation of new insulation and metal cladding to the exterior face of the top four floors on the eastern elevation of the building. The construction in dispute involves the new insulation and metal cladding system and, specifically, the use of foam insulation beneath the metal clad exterior. As outlined in the Applicant s submission, the new cladding system and the remaining existing wall are comprised of the following components: 22 Gauge (0.76mm) flat sheet steel panels, profile to be AD-300 by VicWest; 2" Styrofoam blue board by Dow Chemical (Type IV insulation); L2x2xd" and L1-¾x1-¾x¼" angles anchored to the floor slabs with d" Ø Hilti Kwik 24" c/c; ½" Stucco cladding; 4" clay brick; 4" concrete block; 1" foam plastic insulation (Type 1); 1" plaster Painted finish. The issue in dispute with respect to this construction is whether the as-installed wall system is required to be tested in accordance with the provisions of the Ontario Building Code. 3. Dispute The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the as-installed insulation and metal cladding system will provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences (7) and (8) when considering Sentences (1) and (2) of the Ontario Building Code. Sentences (7) provides that, with an exception not applicable here, and in addition to the requirements outlined in Sentences (2), (3), (5) and (6), foam plastic insulation used in the construction

3 -3- of an exterior wall for a building more than 3 storeys in height shall be protected on its exterior surface by either concrete or masonry not less than 25 mm in thickness or by noncombustible material that complies with the criteria for testing and acceptance outlined in Sentence (8). The testing in this instance is required to conform to the CAN/ULC-S101-M Standard Methods of Fire Endurance Tests of Building Construction and Material. As noted, Sentence (8) of Article outlines the criteria for testing and conditions of acceptance for a wall assembly that would satisfy the requirements of Clause (7)(b). These criteria and conditions include a) that the exposed area of the wall assembly shall be not less than 9.3 m 2 and have no dimension less than 2,750 mm, b) the exposed surface is to include typical vertical and horizontal joints, c) tests are to be continued for a minimum of 15 minutes following the standard time/temperature curve of the referenced standard, d) the noncombustible protective material will remain in place and no openings will develop that would be visible when viewed normal to the face of the material, and e) the same protective material will not disintegrate in a manner that would foster the spread of fire along the surface of the test assembly. In respect to the subject construction in which foam plastic insulation has been used, the metal cladding has not been tested specific to the parameters outlined in Sentence (8) and to the specified standard required in Sentence (7). The Applicant s position in this regard is that the 22 Gauge sheet steel being used as an exterior cladding is a noncombustible material that would provide sufficiency of compliance with the provisions of Sentences (7) and need not be tested as outlined in Sentence (8). In support of the claim that the metal cladding would meet the intent of the Code the Commission is asked to refer to Sentences (1) and (2). Sentence (1), in respect to Fire Stop Materials, requires that materials used to separate concealed spaces into compartments shall remain in place for a minimum of 15 minutes when subjected to the same ULC standard of fire exposure anticipated in Sentence (7). Further, Sentence (2) of Article provides that gypsum board not less than 12.7 mm thick and sheet metal not less than 0.38 mm thick does not require testing with the CAN/ULC standard provided that all joints have continuous support. It is argued that these provisions, while not specific to the construction of an exposing building face, illustrate the compliance of the metal cladding material used in the protection of the foam plastic insulation subject to this dispute. As noted above, the sheet metal used in this instance is 0.76 mm in thickness and would meet the exemption for testing when considering the provisions outlined in Sentence (2), but is not specifically noted in Sentence (7) being the provision applicable to the construction in dispute. 4. Provisions of the Ontario Building Code Construction of Exposing Building Face (7) Except as permitted by Sentence (9), in addition to the requirements of Sentences (2), (3), (5) and (6), foamed plastic insulation used in an exterior wall of a building more than 3 storeys in building height shall be protected on its exterior surface by (a) (b) concrete or masonry not less than 25 mm (1 in) thick, or noncombustible material that complies with the criteria for testing and conditions of acceptance of Sentence (8) when tested in conformance with CAN/ULC-S101-M, Standard Methods of Fire Endurance Tests of Building

