After the December meeting, the Minneapolis-St. Paul Chapter sponsored two additional building code seminars.
International Building Code and the International Residential Building Code: Top Ten Issues Found in Plan Review vs. the Uniform Building Code
by Terry Olsen
Jerry Norman, Minnesota State Building Code Representative, tied the recent past codes of the 1997 UBC (Uniform Building Code) to the current IBC (International Building Code). Following David Letterman's "Top Ten" list, Jerry gave a list of 10 common code issues to watch for that he claimed would "make my job easier".
Jerry's "boilerplate" handouts were too dark to read, so the program attendees were "forced" to listen to his presentation. Starting with the topic and including some of the code sections for your reading enjoyment, the following are the "top 10" issues Jerry has found enforcing the new code.
10. Fire-Retardant-Treated Wood
The IBC allows a more expanded use of fire-retardant-treated wood than the former UBC. Found in IBC 603.1 is a laundry list of areas that you CAN use wood. Included in this is non-combustible construction of building types I and II. Be careful with fire-retardant-treated wood in roof structures. The new wood treatments are even more corrosive to fasteners, and can even eat through stainless steel. See IBC 2304.9.5 for fasteners in preservative-treated wood. Best advise: coordinate with manufacturers' recommendations.
9. Positive Pressure Testing for Doors, Frames and Hardware
The 1997 UBC initiated the requirement for rated swinging doors to be positive pressure tested, to simulate actual conditions in a fire. Fire tries to force itself through the door and around gaps, with the aid of negative pressure on the opposite side encouraging the fire forward. The IBC 714.2.1 calls for a test using a neutral pressure level at 40" or less above the floor. Take note that the former UL 10B is no longer adequate, and door assemblies must comply with the requirements of 10C.
8. Smoke and Draft Curtain Assemblies
The "S" rating had been added to 20-minute labeled doors in the UBC, but this terminology no longer occurs in the IBC. Does that mean smoke and draft control is no longer required? The IBC 714.2.3 calls for smoke barriers for doors in corridors. This may be provided in the same manner as complying with the positive pressure test, but generally the two requirements are resolved differently. In general, intumescent gaskets within the edge of the doors provide compliance with the positive pressure criteria. However, this is separate from the smoke gasket added to the frame. Note this requirement is for an air leakage rate not in excess of 3.0 cfm per square foot of door opening at 0.10" of water and the door must be labeled as a "smoke and draft control door."
7. Foam Plastic Roof Insulation and Thermal Barrier
Per IBC Section 2603.4.1.5 the thermal barrier on a roof must remain in place for 15 minutes, based on the FM 4880, UL 1040, or UL 1715 tests. If a perforated metal deck is used, these tests fail unless a layer of gypsum board tops the decking, below the insulation. Of course, one concern is preventing the gypsum board from getting wet during construction. A thermal barrier is not required, however, if the complete assembly passes FM 4450 or UL 1256. But of course ALL components of the assembly are mandated to be exactly the tested product, no substitutions or omissions permitted. Double check rated roof-ceiling assemblies prior to designing and specifying them.
6. Carpeting/Floor Finish
In this code is the first time carpet is referenced in floor locations. IBC 804.5.1 gives the minimum critical radiant flux, which classifies floor material in vertical exits, exit passageways, and corridors as being Class I for groups I-2 and I-3. Class II materials may be used in A, B, E, H, I-4, M, R-1 and R-2 occupancies. All other areas must pass a "pill test", with the exception of sprinkled buildings in which Class I requirements can go down to Class II materials, and Class II requirements can be reduced to the pill test. NFPA 253 rates Class I as 0.45 watts/cm2 or greater and Class II as 0.22 watts/cm2 or greater. The DOC FF-1 is the reference for the "pill test".
