JBeD
Journal of Building Enclosure Design
An official publication of the National Institute of Building Sciences
Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council (BETEC)
National Institute of Building Sciences: An Authoritative Source of Innovative Solutions for the Built Environment
Summer 2012
Testing for Foam
Insulation on
Exterior Walls
JBED
Published For:
The National Institute of Building
Sciences Building Enclosure Technology and
Environment Council
1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005-4905
Phone: (202) 289-7800
Fax: (202) 289-1092
nibs@nibs.org
www.nibs.org
Contents
Features:
NFPA 285: What You
13
17
Need to Know
Understanding NFPA
285: A Consultant’s
Perspective on the
Code
PRESIDENT
Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA
19
How do the
Requirements of
NFPA 285 Affect
the Work of General
Contractors?
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
Earle W. Kennett
PUBLISHED BY:
Matrix Group Publishing Inc.
Please return all undeliverable addresses to:
5190 Neil Road, Suite 430
Reno, NV 89502
Phone: (866) 999-1299
Fax: (866) 244-2544
21
Building Enclosure
Design Considerations
with NFPA 285
PRESIDENT & CEO
Jack Andress
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
Jessica Potter
jpotter@matrixgroupinc.net
Publisher
Peter Schulz
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Shannon Savory
ssavory@matrixgroupinc.net
EDITOR
Alexandra Walld
FINANCE/ACCOUNTING &
ADMINISTRATION
Shoshana Weinberg, Pat Andress,
Nathan Redekop
accounting@matrixgroupinc.net
DIRECTOR OF MARKETING &
CIRCULATION
Shoshana Weinberg
SALES MANAGER – WINNIPEG
Neil Gottfred
SALES MANAGER – HAMILTON
Brian Davey
MATRIX GROUP PUBLISHING INC.
ACCOUNT EXECUTIVES
Rick Kuzie, Miles Meagher, Ken Percival,
Christopher Smith, Rob Choi, Jeff Cash,
Michelle Stirling, Krystal Vanbenberg, Keith
Richards, Brian MacIntyre, Kyle Yewman,
Brodie Armes, John Ahsmann, Patrick
Lymburner, Colleen Bell, Jeff Boyle, Declan
O’Donovan, Wilma Gray-Rose, Monique
Simons, Laura Baxter, David Roddie, Mike
Bissonnette
ADVERTISING DESIGN
James Robinson
LAYOUT & DESIGN
Travis Bevan
©2012 Matrix Group Publishing Inc. All rights
reserved. Contents may not be reproduced by
any means, in whole or in part, without the
prior written permission of the publisher. The
opinions expressed in JBED are not necessarily
those of Matrix Group Publishing Inc. or the
National Institute of Building Sciences/
Building Enclosure Technology and
Environment Council.
Messages:
Message from Institute
09
11
President Henry L. Green
Message from BETEC
Chairman Wagdy Anis
Industry Updates:
25
Trust but Verify: Building
Enclosure Commissioning
Comes of Age
31
36
BEC Corner
Buyer’s Guide
On the cover: The NFPA 285 test is
performed using a two-story chamber called
the Intermediate-Scale, Multi-Story Test
Apparatus (ISMA). The test method evaluates
the flammability of non-load-bearing wall assemblies containing combustible components
for vertical/horizontal flame propagation
and temperature rise. This is accomplished
by exposing an exterior wall assembly to a
calibrated fire on both the interior side of the
first floor and at the opening on the exterior
surface of the wall assembly. Thermocouples
are placed throughout the wall cavity and on
the wall surfaces to capture the temperature
rise during the test. Duration of the flame
exposure is 30 minutes with a 10 minute
observation period. The photo is courtesy of
Architectural Testing.
Summer 2012 7
Message from the National Institute of Building Sciences
To ensure that future code provisions do not
have a negative impact on the building enclosure,
BETEC and the Building Enclosure Councils
(BECs) should strive to pursue the evaluation of
code provisions that address the areas of building
enclosures, envelopes and the protection of interior
environmental conditions.
Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA
As you read through this edition
of the Journal of Building Enclosure
Design (JBED), you will note significant
discussion on the application of fire safety
provisions in the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 285 standard
and how these provisions relate to the
building enclosure. Over the past several
months, I have been engaged with members of the Building Enclosure Technology
and Environment Council (BETEC) in the
preparation of proposed changes to the
International Code Council (ICC) International Building Code (IBC) to seek some
relief from the application of a provision
that may tend to limit the acceptance of
certain materials widely used in achieving
an enclosure that is resistant to air infiltration, water migration and moisture penetration. I thought it might be important
to discuss the code development process
and how this work is proceeding.
The ICC code development process
is open to all who wish to participate.
Whether a proposed code change passes
rests on the final vote of government officials who administer and, specifically,
enforce the construction regulations in
their respective communities and serve as
representatives of governmental subdivisions throughout the country. Industry
representatives and others may participate throughout the entire discussion on
code provisions but may not vote on the
final outcome. While some people have
criticized this process, it has been in place
for more than 40 years and has served the
building community well.
BETEC took first steps earlier this year
to address the code provision, submitting
a code proposal to revise the language
found in Sections 1403.5, Vertical and lateral flame propagation, and 2603.5, Foam
plastic insulation in exterior walls of buildings of any height. Without digging too
deep into the technical issues, I want to
outline the process to acquaint you with
the actions taken and where we are today.
The authors in this issue have taken great
care in discussing the technical issues.
Each code proposal is submitted for
evaluation by a committee consisting of
15 individuals representing code officials,
the design and construction community,
fire safety professionals and material suppliers. The committee reviews the proposed revisions with care, listens to all
who wish to comment on the code proposal and provides a recommended decision for consideration by the entire ICC
membership. This recommended decision is then sent out for public comment.
Any individual may submit a comment in
support or opposition to the committee
recommendation.
We are now in the process of developing
public comments on the three proposals
submitted for consideration. In two cases,
Code Proposals FS148-12 and FS187-12,
the committee recommended for disapproval. The third, Code Proposal FS14712, was unanimously recommended for
approval by the committee. This provision
includes an exception for use of certain
combustible materials and water resistive barriers. In the two proposals recommended for disapproval, to overcome the
negative recommendation, BETEC needs
to provide documentation to address the
concerns cited by the committee. Over
the course of the next few weeks, we will
be working to address these concerns and
provide a public comment in response to
the committee recommendation.
It is interesting to note the committee
was not without reservation on the part
of these proposals; one failed by one vote
(FS148-12). This would indicate our discussion was persuasive but may not have
met all of the concerns the committee
raised. As we move forward I will continue
to update you on the progress made in
this effort. The Final Action Hearings for
the IBC will occur in October in Portland,
Oregon.
