ICC Reports

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 176 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 01:48 pm:    How often do you get requests from plan review for ICC Reports? What do you do if they request one for a manufacturer/system that doesn't have one? I have had this issue arise a few times - this time they want an ICC Report for 3-coat stucco - and I can't locate one. Any thoughts? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 711 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 01:54 pm:    Hi Robin, Contact Parex and ask to speak with Pete Lovell, tell him I recommended you contact him. Don't worry that he is not in your general area, if needed he will get you a more local contact. 1-770-482-7872, ext 215 I believe that with their acquisition of Lahabra a year or so ago, Parex is the largest stucco manufacturer in the country. Feel free to mention my name. Always treat stucco as a manufacturer's system, not a 'scratch built' system of plaster components...just like you would treat EIFS. Otherwise, any report you get won't actually apply to what is installed. William Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 235 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 01:57 pm:    Table 7 in the UBC (720 in IBC) is prefered because they are generic assemblies, but yes, here in Southern California the local agencies all require either a Table 7, ICC-ES, or LA City Research Report test report for nearly every product/assembly used on site. The value of the architect's or engineers professional judgement regardng the adequacy of materials or assemblies seems to be a forgotten notion. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 813 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 02:23 pm:    The Evaluation Reports at ICC are a combination of all those from ICBO, SBCC, BOCA, and from ICC. They are voluntary on the part of manufacturers so not all are available [most mfrs. feel they have paid enough time and money in other approvals, but really ICC's are more universally accepted]. In addition, you need to be aware of the dates involved. Most of the reports are dated [upon issue] but carry a renewal requirement, usually after 1-year. Often code agencies will require the most recent version, which is an added problem to resolve [as many mfrs do not keep track and update as they should/must]. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 237 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 02:54 pm:    Ralph, fortunately this is not quite accurate. The ICC has allowed a large loophole that is very favorable. On the ICC report Index page, there is the following statement: PLEASE NOTE: All of the evaluation reports that may be downloaded from this web site are valid, although some have re-examination dates that have passed. In the case of the latter, the reports are currently undergoing re-examination as required by ICC-ES Rules of Procedure. Site URL: www.icc-es.org/Evaluation_Reports/index.shtml On the same page linked above, there is a link to the "Evaluation Report Index" (1.9MB PDF) that provides "A Combined Index of Current Active ICC-ES Reports", and is currently dated Feb 2008. Many of the reports I use are way way way outdated, but still valid as referenced above. I recently used my iPhone to pull up this info while sweating it out at an over the counter final plan check at the City of LA after a 14 month permit approval process. What a Godsend! Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 633 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 05:57 pm:    There should be no requirement for an ICC-ES Evaluation Report (ER) if the system is installed inaccordance with Section 2512 of the IBC (2006 Edition). Even "scratch built" systems as William mentioned are acceptable without an ER if the system as specified complies with this section. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 263 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 06:00 pm:    Good Luck getting that by DSA in California! We've had them reject systems because the product didn't have an ICC ES Report. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 634 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 06:11 pm:    Do you really want me to tell you what I think about the "Republic of California"? ;-) And, I'm sure they require a minimum of 3 products plus the infamous "or equal" clause - try to comply with that had still have ICC-ES ERs for each product. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 29 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, April 03, 2008 - 06:52 pm:    Richard, Asking for an ICC ES report for stucco is like asking for an ICC ES for pancakes. A little bit of this, and a little bit of that, add milk, etc, etc, and stir. Do AHJ's in the Republic of CA want ICC ES reports for each individual product that goes into a 3-coat portland cement plaster mix plus lath, sheathing paper, accessory trims, etc? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 815 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 07:55 am:    Thanks, Mr. Wood for the correction-- you are absolutely right. But I bet that this disclaimer still allows the very strident code official to deny acceptance where the report is still under review. I am sure many such officials will stand strong for only current reports [I've been among them] especially where the report is quite outdated-- i.e., where the review was not pursued promptly by the manufacturer. Things change too quickly not to be careful in what is allowed. Really this approval is a plus for the manufacturer and should be used as part of their marketing information by being printed on their brochures, etc. It saves all parties a lot of time when done. