ICC Code Hearings Wrap up With Decisions on Fenestration Assemblies

May 8th, 2012 by DWM Magazine

The International Code Council (ICC) reviewed several proposed changes to the International Building Code (IBC) related to exterior door and window assemblies and vertical glass during its code development hearings held last week and through the weekend in Dallas.

Julie Ruth, representing the American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA), was the proponent of a number of revisions related to exterior door and window assemblies:

Ruth proposed a revised version of the exception in section 1710.5 as part of proposal S172-12 to allow for comparative analysis.

“The current exception limits the use of comparative analysis to window units smaller than the size originally tested for labeling purposes,” writes Ruth in the proposal. “If comparative analysis is used to provide a higher design pressure rating of the smaller unit, its resistance to air infiltration and water penetration at the correspondingly higher design pressure required by AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 must be verified by testing of the unit. These characteristics cannot be determined by calculation.”

The ICC ultimately disapproved the proposal.

Ruth also proposed a revision to section 1710.5 as part of proposal S173-12 to clarify allowable stress design (ASD) loads. “The standards referenced in Section 1710.5 are based upon allowable stress design,” she wrote in the proposal. “This includes AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/440, ASTM E330 and ANSI/DASMA 108. This proposal adds a sentence to the beginning of the section that clarifies that ASD loads are to be used in the application of this section.”

The proposal was approved as submitted.

In sections 1710.5.1 and 1710.5.2, Ruth proposed revisions to tighten up testing levels as part of S174-12. “The integrity of the building envelope is dependent upon the performance of the fenestration in the envelope,” writes Ruth in the proposal. “This is as true for swinging doors as it is for sliding doors and windows. Previous attempts to extend the AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 labeling requirement to swinging doors were met with resistance. But to date, no acceptable alternative method of determining adequate performance of these products has been provided.

“Products that are labeled in accordance with AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 are now available on the marketplace,” continues Ruth in her proposal. “It’s time to tighten up this important component of the building envelope and require swinging doors to provide the same level of protection to the interior of the building that other components of the building envelope are required to provide.”

The proposal was disapproved by the committee.

For changes related to vertical glass, Ruth proposed suggestions to revise sections 2404.1, 2404.2, 2404.3.1, 2404.3.2, 2404.3.3, 2404.3.4, 2404.3.5, 2405.5.2 of the IBC as part of S295-12.

“The purpose of this proposal is to coordinate the glass design load equations of Chapter 24 with those of Chapter 16,” Ruth wrote in the proposal. “The design load equations of Chapter 16 of the 2012 IBC were revised as appropriate to respond to the change of design wind load model from Allowable Stress Design to Strength Design in ASCE 7-10. These revisions, however, were not carried back to the glass design load equations of Chapter 24. This proposal corrects this previous omission.”

The proposal was approved as submitted.

 

Tags: ,


Leave Comment

Powered by sweet Captcha