5. Special Inspections
The enforcement of the special inspections schedule is new. No building permit will be issued until each signature on the special inspection form is in the building code official's hands. The schedule needs to list both the company and the name of the specific person who will be conducting the special inspections. IBC 1704.1 requires special inspections to be performed by a qualified person, such as an engineer (the engineer of record is preferred), and this person must be paid by the Owner, NOT the contractor to prevent conflict of interest. There is a copy of this form in the front of the State Building Code. Note the added requirement for inspections for EIFS and structural wood.
4. Sprinklers
Jerry said he would like to see the shop drawings BEFORE the sprinkler system is installed. IBC Section 903.3.1 reinforces this requirement, since with NFPA13-99 or NFPA 13R-99 (for residential) sprinklers grant increases in area, stories, and height. Be sure to list which NFPA standard is being used, as R is less restrictive.
One of the questions that repeatedly plagues the code officials is what jurisdiction reviews sprinkler drawings. In a nutshell, if the project is in an area which has adopted and enforces the IBC, then the authority is the local municipality, if approved by the State Fire Marshal. If the project is in an area of Minnesota not enforcing the building code, then submit the sprinkler drawings to the State Fire Marshal. Just because the municipality has not adopted or enforces the IBC does not mean that the sprinkler system does not have to be designed per code and submitted for review.
3. Fire, Smoke and Smoke/fire Dampers
IBC Section 715.3 lists damper testing and ratings. Fire damper standards are based on UL 555-1999, smoke/fire damper standards are per UL 555, and ceiling radiation dampers follow UL555C. Note that smoke/fire dampers are not always required anymore at locations previously required in the UBC; you still need smoke/fire dampers at shafts, but watch as the code has changed.
2. Hardware Schedule
Please be aware that the building code officials do not have the manufacturers' catalogs when listing hardware product numbers in the specifications. Therefore, submit the hardware function, i.e. panic hardware, instead of the model number. Note that fire exit hardware is the correct description for panic hardware on fire-rated exit doors. Flush bolts are still not allowed, except on inactive leaf on functions such as closets.
1. Energy Code - Interior Air Barrier
This requirement familiar to residential market is "not just for houses" anymore. The energy codes found in the SBC 7676.0500 define Interior Air Barrier and require the interior air barrier to be TOTALLY sealed. The interior air barrier is NOT the vapor barrier. It does, however, need to be sealed, including penetrations such as for piping, wires, ducts, equipment, conduit, and recessed light fixtures. Multifamily construction does have a couple exceptions: at electrical outlets and fan boxes.
After giving specific examples of 10 changes in the codes and how they are enforced, Jerry has alerted users of the building codes to a few of the more common mistakes and where to find the answers. With these at our fingertips, the next building code review should go much smoother.
The Future of Code Development: Issues Behind Code Revisions/Performance Based Codes
by Terry Olsen
Gordy Bates, Fire Protection Specialist / Inspector for the City of Minneapolis Fire Department, introduced the future of code development by explaining that in the past, building and fire codes were reactive, not proactive. He ended with a proactive look at how new technology can take us beyond the code minimums, and filled us in with details along the way.
Codes developed from disasters generally were implemented locally, but the insight was not always passed along to other areas. This often caused a repeat of that disaster in another location that had not learned the lesson from another's misfortune. Presently, the International Building Codes are effective across the country, so that all can share in the misfortunes of others, so to speak.
But just because a lesson is learned and code is written doesn't mean it is enforced. It must be more than just published; it must be made into law. In addition to the building code, there is also a fire code, which shall be no more or less restrictive than the building code. In areas of the state in which the building code is not enforced, the fire code is still in effect. But what is the future of these codes?
The future of codes will respond to 2 things: future events that will teach us additional lessons, and new technology. New technology can have good impacts, such as computer modeling a fire, but also negative impacts, such as batteries for the telecom industry. The latter is a new problem, in which telecommunications companies rent space for antennae in church steeples and battery or generator rooms in apartment buildings to aid their business. In the case of a fire, the lead-battery acid can be a hazard to the firefighters, and their water only spreads the problem.
