Building Performance Knowledge Community

Expand all | Collapse all

NFPA 285

  • 1.  NFPA 285

    Posted 11-09-2012 11:19 AM
    The Chapter 26 code language requiring compliance with NFPA 285 is as follows:
    "2603.5 Exterior walls of buildings of any height. Exterior walls of buildings of Type I, II, III or IV construction of any height shall comply with Sections.............."
    .....therefore in my reading it is not limited to non load bearing curtainwall assemblies. When product reps say their products meet NFPA 285 what it should mean is that they have an ICC Evaluation Report showing the results of their product's inclusion in a successful 285 test and precisely delineating the assembly's composition as tested.

    -------------------------------------------
    Geoffrey Walters AIA
    Chicago IL
    -------------------------------------------


  • 2.  RE:NFPA 285

    Posted 11-12-2012 08:31 AM
    ICC Evaluation Services reports are intended to assist building officals in determining the technical compliance of a product with the Code. Since this determination is an individual decision of the building offical, having an ICC ES Report does not mean compliance with the technical requirements of the Code, nor does the failure of a product to have an ICC ES Report is determination of failure to comply with the Code.

    While ICC ES Reprts serve a role in providing some information on products, their testing, and installation requirements, they are not required by the Code and their usefulness is limited. Any product which claims to have been tested in accordance to an assembly test, should also indicate all the other specific products used in that test.

    I recently discussed this subject with a national masonry anchor manufacturer who indicated that their company have not engaged in any testing of their many products for compliance with NFPA 285 nor do they intend to do such testing. Their reason whas that until the industry resolves the circus surounding this test and the countless number of product combinations in an exterior wall assembly which would requyire testing, they were not going to waste the time and money.

    ICC needs to revaluate this code requirement.

    -------------------------------------------
    Dennis J. Hall, FAIA, FCSI
    Chairman ' CEO
    Hall Architects, Inc.
    Charlotte NC
    -------------------------------------------








  • 3.  RE:NFPA 285

    Posted 11-12-2012 10:32 AM
    During the 2012 Code Change Cycle, several changes were proposed to the sections in the 2012 IBC that require the use of NFPA 285 testing on exterior walls.  NIBS and AIA collaborated on two and a third was proposed by DuPont.  The DuPont change was recommended by the hearing committee for As Submitted, but with the understanding that it was a compromise solution between those that didn't want any change and those that wanted to delete the reference totally.

    This past summer NIBS hosted meetings of various interests in this issue to help focus the discussion. Although total agreement couldn't be reached, there was a consensus regarding the problem and several solutions were offered to the ICC membership for consideration in October at the annual meeting.

    The final decision by the membership was to accept two modifications to revise Section 1403.5 and adding the following three exceptions:

    1403.5 Vertical and lateral flame propagation. Exterior walls on buildings of Type I, II, III or IV construction that are greater than 40 feet (12 192 mm) in height above grade plane and contain a combustible water-resistive barrier shall be tested in accordance with and comply with the acceptance criteria of NFPA 285. For the purposes of this section, fenestration products and flashing of fenestration products shall not be considered part of the water resistive barrier. 


    Exceptions: 

    1. Walls in which the water-resistive barrier is the only combustible component and the exterior wall has a wall covering of brick, concrete, stone, terra cotta, stucco or steel with minimum thicknesses in accordance with Table 1405.2. 

    2. Walls in which the water-resistive barrier is the only combustible component and the water-resistive barrier has a Peak Heat Release Rate of less than 150 kW/m2, a Total Heat Release of less than 20 MJ/m2 and an Effective Heat of Combustion of less than 18 MJ/kg as determined in accordance with ASTM E1354 and has a flame spread index of 25 or less and a smoke-developed index of 450 or less as determined in accordance with ASTM E84 or UL 723. The ASTM E1354 test shall be conducted on specimens at the thickness intended for use, in the horizontal orientation and at an incident radiant heat flux of 50 kW/m2

    3. Windows and doors and flashing for windows and doors shall not be considered to be part of a water resistive barrier for purposes of this section. 