4 -4- Construction and Materials. (8) The criteria for testing and the conditions of acceptance for a wall assembly to satisfy the requirements of Clause (7)(b) are that (a) the fire exposed area of the wall assembly shall be not less than 9.3 m 2 (100 ft 2 ) and have no dimension less than mm (9 ft), (b) the exposed surface will include typical vertical and horizontal joints, (c) the test shall be continued for not less than 15 min and the standard time/temperature curve of the referenced standard shall be followed, (d) the noncombustible protective material will remain in place and no through openings will develop that are visible when viewed normal to the face of the material, and (e) the noncombustible protective material will not disintegrate in a manner that would permit fire to propagate along the surface of the test assembly Fire Stop Materials (1) Except as permitted by Sentences (2) to (4), materials used to separate concealed spaces into compartments shall remain in place and prevent the passage of flames for not less than 15 min when subjected to the standard fire exposure in CAN/ULC-S101-M, Standard Methods of Fire Endurance Tests of Building Construction and Materials. (2) Gypsum board not less than 12.7 mm (½ in) thick and sheet steel not less than 0.38 mm (0.015 in) thick need not be tested in conformance with Sentence (1) provided all joints have continuous support. 5. Applicant s Position The Agent for the Applicant explained that an application for a building permit was submitted to the municipality for a retrofit of the subject building. As part of this retrofit, new cladding for the top four floors of the eastern building face was required. In this respect, the Agent advised that they conducted research as to an appropriate cladding system that would provide compliance with the provisions of the Ontario Building Code. Resulting from this research it was decided that a cladding system which incorporated foamed plastic insulation covered with a 22 Gauge (0.76mm) steel cladding would be installed. Upon inspection by the City they were advised that this system would require testing as set out in Sentences (7) and (8) of the OBC because of the use of foam plastic insulation. The Agent stated that, in his opinion, testing of this system is not necessary as the sheet steel being used as exterior cladding is a noncombustible material that would meet the requirements of the OBC and is, in fact, recognized as a material exempt from testing in Article This Article in the Code refers to the same ULC standard as set out in the Sentences in dispute and states that, sheet steel not less than 0.38 mm thick need not be tested. The sheet steel in question, he argued, is two times thicker than the exempted material permitted by this Article. In addition to having regard for this provision, the Agent contacted a representative of Bodycote Ortech Inc. who opined that the subject material would retain a significant amount of its original strength and that no phase change would occur at a temperature of 538 o C. This is well above the 450 o C required by the OBC. Also, the Agent advised that a technical advisor for Part 3 of the building code at the

5 -5- Canadian Code Centre was contacted for an opinion. In his response the Agent was advised that it appeared as though the wall assembly in question would provide protection of the foamed plastic insulation to both the adjacent spaces in the building and protection on the exterior from fire spread up the facade. The Agent argued that the intent of the Ontario Building Code was to ensure that the cladding being provided to protect foam plastic insulation would not disintegrate. The proposed system, which includes a 0.76 mm steel cladding will meet this intent, he argued. In addition, he submitted that there are insulated wall panels constructed with similar materials and with similar configurations that have passed the requirements of CAN/ULC S-101-M. An example of such a panel is the Thermawall 1000 manufactured by Coldmatic Building Systems. He submitted that (t)his insulated wall panel is constructed with foamed plastic insulation varying in thickness from 2" to 6" laminated between 2 layers of 26 Gauge (0.46mm) sheet steel and is listed as complying with ULC S-101. As further support for this application, and at the request of the Commission, the Agent supplied as-built details of the metal exterior wall cladding system, safety data sheets of the foam plastic insulation, and other detailed information intended to ensure that the system would provide sufficiency of compliance with the requirements of the OBC. In summation, the Agent submitted that, based on the information contained in the Code, as well as information obtained from experts in the field, it was his opinion that the proposed cladding system would stay in place and not disintegrate and would meet the testing requirements outlined in the OBC. 6. Respondent s Position The Designate for the Respondent submitted that the cladding system used on the eastern elevation of this 12 storey building did not meet the requirements as set out in the OBC in terms of testing to ensure that exterior protection is provided. The foam plastic insulation used in the installation is an extremely flammable and toxic material and must be adequately protected, he argued. In this regard the Building Code provides for either a masonry exterior surface or a noncombustible material that is ULC listed, thus meeting the appropriate standard. The Designate argued that a full size test, including joints in the assembly, would be required to determine whether the metal cladding meets the Code standards. He emphasized that the city has never given a prior approval for this type of system. In all cases, they would have required the insulation to be replaced with a noncombustible material. In respect to the Applicant s argument that the material meets the equivalency standards, the Designate stated that, in addition to not having enough information to make such a determination, he also did not have the authority to consider equivalence in this instance. Where the Code sets out specific test procedures that must be undertaken to ensure compliance, he must ensure that the criteria are met and all concerns have been addressed prior to approval. 7. Commission Ruling It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the as-installed foam plastic insulation and metal cladding system does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences (7) and (8) when considering Sentences (1) and (2) of the Ontario Building Code at 1021 Birchmount Road, Toronto, Ontario.

6 -6-8. Reasons i) The wall assembly has not been tested in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code. ii) The Commission has concern with respect to the thermal protection of the foam plastic insulation, particularly at window openings. iii) The wall assembly contains combustible material that has a maximum use temperature of 165 o F and is specified by the manufacturer to avoid temperatures of 572 o F. iv) If exposed to fire or heat dense smoke will be produced and flame spread will develop. Adequate protection must be provided to ensure this does not occur.

7 -7- Dated at Toronto this 16th day in the month of July in the year 2002 for application number Michael Steele, Chair-Designate Robert De Berardis Fred Barkhouse