Another new technology on the cutting edge is hydrogen fuel cells. As hydrogen is lighter than air and it is flammable, the method of safely dispensing it has not been resolved. Right now research facilities are experimenting with it, as well as natural gas, and the codes are trying to protect the occupants in these new occupancies. With the model codes replaced on a 3-year cycle, and with the approval and adoption period taking time to pass through the legislature, the protection is difficult to achieve prior to a "learning event".
For example, in April 2003 the band Great White set off pyrotechnics in a nightclub in Rhode Island that resulted in many deaths. This unfortunately followed a memo sent out by the NFPA only 2 days prior on the concern about indoor fireworks, ceiling heights and ceiling finishes. Had that message already gone through the cycle and been enforced, the tragedy could have been prevented.
But that is the past. How do we predict the future? As mentioned earlier, one of the benefits of technology is computer modeling. But before computer modeling can be used to predict how a fire might behave, the codes have to catch up and allow this technology to be used in designing the building. Until recently, codes were only prescriptive, giving specific quantitative qualities such as length of corridor dead ends, height and area restrictions, and other measurable limitations.
Recently, the codes started permitting performance-based design (PBD). This is where the intent of the design is listed as the end result and then the life safety factors are created to achieve this goal. Such a goal may be to exit a packed auditorium safely in 20 minutes in the case of an emergency. Rather than using a prescribed length of travel distance to exit doors, the design may be impacted by more generous aisle width and greater numbers of exit doors along a main route.
The PBD process starts by defining the project scope, and then proceeds to identifying goals, defining the stakeholders and design objectives, developing performance criteria, developing design fire scenarios, developing trial designs, and finally evaluating the trial designs. Obviously, the scope of the project must describe exiting expectations, expected structural protection, and similar conditions to set a base. The goals must be listed, such as life safety measures and what are acceptable risks. Then determine the stakeholders, who may be users, tenants, building owners, the public, and neighbors, not to mention the building code official and fire marshal who take on risk when they approve a site as safe.
At this point, criteria for the performance must state what specific results are acceptable and what would be considered failure. A threshold for risk would be a classroom allowing 49 people in with only one door, but as soon as the 50th person walks in, two doors become necessary. Does that mean 49 occupants may be expendable? That is the risk deemed acceptable by prescriptive codes. Is the purpose to save lives or save property, or maybe even something else? In the case of a fire at a Sherwin Williams paint building in Ohio, the fire chief was given grief for sitting at the side and watching the warehouse burn down. Since all the occupants were out, what he later explained as his parameters for protection was that the ground water level was very shallow in that area and neighboring residents got their drinking water from that aquifer below. Rather than contaminating their drinking water supply and prolonging the fire by dousing with water, he focused on having the fire burn itself out as quickly as possible.
By developing fire scenarios with a fire protection engineer, a computer model can predict the behavior of various conflagrations starting at different sources. The stakeholders must buy into the assumptions made and the risks permitted. There may need to be a list of restrictions on the Owner to permit a safe result, such as limiting the number of occupants in order to get the people out in time. Back-up options must be prepared in case part of the system fails.
Ultimately, the question is "Does the design meet the performance criteria?". To ensure nothing is missed or miscommunicated, if a PBD is anticipated, the fire protection engineer needs to be involved during the design and especially construction document phases. A PBD report would give the executive summary, including assumptions made, list of stakeholders, fire source chosen, and test results. Ultimately, the safety of the space falls on the Owner and end users, so the operations and maintenance manual is critical to the success of a PBD. Maintaining what was built, how and when to replace or repair items, and why such components are critical to the performance need clear explanation to be understood by stakeholders throughout the lifecycle of this building.
As PBD is not inexpensive, it tends to be performed on larger, non-traditional specialty buildings, such as the Xcel Center. The complexity of the system is more difficult to design and install. But in these projects, it pays by allowing greater flexibility of design than prescriptive codes would have.
In summary, rather than relying on past disasters to affect codes, new technology in combination with PBD seems to be the wave of the future. And with this wave, I will say "good-bye".