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 713 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 11:28 am:    Wayne, that's why you deal with stucco as a system, not a scratch built installation. If you are doing facades of buildings and trying to verify wind loading conditions, you have nothing from a scratch built installation. But you do with a system. You even get a warranty. Other than doing stucco as an interior application or on a personal project for my own personal use, I don't see a situation I would ever specify a non-system application on anything anymore. William Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 30 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 11:51 am:    William, I see your point, but connot envision an ICC-ES Report for a system made up of materials from several entities that are related in their end use but are individual components from variety of sources. No single source for all products in the system. I guess I see a UL Design style of report. Wayne Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 264 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 12:07 pm:    We have to give them one for the metal studs, but I don't think they've asked for them for the exterior sheathing or stucco yet. SSHHH - Maybe they won't notice. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 47 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 12:14 pm:    Ronald is correct regarding the need for ICC reports. The problem is that many jurisdictions are in the habit of requesting ICC Evaluation Reports and most design professionals find it easier to give in instead of fighting it. The problem is agrivated by ICC Evaluation Service's belief that even code compliant products need an evaluation report in order to document that the products have an adequate QC system. Marketing gets in the way of Code. Many building officials do not appreciate the difference. The interesting thing is that on DSA projects you seldom have to specify 3 or more products. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 714 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 12:34 pm:    Wayne, By system, it is, all components in the system from a single manufacturer or as recommended by them. That manufacture provides the report. All the stucco material itself is by the stucco manufacture from all the mixes, materials associated with the mix and its finish, and he recommends the required lath (if required), and his installation includes it as installed over various acceptable substrates. Its not just generic plaster type thing anymore, its a complete/total system. You end up with a decent warranty as well. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 238 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 12:46 pm:    I still think Table 7 in the UBC is the way to go for the origiona poster's question. Ralph, your "building official's" point of view is not understood by me. If the ICC says, and I quote All of the evaluation reports that may be downloaded from this web site are valid... why on earth would you overrule that and say it's not? I get so frustrated by administrative problems like this. Few if any of the building components used today are "exotic", but are well understood, comodity products. Somewhat off topic, one coat plaster systems have intriguing ICC reports. They all (I have only looked at 3 or 4 diff mfr's), establish a max load factor on the studs as a basis of their tested assembly. In a 3 story multifamily development in AZ, where one coat is very popular, the load factor prevents the system from being used. On one project, the City offical WANTS one coat, but I can't allow it, because of the ICC he demanded I furnish. delicious irony. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 747 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 12:50 pm:    William: I almost never specify a stucco "system" -- I use a four-coat system that is specified by coat and mix design, and also specify the lath and supports behind it. Our office regularly gets 10 year warranties on the stucco assembly. I vary the assembly by location and select the drainage products that go behind the stucco wall depending on the location. Currently I have two projects under construction -- one in Miami Beach and one in Las Vegas, and the stucco assemblies vary slightly because of the climate. I personally don't like the marketed systems -- stucco works well when it is adapted to the locale and the systems are not very adaptive. typically the ONLY specific product I specify is the top coat, usually an acrylic (Las Vegas) or silicone (Miami) based color coat. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 635 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 01:21 pm:    Nathan: Tables 7-A and 7-B in the UBC are the same as (or similar to) Tables 720.1(1) and 720.1(2) of the IBC. However, these establish fire-resistive requirements for a variety of systems, which the ICC-ES ERs don't address. The ICC-ES doesn't perform any testing of their own; they just evaluate a product or system based on data provided by the manufacturer, which may include fire-resistance testing from an approved testing lab. I don't believe a fire-resistance rating is what the jurisdiction wanted the ER for--they just want to make sure the product complies with the code. In my opinion, the ERs are at their best use when evaluating a product or system that isn't fully addressed in the building code. An excellent example are the very common building wrap materials, such as Tyvek. If you read the IBC, these products are not specifically mentioned as a water-resistive barrier. However, the code opens it up by allowing "other approved materials." It is cases like this where the ICC-ES ERs are most beneficial in getting a product or system through the building department. Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 239 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Friday, April 04, 2008 - 01:38 pm:    That's a very good point Mr Geren. It's been so long since I've done a non-rated building, I had forgotten all about them!