    A definition that is found in the IECC for fenestration was also added to the IBC.

    FENESTRATION. Skylights, roof windows, vertical windows (fixed or moveable), opaque doors, glazed doors, glazed block and combination opaque/glazed doors. Fenestration includes products with glass and nonglass glazing materials. 


    These will appear in the 2015 edition of the IBC.  These changes may also be instructive to those that are struggling with approvals under the currently adopted codes.

    -------------------------------------------
    David Collins FAIA
    President
    Preview Group, Inc.
    Cincinnati OH
    -------------------------------------------








  • 4.  RE:NFPA 285

    Posted 11-13-2012 10:04 AM
    The ICC should wake up and realize that the provisions for NFPA 285 testing have been widely ignored for the first 10 years of the IBC.  Code officials and most design professionals do not understand the requirements.  Too complicated. 

    The cost of specific assembly testing is stifling potential innovation and technologies.  Some of this makes sense for a highrise, but your average 4 story building? 

    Has big business taken over the codes?  Since the ICC was created they can now influence the code more easily.  One stop affects the whole US, it may have been less prone to influence under the legacy codes since it was more difficult to sway 3 separate entities.

    -------------------------------------------
    Paul Stockert AIA
    Technical Director
    EYP Architecture & Engineering P.C.
    Albany NY
    -------------------------------------------








  • 5.  RE:NFPA 285

    Posted 11-14-2012 10:33 AM

    In response to Mr. Stockton and Mr. Nelson, I understand the frustration and the confusion that the reference to NFPA 285 has caused.  That was why NIBS and AIA submitted proposals to delete it all together until we could sort out the applications and what the code truly intended to achieve.


    Unfortunately those proposals failed.  Part of the argument against it was that, despite the fact that it has been ignored by designers and code officials for years, it has been in the codes even prior to the creation of the ICC.  The exceptions were a compromise position to get some level of relief for the application of the test.


    The exceptions aren't perfect and I will attempt to get some clarification regarding the listed items that are not specifically listed, but they are better than current text and will allow further modifications as detailed items of concern are raised.  Any suggestions for what should be included or wording for inclusion would be welcome!



    -------------------------------------------
    David Collins FAIA
    President
    Preview Group, Inc.
    Cincinnati OH
    -------------------------------------------








  • 6.  RE:NFPA 285

    Posted 11-15-2012 09:13 AM

    A very knowledgeable resource for the NFPA 285 issue is
    Roy Schauffele
    Division 7 Solutions, Inc.
    210-859-3749
    roys@division7.com
    www.division7.com



    -------------------------------------------
    Patrick Cooper AIA
    Architect
    Parkhill, Smith & Cooper, Inc.
    Lubbock TX
    -------------------------------------------








  • 7.  RE:NFPA 285

    Posted 11-15-2012 10:34 AM
    David,

    First allow me take a step back. Thank you for all of your work at the ICC level. I am aware of the efforts that you, Henry Green, Theresa Weston, Julie Ruth and many others have put forward in preparation for and at the hearings fighting for clarity on this and many other issues. Your work is very much appreciated. Please understand that my frustration is not with you or the progress made in Dallas and Portland, but the underlying process that placed 1403.5 in the code that is also making it difficult (IMO) to correct. Chapter 26 is a different animal entirely as there are valid concerns on both sides of the aisle that will take time to resolve.

    I believe that while we prepare now for the next round at the ICC level (in 2015?); we should also be pushing for clarification and modification of the model language at the local level. To this end, this conversation is informative and I would love to see AIA, NIBS, AAMA, BETEC, BEC-National, and others interested come together and provide a "tool kit" of sorts with additional back up and explanation of the modifications offered to ICC on these issues (1403.5 and 2603). This would be aimed at providing a clear explanation of these requirements and their impacts on the industry in addition to the resources needed for practitioners across the country to engage their AHJ for this change. Maybe this is wishful thinking...

    I am available and happy to participate more directly in the national effort; plese let me know how and where to sign up.