To ensure that future code provisions do not have a negative impact on
the building enclosure, BETEC and the
Building Enclosure Councils (BECs)
should strive to pursue the evaluation of
code provisions that address the areas
of building enclosures, envelopes and
the protection of interior environmental
conditions.
The discussion at BEST3 approached
a number of issues based on the science
without specifically addressing the codes
and standards that make up our regulatory process. This science can work to
improve our application of materials
that can improve our environment and
achieve safety, as well as lower the cost
of construction. However, it is important that the science becomes part of the
codes as well. As we work toward BEST4
in 2015, I would encourage the planning
team and the participants to include discussions on codes and standards as a
part of the dialogue, in addition to how
science can help reach the best overall
solutions.
I hope this issue is thought-provoking
and may even inspire you to get more involved in the code development process.
Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA
President
National Institute of Building Sciences
Summer 2012 9
10 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Message from the Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council
The cost of testing to meet the requirements runs
into many millions that the industry can ill afford,
and the money is going to consultants and testing
labs who are promoting the requirements.
Wagdy Anis, FAIA, LEED-AP
Welcome to the summer edition of
the Journal of Building Enclosure Design
(JBED). I plan to report on two things.
First is the very successful third Building
Enclosure Science and Technology Conference (BEST3), organized by the Building
Enclosure Technology and Environment
Council (BETEC) and Building Enclosure
Councils (BECs) in the United States. The
conference theme was: High Performance
Buildings - Combining Field Experience
with Innovation. The event was held in
Atlanta, in the historic John Portman-designed Westin Peachtree Plaza hotel, the
tallest hotel in the western hemisphere.
Dinner was at the exquisite awardwinning High Museum of Art, designed by
Richard Meier. Here we listened to building
scientist and BETEC Board Member Chris
Mathis, who regaled us with his views of the
state of energy efficiency in the construction industry. We also had the opportunity
to view the exquisite art collection.
BEST3 offered participants two concurrent conference tracks: Energy Efficiency/
Fenestration and Whole Buildings. Conference highlights included an expert panel
presentation on quality management.
Twenty-two sessions offered more than 70
peer-reviewed papers and allowed participants to earn continuing education credits. Additionally, a products expo allowed
conference participants to speak directly to
exhibitors and see the latest developments
in building envelope products and services.
BEST3 was a great event, attended by more
than 300 people.
A huge thank you goes to our sponsors,
led by Soprema. A special thank you also
goes to Building Enclosure Council Atlanta,
the conference host and organizer. BEC
Chair John Preece was there presiding over
the proceedings. Thank you especially to
the technical committee, which consisted
of Mark Bomberg, Dave Yarbrough, Don
Onysko and Stanley Yee, and to the staff at
the National Institute of Building Sciences,
without whose hard work this would not
have been possible.
The next subject I wish to report on is the
requirements for foam insulation National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 285 fire
testing in Chapter 22 of the International
Building Code (IBC). There are several code
officials now applying this requirement,
making it difficult to use existing systems
that have been utilized for many years without reported incidents.
The insulation testing requirements disallow closed cell plastic foam as continuous insulation in many wall assemblies that
have been used for decades. Closed cell
foam provides superior insulating value,
minimizes water intrusion into insulation
and provides water vapor control in southern climates. Each of these values adds to
the ability to provide energy-efficient assemblies that meet the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requirements
for continuous insulation.
Chapter 14 of the IBC also contains new
requirements that disallow combustible
water-resistive barriers and flashings and
requires testing to NFPA 285 requirements.
The ability to provide durable buildings
with advanced energy-efficient enclosures
is hampered. For these reasons, BETEC and
BEC National have submitted code revisions to address these issues. NFPA 285 is
not applicable to buildings with sprinklers.
The test is for a two-story enclosure assembly with a window on the first floor; the fire
source is a flash-over fire from the interior of
the building, coming out of the window and
supplemented by an additional fire source
outside the window. The fire load is reportedly the equivalent of six tonnes of maple
wood burning, simulated by a gas fire flashing out of the window and supplemented by
another fire outside. These seem to be excessive loads that are unlikely and may not occur in a fully sprinkler-suppressed building.
As the rest of the world is trying to meet
advanced energy efficiency goals, such as
Passive House, with better durability standards, there are elements of the building
code that are counter to this goal. Cost
considerations must be taken into account
as buildings are being proposed as highperforming energy-efficient structures.
Looking at a building system without taking a holistic approach is counter-intuitive
and may not produce the best overall results. The cost of testing to meet the requirements runs into many millions that
the industry can ill afford, and the money
is going to consultants and testing labs
who are promoting the requirements. It
is also impossible to test hybrid assemblies that involve multiple manufacturers,
which may provide technical solutions to
some of the problems. The tested assemblies, to this point, far from meet the technical requirements of energy-efficient,
durable assemblies.
Codes and standards should not yield
to special interests but must provide an approach that strives to achieve the safest and
most cost effective solutions that achieve
energy-efficient, durable enclosures.
Wagdy Anis, FAIA, LEED-AP
Chairman, BETEC
Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
Summer 2012 11
12 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Feature
NFPA 285: What You
Need to Know
By Jesse J. Beitel
Many architects, designers and specifiers are
surprised when I say that National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 285, or one of its precursors, have been required for exterior walls that contain foam plastic insulation since 1988. Since
that time, this requirement has been in the three Legacy Codes
(see insert) and in the International Code Council’s (ICC) International Building Code (IBC). This article will discuss the history
of the test, the test method and, especially, its applicability.
The origins of NFPA 285 began during the energy crisis of the
1970s. At that time, it was proposed by the plastics industry to use
foam plastic insulation on or in exterior walls to increase their
energy efficiency. The building codes required (and still do) that
exterior walls of Types I, II, III and IV construction shall be of
noncombustible construction. Thus, the proposals were rejected
because foam plastic insulation is a combustible material and
because of concerns regarding the vertical spread of fire on and
in these types of wall systems.
In the late-1970s, an Exterior Wall Task Group was formed
under the auspices of the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI)
with the primary goal of developing a fire test method to evaluate the potential for flame spread of foam plastic insulation when
installed on exterior walls. This test was intended to address the
concerns expressed by code and fire officials when they rejected
the code proposals. Based on discussions with many of these
officials, the test was designed to expose the wall assembly to a
“typical” fire scenario in which a fire occurs inside a room, vents
through a window opening and exposes the exterior wall to a
flame plume exiting the window opening.
The specific fire performance characteristics that were of concern and thus needed to be addressed were:
• Vertical and lateral flame propagation over the exterior face of
the wall assembly;
• Vertical flame propagation within the combustible core, air
cavities, or within combustible components from one story to
the next;
• Vertical flame propagation over the interior surface of the wall
assembly from one story to the next; and
• Lateral flame propagation from the compartment of fire origin
to adjacent compartments or spaces.
