| Author |
Message |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 289
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 04, 2013 - 05:25 pm: |    |
Anyone have examples of specifying building materials using the current Euroclass standards? For a partial guide: http://virtual.vtt.fi/virtual/innofirewood/stateoftheart/database/euroclass/euroclass.html
I don't think you can just say comply with Euroclass because it includes 7 classes, one of which even has no specific performance. So everything complies with at least Class F. And you don't want to say minimum of E because code may require D, C, B, A2, or A1. Or one of the many more variations in the additional tables and in mfr product data that appear to go even beyond that.
Doesn't seem to be necessary or advisable to refer to the older test standards (which are embodied into the tables of the new Euroclass system anyway) because it would be easy to have partial and incorrect information.
Seems best to select the class for materials where fire performance is code required, know what the code needs the product to meet in the space where it is used, find materials that meet it, and specify according to the product data e.g. Euroclass Bfl-s1, C-s1, E1 90 - these are some I found that are not explained by the tables at the link above, no sure order to it all. |
Scott Mize
Senior Member
Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi
Post Number: 77
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Thursday, September 05, 2013 - 03:16 pm: | |
Forgive my curiosity, but who is asking you to specify using Euroclass standards?
We use a handful of British and German standards, but only because they are the *only* reference standard that covers the material/product/system in question (and because they are cited in the manufacturers' literature). |
Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA
Senior Member
Username: tsugaguy
Post Number: 290
Registered: 06-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 05, 2013 - 04:23 pm: | |
It is due to the local codes for the project. |
Dawn P. (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 09:15 am: | |
Speaking of Euroclass... I have a designer that keeps wanting to use products that only have the EN testing. Is there a document, organization entity, secret decoder ring for converting EN information to ASTM? Or, are these apples and oranges and I just need to tell my designer they are SOL (Sure Out of Luck)and suck it up and find a product that has been tested to our code requirements (ASTM E-84 or UL 723) |
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger
Post Number: 480
Registered: 07-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 02:58 pm: | |
There's no direct one-to-one correlation between EN standards and ASTM.
And it's the applicable building code that determines to which standards products and materials must comply, not the designer. |
Scott Mize
Senior Member
Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi
Post Number: 83
Registered: 02-2009
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 - 03:42 pm: | |
Even if there *were* a one-to-one correlation, you couldn't cite one standard in place of the other; standards aren't interchangeable.
(Pardon me if I'm stating the obvious. Try explaining this to your designer friend, Dawn. Maybe he'll [a] stop asking you to specify those products, or [b] encourage his favorite manufacturers to update their literature...)
A material, product or system has to be tested to or comply with the cited standard for the standard to be relevant.
I've seen this when foreign (particularly European) companies enter the North American building materials market. At first, they have little or no documentation that references US/Canadian standards. Then they have a few.
Once they figure out that the lack of testing (or attesting; ha, ha) is a barrier to the market, they get the testing done and update their literature.
I imagine American companies have a similar experience trying to sell in the European market (but I've never been a European architect faced with evaluating an American product).
By contrast, Chinese and Indian companies seem to have no trouble citing American standards in their product literature. Given the personal experience I've had with Indian-manufactured iron castings and the stories we've all heard about Chinese quality control, I'm just not sure whether to believe them. |
Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 10:55 am: | |
Little off the topic, but is it proper, legal, necessary or correct to incorporate OSHA requirements in specifications?
For long time have avoided this since it is a federal document to be enforced by the feds and not by private sources. Also, it is not listed in building code as reference standard, nor is it anything but regulations imposed on the owner outside the construction process.
Your ideas? |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 638
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 11:10 am: | |
Like so many things, it depends. Requirements that take "architectural" implementations (like toe boards at certain guard railings) would be incorporated into the project although OSHA would not necessarily be referenced. Fall protection and window washing rigging can be a big issue, but does not necessarily require implementation in the Project (no Drawings or Specs required). It is my understanding that requirements for fall protection will be incorporated into model building codes or may already be implemented in IBC 2012 (we have not yet adopted that in Houston). |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 11:13 am: | |
Ralph: OSHA is somewhat like the ADA--some permanent elements of the building need to comply. For OSHA, compliance is required for access ladders, window cleaning systems, and fall protection through roof openings (i.e. skylights), to name a few.
Back on topic: If a product only has EN testing it doesn't mean it cannot be used in the US. The IBC allows for alternate materials and methods, but the building official (BO) will need to be satisfied that the alternate material or method conforms to the intent of the code. A research report needs to be submitted to the BO for approval, and references to EN standards may be sufficient if some type of comparability can be shown.
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Alan Mays, AIA
Senior Member
Username: amays
Post Number: 145
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 01:17 pm: | |
@Peter: I looked at the 2013 CBC which is based on the IBC 2012 and I haven't seen any OSHA type changes. Fall protection is a big thing. While it may not specifically be in the spec, the drawings today should reflect some of those requirements. |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 690
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 04:04 pm: | |
Ron, have you done one of your whitepapers on alternate methods? (I’m too lazy - or too busy to get on your website right now) That might be an interesting topic if you haven't broached it yet. I'm thinking of things like firestopping engineered judgments, oversized door certificates, as well as what you mentioned with foreign standards.
In the course of a career, you run into several oddball cases like this. One of my favorites is a government booklet on the fire ratings of archaic building materials – I’ve used that more than once in a friendly discussion with the AHJ to establish ground rules for renovations.
Don’t you love suggestions that pile more on your already full plate?
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies
St. Louis, MO |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1161
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 04:32 pm: | |
George: Yes, it was my very first "Code Corner" article. Since it is nearing 10 years old, it may need a "redux."
The archaic building materials booklet you mentioned is now a part of the International Existing Building Code as "Resource A" located in the back of the code.
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 691
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 05:33 pm: | |
You are so good! I thought of another example - the NCMA eqivalency method for determining fire rating of CMU so your local block mfr. doesn't need to pay for the E119 test for every type of block they make.
I'll check out your "archaic" article when I get home tonight. Thanks for all you do for us.
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Ingersoll Rand Security Technologies
St. Louis, MO |
Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 1162
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2013 - 05:43 pm: | |
George:
I cover the the masonry method briefly in The Code Corner No. 19, "Calculating Fire Resistance." It is a method recognized in the IBC.
My other article only covers alternate materials and methods and not arcahic materials, but I did cover the NIBS archaic materials that is a part of the IEBC in The Code Corner No. 21, "Existing Buildings."
Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
|
4specs.com Home Page