    Regards,

    Keith

    -------------------------------------------
    Keith Nelson AIA
    Senior Associate
    Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
    Fairfax VA
    -------------------------------------------








  • 8.  RE:NFPA 285

    Posted 11-14-2012 12:18 PM
    Having observed code changes over the years, at the code source level, as well as state and local amendments, revisions, adoptions, etc., I wonder if it would be better if all proposed changes were required to provide evidentiary data, as opposed to unyielding pleading and begging, and sneaking around the back door when no one is looking. Even though a proposal may make sense to all who listen, actual, real time test data should be required, along with the proposal.

    -------------------------------------------
    Charles Graham AIA
    Architect
    O'Neal, Inc.
    Greenville SC
    -------------------------------------------








  • 9.  RE:NFPA 285

    Posted 01-24-2013 01:31 PM
    Thank you all for your answers.  

    1. So, decision-makers are:
    Architect
    Developer/Owner
    Engineers
    Contractors

    2. Movie, not snapshot of process - with several iterations

    You have offered
    3. Many different variables
    Budget - cost
    Building Codes
    Builing Performance - moisture, sound, envelope, fire, seismic/weather
    Building Purpose
    Building Structure - consider this a given for this line of inquiry so light commercial buildings, e.g. structural and curtain walls, etc.
    Climate
    Contractors
    Local practices/familiarity/availabilty of contractors, materials, aesthetics
    Schedule

    4 - Remaining question for the project design.  
    We will be interviewing companies in US and Canada, so geography, climate, and codes will be intrinsically addressed.  What about small, medium and large?  How can we differentiate between a small user of cfs to a large one in light commercial construction?  Is it in number of projects and sq', or in annual revenue of firm, or # employees, % of projects involving cfs?

    Would you be willing to take part in a telephone focus group to discuss this?  The variables, mostly.  What circumstances, or set of circumstances favor steel?  What is "the perfect storm" of variables that result is cfs being the first choice?  By the way, the telephone focus groups last 75 minutes and are paid.  They will take place in February, so soon.

    I really appreciate the time you've taken and your thoughtful answers. Thank you again,

    Kathy
    -------------------------------------------
    Kathy FLAMENT
    President
    Flament Associates, LLC
    Rehoboth Beach DE
    -------------------------------------------








  • 10.  RE:NFPA 285

    Posted 11-13-2012 11:04 AM
    David,

    Fantastic information, Thank you! The fenestration definition per IECC is most helpful.

    My questions regarding 2015 IBC section 1403.5 are (updated from a recent LinkedIn Post found here  http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?seeMore=&split_page=2&type=member&item=104065478&gid=4316378&goback=%2Egmp_4316378): 
     
    A) If they accepted PC1 (which added the last sentence before Exceptions) should Exception #3 of PC2 deleted? 
        Mr. Collins answered this by providing teh text above.

    B) Are other flashings, transitions membranes, etc that are not associated with fenestration products also not considered part of the WRB similar to those associated with fenestration? I am thinking of relief angles, movement joints, parapets, corners, etc... If not, this language does little good unless these other areas are somehow otherwise exempt.
        Based on the IECC definition of Fenestration all transitions membranes not associated with doors and windows (such as relief angles, movement joints, parapets, corners, etc) are not included in the exemption and will trigger compliance with NFPA 285... So it is not clear to me that this exception accomplished anything substantial.

    C) What products meet the exception outlined in exception #2? Which do not? Do manufacturers have this test data readily available?
        This question is unanswered.

    D) What is the documented risk to the "...safeguard [of] the public health and safety..." does this section address that justified its addition to the code in the first place?
        I agree with portions of Mr. Stockert comments... Are the ICC procedures in need of reworking to ensure that the goal of the model codes and the focus of activities at ICC hearings are to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public? In cases like the addition and modification of IBC sec 1403.5, it could be inferred that the focus may have been be of manufacturers (and manufacturers interest groups) working to "jockey" for a better market position. Asked a different way, does anyone see a time where the "model codes" will be complete and hearings virtually unnecessary?

    Regards,

    Keith
    -------------------------------------------
    Keith P. Nelson, AIA
    Senior Associate
    Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
    Fairfax VA
    -------------------------------------------