The test fixture consisted of an outside two-story building
that was 24 ft. high, with floor heights of 12 ft. At that time, the
plastics industry proposed to use foam and one adjacent side
wall) of the building and the remaining walls were closed using
concrete masonry. The full-scale fire test was designed to provide the recommended fire exposure to the exterior walls and to
demonstrate, in a realistic fire scenario, if the appropriate fire
performance characteristic could be demonstrated by the exterior walls. FIGURE 1 provides a photograph of the front wall
during the test.
Based on this test program and the successful performance
of several foam plastic insulated wall systems, a code change to
allow the use of foam plastics on the exterior walls of all construction types, as well as the test method, were adopted by the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) in 1988. The test was designated
as UBC 17-6, Method of Test for the Evaluation of Flammability
Characteristics of Exterior Nonload-Bearing Wall Panel Assemblies Using Foam Plastic Insulation. The other building codes also
adopted similar versions of this code change. In the 1994 UBC,
the test standard was renumbered as UBC 26-4.
In the early 1990s, a second test program was initiated by SPI
to develop a reduced-scale version of the large-scale test. This
resulting test protocol used a smaller, indoor, multi-story test apparatus, with gas-fired burners to produce the same UBC 26-4
exposure conditions. After development of the test apparatus, a
series of tests showed a correlation between the new intermediate-scale test and the UBC 26-4. This reduced-scale test was also
adopted and became the UBC 26-9.
Finally, in 1998, NFPA promulgated NFPA 285, Standard
Fire Test Method for Evaluation of Fire Propagation Characteristics of Exterior Non-Load-Bearing Wall Assemblies Containing
Figure 1. UBC 17-6 test in progress.
Summer 2012 13
Combustible Components. This standard was based on the UBC
26-9 test and is technically the same with the only differences being formatting and editorial issues. FIGURE 2 provides a photograph of the NFPA 285 test in progress.
The increased experience with NFPA 285 has widened its
applicability and has been extended to control the use of other
types of combustible materials used on or in exterior walls.
The use of NFPA 285 to evaluate various exterior walls in Type
I to IV construction is referenced in several sections of the 2012
edition of the IBC. The references are:
1. Section 2603.5 – Required when foam plastic is used in exterior walls, of any height.
2. Section 1407 – Required when metal composite materials are
used as exterior veneer on exterior walls that are greater than
40 ft. in height.
3. Section 1409 – Required when high-pressure decorative exterior-grade compact laminates are used as exterior veneer on
exterior walls that are greater than 40 ft. in height.
4. Section 2612 – Required when fiber-reinforced plastics are
used as exterior veneer on exterior walls that are greater than
40 ft. in height.
5. Section 1403.5 – Required where combustible water-resistive
barriers are used in exterior walls that are greater than 40 ft.
in height.
Several important points concerning the applicability and use
of test results must be emphasized:
• This test is based on the performance of the entire wall assembly. The complete wall assembly must be tested, including
each component that could contribute to the combustibility
performance of the overall assembly. Included in this list are
elements such as combustible air/vapor/water resistive barriers and insulation materials.
• The results of the test are specific to the assembly tested.
Material substitutions such as one type of veneer/cladding,
exterior insulation or water resistive barrier for another can
provide different results. Substitutions must be evaluated by
either a new test or an appropriate analysis under the “Alternative materials, design and methods of constructions and
equipment” section of the IBC, which must then be approved
by the code official.
• Changes in the wall system geometry may also have a significant effect on overall performance. Even using identical wall
assembly components, changes in geometry (for example,
addition of air cavities, etc.) can have a significant impact on
the test results. Such changes must be evaluated by either a
new test or an appropriate analysis under the “Alternative materials, design and methods of constructions and equipment”
section of the IBC, which must then be approved by the code
official.
• Specific component testing showing compliance with NFPA
285 is not an indication that these components, when combined to create a new wall assembly, will meet the requirements of NFPA 285. For example, if two materials, such as
exterior cladding and a combustible insulation, are each tested independently and meet the criteria of the NFPA 285 test,
the combination of these two materials may not meet the intent of the code or the NFPA 285 performance requirements.
The new combination wall assembly must also be tested as
intended for use.
In summary, the NFPA 285 test provides a means to evaluate the potential for vertical and lateral flame propagation on
and within exterior walls containing combustible components.
As such, NFPA 285 has become the primary test to evaluate and
regulate the fire performance of combustible materials used on
or in exterior walls that are required to be of noncombustible
construction.
n
Jesse J. Beitel, Senior Scientist/Principal for Hughes Associates,
Inc., serves as second vice chair of ASTM Committee E05 on fire
standards and he is also a member of Committee D20 on plastics. He is an expert on fire performance and the flammability of
materials.
Figure 2. An NFPA 285 test in progress.
14 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
The Three Legacy Codes
1. BOCA National Building Code (BOCA/NBC) by the Building Officials Code Administrators International (BOCA).
2. Uniform Building Code (UBC) by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO).
3. Standard Building Code (SBC) by the Southern Building
Code Congress International (SBCCI).
Summer 2012 15
16 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Feature
Understanding NFPA 285:
A Consultant’s Perspective on the Code
By David L. Wolff, AIA
The building codes we use are
amended every three years to keep up
with advances in technology and culture.
The International Code Council (ICC) and
countless building professionals are continually revising, rewriting and clarifying
what is in the public’s best interest in terms
of health and life safety. Occasionally during this process, unintended consequences
arise when seemingly unrelated areas of
the code are thrown into opposition.
As we strive for improved energy efficiency by adding exterior insulation, we
sometimes encounter potential conflicts
with fire and life safety codes. For example,
the use of foam plastic insulation (FIGURE
1) outside the sheathing in an exterior wall
cavity installed to meet the prescriptive requirement for continuous insulation found
in the International Energy Conservation
Code (IECC) necessitates assembly testing
using National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) 285. The need for testing can add
expense, complexity and time to a project.
We arrived at this situation circuitously
when something new—the use of continuous insulation—triggered a response from
an older area of the code.
In the early 1980s, specific attention
to foam plastic used on the exterior of
buildings came into focus with the rise
of exterior insulation finishing systems
(EIFS) and the insulated metal panel industries. Because they understood that a
highly combustible material was being
used in large quantities in exposed areas,
code officials and manufacturers got together and established codes and policies to protect life safety. In the process,
the required testing of wall assemblies
paved the way for what was to become
the NFPA 285 test.
The EIFS industry worked with building
code professionals to achieve consensus on
code requirements for their products and
then developed assemblies to comply. It
was not until the introduction of foam plastic to meet continuous insulation requirements that anyone remembered Chapter
26 (plastics) or NFPA 285. Architects, while
constantly responding to code changes,
were caught unaware of this conflict since
Chapter 26 did not change over the years.
It had been sitting quietly in the code for
decades, until now.
The change came when builders started
putting foam insulation in the exterior wall
cavity, outside of the sheathing. This triggered the need for an NFPA 285 tested assembly. The building code officials—the
plans examiners themselves—are often
caught off-guard and unaware of the situation. It is not hard to understand the architect’s confusion at being told by the
enclosure consultant that their wall assembly does not meet code when they have
seen nothing about it in the plan check
comments.
What this causes, day to day, in the
design and building community is confusion and frustration. As designers adapt to
the ever-changing flood of requirements,
products and technologies, they understandably use what appears to be the best
product for the job at the time. When new
products and processes trigger unforeseen
complications, difficulties arise. Too often,
the building enclosure consultant is the
first to bring such conflicts to light and is
occasionally, “shot” in the process of delivering the message.
As building enclosure consultants, we
find ourselves in a difficult position. Because we are aware of the code language,
we must say something about non-complying situations. If we turn a blind eye to
something that is explicitly called out in
the code, we can be seen as having liability
should there be a problem. Often, however,
the architect doesn’t want to hear that his
wall does not meet code. First, it makes the
architect look bad, as he or she should have
known about the code, and, second, it is
likely to disrupt the project schedule and
budget—sacrilege in the best of circumstances. Finally, it is often hard to convince
an architect that anything is amiss if the
plans examiner is not even aware of the
problem.
One of the reasons the issue has not received more attention is probably because
of the lack of actual, centralized, documentable problems stemming from the use
of foam plastic insulation in the exterior
wall cavity. Loss is, however, theoretically
possible. With more and more buildings
being built with untested foam plastic insulation assemblies, the possibility of real
damage from fire constantly grows. And, as
with most code issues, the architect is ultimately responsible. The code official, while
charged with enforcement, has no legal
Figure 1. Typical foam plastic cavity insulation installation.
Summer 2012 17
Figure 2. Using mineral wool insulation instead of foam plastic eliminates the
need for fire testing.
liability. It does not matter if the issue was
completely ignored in the plan check. The
reality is that the architect (and the general
contractor for that matter) is responsible
for designing and constructing a building
according to code.
Architects are constantly working with
increasingly tighter fees and schedules on
ever-more complex projects. Continuous
insulation is a good example of greater
complexity. The building enclosure gets
more complex as continuous insulation
causes the cladding to be farther offset
from the sheathing. Thermal bridging
adds to the difficulty of designing a cladding attachment system that must span
the insulation, minimize heat transfer and
structurally support the cladding. If foam
plastic insulation is used, details around
openings must be carefully designed to
proven standards that have passed NFPA
285. Mineral wool insulation is an alternate
to foam plastic. It eliminates the need for
fire testing all together (FIGURE 2).
In order to meet the requirements for
using foam plastics in a wall cavity, the assembly must pass NFPA 285. The individual materials are not being tested as much
as the entire assembly, including installation. Once an assembly has passed (at a
cost of $50,000 to $60,000), any substitution
of sheathing, weather barrier, insulation,
cladding, etc., requires another test or, at
least, an engineering judgment.
EIFS systems are typically furnished by
a single manufacturer. This simplifies the
problems encountered in meeting NFPA
285. An EIFS manufacturer can design a
system that passes the test and then can
supply every material in the assembly to
ensure that it is built to code. On the other
hand, cavity walls are normally an assembly
of separate parts put together by separate
trades. In order to keep costs competitive,
the desire is to provide performance specifications for as many of the materials in an
assembly as possible. Strict adherence to
the make and model of each component
in a tested assembly removes much of the
latitude that allows for the development of
performance-based specifications rather
than identifying proprietary wall assemblies that discourage competitive bidding.
Architects need to be able to design wall
systems with a reasonable amount of flexibility and confidence while meeting or exceeding the minimum code requirements.
One solution for adding flexibility to the
specification process is to move toward
a list of approved assemblies (such as an
Underwriters Laboratories¹ list) in order to
encourage competitive bidding. This would
allow the architect to specify performance
rather than product. Insurance certifiers
such as FM Global can also play a part by
becoming more involved in the discussion
of risk management. It could also be possible that we need to revisit the appropriateness of Chapter 26/NFPA 285. Further
education, discussion and review are necessary to attain reasonable, economical
solutions to our enclosure challenges while
remaining sensitive to life safety issues. n
David L. Wolff, AIA, is a building enclosure consultant with over 30 years’ experience in architecture and construction. He
holds a Masters of Architecture from the
University of Texas in Austin and has experience with projects worldwide. At The Facade Group, Wolff is responsible for project
management, sustainability research, design and code compliance reviews, as well
as marketing and business development
efforts.
REFERENCE
1. Underwriters Laboratories is an
independent, not-for-profit product safety testing and certification
organization.
18 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Feature
How do the Requirements of NFPA 285
Affect the Work of General Contractors?
By Martin Houston, AIA
“The contractor is not required to ascertain that the Contract Documents are in accordance with applicable
laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations, or lawful orders of public authorities, but the
contractor shall promptly report to the architect any nonconformity discovered by or made known to the
contractor as a request for information in such form as the architect may require.”
– AIA Document A201- 2007
AS CONTRACTORS, OUR PERSPECTIVE
on the code is heavily influenced by how
it affects our ability to successfully deliver
work to our clients. Changes to the code
that affect the three constraints of project
delivery (cost, schedule and quality) must
be fully understood by the design and construction team in order to plan for and/or
mitigate the impact of those changes.
Over the past few years, our clients have
identified energy efficiency as a key component to their financial stability. Because
so many clients continue to own and operate the facilities we build for them, they are
acutely aware of the impact of rising energy
costs to their bottom line. And because increases in energy costs are far in excess of
the cost of living increases our clients receive for providing housing, controlling
energy consumption has become a high
priority.
During the same period, the 2010 Oregon Energy Efficiency Specialty Code identified continuous exterior insulation as a
prescriptive path to energy code compliance. It was not until these two conditions
arose that continuous exterior insulation
became an almost default answer to both
code compliance and to meeting our clients’ needs to reduce energy consumption.
It was also at this point that the implications
of Section 2603.5 of the Oregon Structural
Specialty Code (OSSC) on the use of continuous exterior foam plastic insulation became apparent.
OSSC Section 2603.5.5 requires that wall
assemblies that include foam plastic insulation be tested according to National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 285. For a
general contractor, knowledge of this code
requirement requires that we ask our design partners to confirm if the assemblies
within the set of construction documents
are compliant with Section 2603.5. But we
also have to look beyond that question to
determine how this code requirement affects our work.
NFPA 285 is an assembly test, not a component test. As such, the entire assembly,
with each specified material, is required to
create a compliant assembly. This means
that neither the designer, general contractor nor subcontractors can substitute materials into this assembly—to do so would
render it non-compliant. Each assembly
tested according to NFPA 285 is therefore a
proprietary assembly. Proprietary assemblies lock contractors into specific materials, often requiring installation by a select
few installers. This is a clear advantage for
those installers and their price reflects the
fact that competition has been greatly reduced by the use of proprietary assemblies.
Generic assemblies tend to allow the contractor and subcontractors to bring value
to the table and help to create competitive
bidding. In our current economic climate,
being cost competitive is essential to landing the job, so we must look for options to
meet the increasing demands for energy efficient assemblies.
Using mineral wool in lieu of foam plastic insulation is one option currently considered by our company and our partners
in the design and consulting industries (see
the included sidebar on page 20). Mineral
wool insulation has been used extensively
in Europe and Canada for some time and is
often used throughout the United States for
fire-safing and other interior uses. However,
it is relatively new to the Pacific Northwest
for use in exterior insulated assemblies.
Mineral wool offers distinct advantages over foam plastic insulation in that
it is not governed by Section 2603.5 (rocks
don’t burn), is vapor permeable and allows
water to drain freely through the material.
However, most subcontractors involved in
building enclosure construction are not familiar with the product and the distribution
network reliability is unknown.
Assemblies using mineral wool insulation still need to meet the requirements of
ASTM E119 according to Section 703.2, and
may therefore provide no relief from being
a proprietary assembly. This same section
of the code allows the addition of materials (such as mineral wool insulation) to a
tested assembly (generic or proprietary)
assuming the building official agrees that
the fire resistance rating is not reduced.
We continue to investigate with our design
partners additional means to provide highly energy-efficient assemblies that provide
the required fire resistance—at a competitive cost.
There are clear cost implications to the
inclusion of foam plastic insulation in exterior assemblies. They include not only the
cost of the insulation itself, but also additional materials and detailing around openings to allow cladding to return to doors and
windows. Brick ties and ledgers increase in
size and cost. And for an owner, there is the
leasable square footage lost, however minor
that may be. There is a schedule implication
in that exterior insulation is another layer to
be added to the building envelope, a layer
that must be well-detailed to be most effective, requiring more attention to detail (and
therefore time) than installing traditional
batt insulation. Despite the cost and schedule implications, there is a compelling case
to be made for the increase in project quality through the use of continuous exterior
insulation. A continuous thermal control
layer certainly reduces energy consumption but it also eliminates the thermal cycling of the building structure and protects
Summer 2012 19
both the structure and any control layers
it surrounds from the negative effects of
UV and bulk moisture. The consequent increase in building durability indicates that
an exterior insulated assembly is a clear improvement in building quality.
Over the past two years, we have joined
a growing number of industry professionals seeking clarity on the application of this
code language, to no avail. The design community in general has been caught off guard
by OSSC Section 2603.5.5. During constructability reviews we conduct on each project
during pre-construction, we have repeatedly asked our design partners, “Does this
assembly, which includes continuous exterior foam plastic insulation, meet the requirements of Section 2603.5.5?” When the
question was asked initially, we were often
met with blank stares.
Now, as exterior insulated assemblies
become the norm in the Pacific Northwest,
the question has been asked often enough
that there is at least some familiarity with
this code requirement. Similarly, the Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJs) with
whom we have worked appear to have been
caught flat-footed, not fully understanding
the implications of the revised energy codes
on the fire resistance requirements for exterior insulated assemblies. At the local level,
the AHJs are struggling to provide clarity on
how Section 2603.5 is to be applied. At the
national level, there is confusion about how
to apply 2603.5, with conflicting interpretations issued by the ICC.
During Walsh Construction’s Quality
Seminar on Fire Rated Construction in Portland in June 2011, one presentation focused
on this code section. We outlined changes in
the energy code that drive the use of continuous exterior insulated assemblies, stressing
that such assemblies must be tested according to NFPA 285. The presentation elicited a
combination of confusion and skepticism. A
month later in Seattle, the same presentation
was met with the same response, as well as
this comment from one attendee: “We have
built our last seven projects this way (using
continuous exterior foam plastic insulation)
and no one has ever asked if we meet this
requirement.”
Portland’s AIA Chapter hosted a presentation in March of this year, presented
by David Wolff of the Façade Group, which
focused on energy code changes, including the implications of Section 2603.5. The
20 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
group in attendance seemed genuinely incredulous that such a requirement would
become part of the code without their
knowledge. Despite the efforts of many individuals nationwide, there still appears to
be little widespread understanding of this
code requirement and widely varying interpretations among jurisdictions.
The latest iteration of the model code
includes a requirement that all weather resistive barriers (WRBs) be tested according
to NFPA 285, which would appear to benefit no one except the manufacturer who
has already completed such testing. Should
this requirement be adopted, it is entirely
possible that many widely-used WRBs that
are currently used could no longer be used
unless testing has confirmed compliance.
This may have the result of further reducing the number of approved assemblies (all
of which would, by definition, be proprietary) and consequently reducing the ability to bring cost competitive options to the
table. It may also discourage innovation, as
NFPA 285 tests are expensive. Testing every
possible assembly is something even large
manufacturers cannot afford. This code
revision could have significant impacts on
building enclosure design and construction, and should be carefully considered by
AHJs prior to adoption.
General contractors are not designers;
our job is to build what other professionals
have designed. Similarly, we do not create the code, but rather we have to comply with its requirements. There is much
discussion about whether or not this code
requirement is necessary, with some noting that there have been no fires involving
foam plastic insulation that have caused
life safety issues. That argument is valid
until the first instance in which either life
or property are lost due to the inclusion
of foam plastic insulation. And whether
or not this particular code requirement
is deemed to be necessary, thoughtful
consideration of how a material, which is
flammable and does add to fire fuel loads,
is required. Life safety must be a priority in
the discussion.
NFPA 285 testing is currently a code
requirement. The general contractor has
a contractual obligation to ask questions
when it appears that building designs are
non-compliant with this code requirement.
As affiliated industries, we must raise the
level of awareness of the requirements of
Section 2603.5 within the design community and building departments, and request
a clear and consistent interpretation of its
requirements. We must be proactive in
considering the further application of NFPA
285 to WRBs and evaluate what improvement in fire safety it provides. While we wait
for answers, our task is to work with design
teams to find assemblies and approaches
that ensure energy efficiency and fire safety
in a way that can be competitively bid. n
Martin Houston, AIA, is the Quality Director for Walsh Construction Co. (WCC)
in Portland, Oregon. He has a B.Arch.
degree from the University of Cincinnati,
holds a California architect’s license, is
a LEED Accredited Professional and is
a Certified Building Science Thermographer. With WCC since 2006, Houston’s
focus includes ensuring overall building quality while concentrating on highperformance envelopes and emerging
technologies for building envelope commissioning and diagnosis.
About Mineral Wool
Mineral wool insulation is not an exact substitute for foam plastic insulation but,
in certain instances, can address some of the issues associated with it. Mineral wool
has a nominal R-value of approximately 4.2/in. versus 5/in. for extruded expanded
polystyrene (XPS), resulting in more space being taken up in the cavity by insulation
to meet the same overall R-value. And that R-value of mineral wool may be affected
by continual wetting in the drainage cavity.
Foam plastic insulation can function as an effective air and vapor barrier when
properly detailed and installed, which mineral wool cannot. However, in the Pacific
Northwest, many buildings are framed and sheathed with wood (often during prolonged periods of rain), making a vapor barrier on the exterior of the sheathing a
potential problem by limiting the drying capacity of the wall.
Although condensation potential on the back side of the sheathing is reduced
greatly, the time for the frame to dry during construction will increase (with cost and
schedule implications) and any wetting event (leak) will take additional time to dry
out. This is because of the reduced drying ability that results from the inclusion of
foam plastic insulation outside the wood frame.
Feature
Building Enclosure Design
Considerations with NFPA 285
By Brian D. Kuhn, Jr., PE and Andrew E. Jeffrey, PE, LEED AP
with the various material combinations to
account for typical assemblies.
This article discusses the considerations for building enclosure design in
today’s industry when NFPA 285 testing is
required.
Design Guidance and
Available Test Results
The NFPA 285 test is an assembly test,
not a component test. Therefore, for an
exterior wall design to be compliant with
the NFPA 285 testing requirement, it must
match all parameters of a tested assembly,
including proprietary products. In-situ
deviations from the tested assembly may
change the test result and are not codecompliant without specific approval from
the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).
Currently, the industry lacks published summaries of NFPA 285 tested
assemblies, making it cumbersome to determine what has been tested. Fire-resistance directories, such as those published
by Underwriters Laboratories (UL), which
are typically referenced by designers and
regulatory agencies for other elements of
building construction, are not available
for all NFPA 285 tested assemblies.
To find NFPA test data, designers must instead refer to the International Code Council
Evaluation Service (ICC ES) reports or literature from the manufacturers of building materials. However, when using ICC ES reports
or manufacturers’ literature as a basis for
design, requesting additional information,
including copies of NFPA 285 test reports,
is often necessary to detail the exterior wall
assembly. In addition, many manufacturers
market their products as “NFPA 285 compliant,” although actual NFPA 285 testing has
not been completed; the basis for said compliance is a letter of engineering judgment
which may or may not be acceptable to the
AHJ for the project.
Furthermore, there are only a limited
number of products and systems that have
been successfully tested. This is mainly
because most testing is performed by
material manufacturers who are primarily interested in only one component of
the assembly and they limit the number
of test variations due to the expense of
the NFPA 285 test, which can range from
$50,000 to $60,000.
Incorporating Tested
Assemblies into the Design
Best practices for designing efficient,
high-performing exterior wall systems
include continuous insulation and various barriers to meet energy code requirements, reduce thermal bridging and
provide resistance to water penetration
Architectural Testing.
The increasing demand for highperformance, energy-efficient buildings
over the last 20 years has led to the evolution of building enclosure designs that
incorporate multiple layers of materials,
sized and sequenced to control condensation, water leakage and heat transfer. The
spectrum of materials available to designers continues to expand as their placement directly behind exterior rain screen
claddings has become commonplace. This
evolution has been accompanied by the
development of highly-efficient and effective insulating and waterproofing products.
Some membranes, for example, can simultaneously perform the critical functions
of air, vapor and water-resistive barriers
reliably and durably, while foam plastic
insulation provides a very effective thermal
barrier to improve energy efficiency.
While higher-performing, this evolution
of building enclosure design has also introduced a wider range of combustible components into the exterior wall of the building.
In the International Building Code (IBC), for
Types I to IV construction, the inclusion of
certain combustible materials (see the table
at the bottom of this page) into the otherwise noncombustible exterior wall often
requires testing to National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) 285, Standard Fire Test
Method for Evaluation of Fire Propagation
Characteristics of Exterior Non-Load-Bearing Wall Assemblies Containing Combustible
Components. Many of these contemporary
wall systems have performed successfully
in various climates but few of these systems
have passed the NFPA 285 test (FIGURE 1)
NFPA 285 Testing Requirements
in the International Building Code (IBC)
Material
Code Section First Appearance in the IBC
Water-resistive barrier (WRB)
1403.5
2012
Metal composite materials (MCM)
1407.10
2003
High-pressure laminates (HPL)
1409.10
2012
Foam plastic insulation
2603.5
2000
Fiber-reinforced polymers
2612.6
2009
Figure 1. The NFPA 285 test apparatus. Summer 2012 21
and excessive air infiltration and vapor
migration. However, the designer is challenged to find a passing NFPA 285 test
assembly that incorporates all of the components and features of these high-performing wall systems.
The following should be considered
when selecting components and designing details of exterior walls that require
testing to NFPA 285:
Foam plastic insulation: Several foam
plastic insulation products have been
tested as part of wall assemblies that
have passed the NFPA 285 test. However,
22 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
designers specifying such products need
to be aware of the specific details of the
tested assembly and thus the limitations
of the test report. For example, the thickness of the foam plastic used in the test
is a maximum; designers wanting to use
a greater amount would have to retest or
otherwise justify the increase. Designers
also need to be aware of the type of air, vapor and/or water-resistive barriers included in the test. For example, self-adhered
rubberized asphalt sheet membranes are
not part of any tested wall assemblies with
foam plastic insulation.
Some types of foam plastic insulation
that have been included in successful
NFPA 285 test assemblies require additional consideration for exterior wall design. For example, polyisocyanurate foam
board products used in the wet zone of a
wall cavity can be prone to deterioration
of facers and moisture absorption in this
environment. As another example, sprayapplied expanding polyurethane foam
(SPuF) insulation can shrink and debond
from substrates at elevated atmospheric
temperature and humidity unless properly restrained at edges and terminations. Therefore, SPuF should be detailed
carefully and used in conjunction with
separate air, vapor and/or water-resistive
barriers in the wall assembly.
Noncombustible mineral wool insulation: This is an alternative to foam plastic
insulation that does not trigger the NFPA
285 testing requirement (unless another
combustible material is included in the wall
assembly – see the table on page 21). Designers should consider the following with
mineral wool insulation:
• Mineral wool insulation has a lower Rvalue per inch compared to foam plastic insulations and therefore a greater
thickness is required to achieve the
same total R-value.
• The R-value of mineral wool insulation
is reduced if it becomes wet to a greater
extent than foam plastics in general.
Combustible cladding materials: Several combustible cladding materials have
passed the NFPA 285 test. However, designers should be aware of the limitations
of the given test assembly. For example,
combustible cladding materials are often
tested only with a noncombustible insulation and without an air, vapor and/
or water-resistive barrier. Therefore, designers wanting to include combustible
insulation and/or an air, vapor and/or
water-resistive barrier need to verify that
these components are included in an existing test assembly, or pursue new testing
(and incurred project costs) or other justification for including these components.
Air, vapor and/or water-resistive barriers
(AVBs and WRBs): These layers within a
building enclosure are critical components
to airtightness, vapor resistance and waterproofing in exterior walls. New in the
2012 IBC, exterior walls greater than 40 ft.
in height that contain a combustible WRB
Copyright ©2012 Owens Corning.
Figure 2. Post-test condition of an exterior wall assembly. will require NFPA 285 testing, regardless of
insulation or cladding type. Some AVBs and
WRBs, particularly fluid-applied products
and building wraps, have been in wall assemblies successfully tested to NFPA 285.
However, self-adhering rubberized-asphalt
sheet membranes, which are a common
and generally reliable choice for meeting
AVB and WRB requirements, have not.
Designers should consider the following when using building wraps or
fluid-applied products as an alternative to
rubberized asphalt:
• Many building wraps and some fluidapplied products are vapor permeable
and may require a separate vapor retarder within the wall system.
• Many fluid-applied AVBs and WRBs
are relatively new to the market and
lack the proven track record of more
conventional sheet membranes.
• Fluid-applied products tend to be
more sensitive to field conditions
and substrate preparation than sheet
membranes, which can contribute to
inferior resistance to water penetration
when compared to rubberized-asphalt
sheets.
Window Head Detail: Many successfully
tested NFPA 285 wall assemblies include a
firestop at the window head, such as mineral wool or structural steel. These details,
as tested, can be difficult to incorporate
into exterior wall designs. The following
should be considered when incorporating
such firestop details into the design:
• The continuity of the air, vapor and
water-resistive barriers from the field
of wall to the window;
• Potential for thermal bridging with
steel stops;
• Drainage of water from the wall cavity;
• Durability of materials; and
• The aesthetics of the firestop detail as
tested.
Conclusions
Exterior wall system designs have
evolved to provide reliable, weatherresistant and energy-efficient performance. However, many configurations
of these building enclosure assemblies
have not been tested successfully to the
NFPA 285 standard, a code requirement
in many types of noncombustible construction (FIGURE 2).
To remain code-compliant, designers
must either conform to the products and
details of successfully tested systems, use
noncombustible alternatives (when available), or apply for a variance from the AHJ.
Designers must also recognize the impact
of these material combinations on other
important performance criteria of the
building enclosure.
Due to the limited number of successfully tested assemblies and the cost for additional testing, the designer’s ability to
develop effective, efficient and innovative
wall systems and details is currently hindered. In addition, options for climate or
project-specific design solutions are limited.
These handicaps can be alleviated by
exploring compliance alternatives and
developing an accepted protocol for evaluating equivalent risk when substituting
components into a tested wall system.
The National Institute of Building Sciences and the Building Enclosure Councils
(BECs) are leading such an effort. These
organizations are attempting to identify the risks associated with combustible
building enclosure materials to determine
how to justify substitution within tested
assemblies or whether modifications to
the building code and/or the NFPA 285
test standard itself are warranted.
Until that time, designers are challenged to create exterior walls that are
durable, technically reliable and aesthetically pleasing while meeting the code
requirements for NFPA 285 testing when
incorporating combustible materials into
a noncombustible assembly.
n
Brian D. Kuhn, PE, is with the fire safety
group of national engineering firm Simpson
Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH). He works with
architects, structural engineers and building
enclosure specialists on a variety of fire and
life safety building performance issues.
Andrew E. Jeffrey, PE, LEED-AP, is a
member of the building technology group
at SGH in Waltham, Massachusetts. His
practice includes design and investigation of building envelopes, including facades, windows, curtain walls, roofing and
waterproofing.
Summer 2012 23
Industry Updates
Trust but Verify: Building
Enclosure Commissioning
Comes of Age
By Daniel J. Lemieux, AIA
Professor Barry Yatt, a colleague of mine and
an Associate Dean of the School of Architecture at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., once wrote:
“Architects see themselves and, to a larger extent, are seen by
society as ‘creative types’. As a culture, we recognize these individuals as renaissance people—licensed professionals who
think in the abstract and possess the rare combination of vision, creativity and the scientific rationale necessary to bring
us informed, responsive and, in some instances, truly inspiring
and thought-provoking design. This notion of the architect’s
place in our society is reaffirmed time and again in the popular
press when business leaders and politicians are referred to as
the architects of a given mission or success—be it the start of a
successful new business or, perhaps, the outcome of a successful piece of legislation. We use the term reverentially because,
as a society, we have come to recognize architects as individuals with a proven ability to solve major problems through the
use of a creative, yet structured and thoughtfully applied intellectual process.”
Ironically, this societal view of the architect has begun to apply
less and less to the overwhelming majority of those who, by definition, are actually engaged in the day to day traditional practice
of architecture. Due largely to liability concerns that began in the
manufacturing sector following World War II and reached the architecture profession in the late 1950s, architecture has evolved
into a practice that, in many respects, is increasingly recognized
for the services and expertise it no longer provides than for those
that once served as the very foundation of the profession. Developers, for their part, unknowingly contributed to this retreat by
creating an increasingly competitive environment for design services that—particularly for those who see architecture as a “calling” rather than simply a profession—has continued to fuel a
race-to-the-bottom among competing architects who often find
themselves increasingly compelled to sacrifice fee in order to secure a commission and sustain a commercially viable design practice. In defense of this approach, one architect recently testified:
“It is not the standard of care to provide exhaustively detailed
and annotated documents. If architects were expected to provide the level of detail, our fees would need to increase dramatically or we would be out of business quickly.”
Unfortunately, this sentiment is not at all uncommon among
practicing architects today, and is arguably an accurate reflection
of the current state of the design profession. This, of course, all too
frequently translates into an awkward and often legally indefensible redistribution of design responsibility downstream to the construction industry and trades, with little or no reduction in risk for
the developer and no appreciable gain in the long-term durability
and performance of buildings that continue to emerge from this
process.
“It should come as no surprise, then…” says Yatt, “that developers increasingly turned to consultants to fill this void. And architects who did, in fact, invest the time and financial resources to
design responsively increas­ingly found themselves facing a market
that no longer expected to see them in this role.”
Building Enclosure Commissioning (BECx) is a concept that
has emerged in direct response to this trend and is a process that
documents and endeavors to ensure the delivery—rather than
simply the promise—of good design and construction practice
in a marketplace that increasingly demands accountability for
high-performance buildings and truly sustainable design. It is
no longer simply a matter of trust. BECx is a means to verify the
delivery of fully integrated design, construction and quantifiable
performance.
Optimizing Building Performance
Optimum building performance begins at conception. That is
both the premise and the promise of BECx. In order to achieve a
fully-integrated, high-performance building—one in which the
design of the building enclosure reaches beyond the aesthetic
and begins to support and enhance the comfort and produc­tivity
Pre-construction laboratory mock-up evaluation of water
penetration resistance in accordance with AAMA 501.1, Standard
Test Method for Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls and Doors for
Water Penetration Using Dynamic Pressure.
Summer 2012 25
of the end user—it is critical that issues of service­ability, durability and performance receive the same weight as those associated
with programming, massing, site orientation and climate. These
concepts are inextri­cably linked, of course, and must be fully considered during the early stages of a project, when ideas are promulgated and images begin to form.
“Commissioning” in the traditional sense has long held that
optimum building performance can be achieved through proper
design, testing and operation of basic-level building mechanical
systems. BECx builds on that notion by establishing a process intended to positively influence both the direction and performance
outcome of a project throughout all phases of the BECx and project
delivery process, from pre-design through design, pre-construction, construction, and occupancy and operation.
Turning Concept Into Reality
An ASTM Task Group was created in 2009 to create a standard
that could serve as a complete and authoritative practice for building enclosure commissioning. The result, ASTM E2813, Standard
Practice for Building Enclosure Commissioning, establishes two
levels of BECx—fundamental and enhanced—that can be readily
applied to any project depending upon the performance expectations of the owner.
During the creation of the standard, the Task Group worked
very closely with the National Institute of Building Sciences to align
that standard with several important and parallel initiatives already undertaken by the Institute, its Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council (BETEC), and its High Performance
26 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
Building Council (HPBC). Most notable is the alignment of the
performance attributes included in Annex A1 of ASTM E2813 with
the performance attributes that form the basis of the online Owners Performance Requirements (OPR) tool and the 2007 Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA).
The OPR software, which was developed by the Institute under
contract with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Science and Technology Directorate’s (S&T) Infrastructure Protection and Disaster Management Division (IDD), was made available for a limited, but interactive, public review and comment
period earlier this year. Development of the OPR software itself has
been an enormous and yet very encouraging undertaking. It is now
being expanded to more fully address each of the performance attributes embodied in ASTM E2813. (ASTM E2813 also includes a
number of other key provisions, which will be discussed later.)
The software will offer the industry, for the first time, a fully
transparent OPR development tool that utilizes quantifiable metrics of building performance to calculate the relative cost/benefit
of decisions made during the pre-design and design phases of the
building enclosure commissioning and project delivery process.
This, in turn, should lead to more informed decisions regarding the
prioritization of certain performance attributes and the potential
influence of those decisions on both the initial cost and, more critically, the total cost of ownership.
Levels of Commissioning
One of the first challenges faced by the Task Group in the development of ASTM E2813 was to consider why the original NIBS
Guideline 3-2006, Exterior Enclosure Technical Requirements for
the Commissioning Process, had failed to gain any real traction.
While the answers to that question were as varied and complex as
the guideline itself, three issues surfaced as a common thread:
1. The sheer volume and complexity of the guideline made it
overwhelming for most building owners to understand and for
most architects to incorporate;
2. There were difficulties associated with integrating the principles into the more commonly recognized and understood
processes for project delivery; and
3. The guideline lacked enforceable minimum levels of BECx that
can be more readily applied to a wide range of building types
and variations in owner project requirements.
To address these concerns, the Task Group originated the concept of establishing minimum enforceable “levels” of BECx (including mandatory minimum testing requirements) that allow
building owners and developers the ability to more readily apply
BECx in the broader context of variations in building type and preferred project delivery methodology.
The software will offer the industry, for the
first time, a fully transparent OPR development
tool that utilizes quantifiable metrics of building
performance to calculate the relative cost/
benefit of decisions made during the pre-design
and design phases of the building enclosure
commissioning and project delivery process.
In theory, and depending on the unique requirements of a
given project, there can be an infinite number of BECx levels—all
of which can be accommodated within the confines of the approved standard. However, those levels must be customized for
each project by the BECx team in consultation with the architect/
engineer-of-record and owner, and must meet or exceed the minimum requirements established in the standard for baseline (fundamental) and benchmark (enhanced) BECx. Through further
debate and balloting as part of the ASTM consensus process, that
idea resulted in the establishment of two levels, fundamental and
enhanced, of building enclosure commissioning (ASTM E2813,
Section 4.1; Table A.2).
Fundamental BECx
Fundamental commissioning addresses architecture or engineering-related technical services, or both, performed on behalf
of the owner by the building enclosure commissioning agent or
authority (BECxA), including:
• BECxA engagement during the design phase of the BECx
process.
• Documentation or retroactive development of the owner’s
project requirements (OPR).
• A minimum of one independent, third-party design peer review
of the construction document drawings and specifications.
• Development of a BECx plan that includes an outline of the
BECx process, roles and responsibilities of the BECxA and individual members of the BECx team, and the methodology
established to verify and document compliance with the requirements of the approved contract documents.
• Direct and substantive participation during the pre-construction, construction and occupancy and operations phases of the
BECx process.
Enhanced BECx
Enhanced commissioning builds on the requirements of
fundamental BECx listed above, with the following additional
requirements:
• BECxA engagement during the pre-design phase of the BECx
process.
• Technical assistance and documentation during the development of the OPR.
• A minimum of three independent, third-party design
peer reviews of the construction document drawings and
specifications.
ASTM E2813 requires, for both fundamental and enhanced
BECx, the development and documentation of the OPR (Annex
A1 of the standard) and independent, third-party design peer review of the contract document drawings and specifications. Annex
A2 of the standard included the performance testing necessary
to quantifiably evaluate the effects of heat/air/moisture transfer,
structural loads and acoustical performance of the building enclosure for compliance with ASTM E2813. Selection, application and
use of those test standards shall be determined at the sole discretion of the BECxA in direct consultation with—and subject to the
prior review and approval of—the architect/engineer-of-record
and owner.
Defining Core Competencies
of the BECx Service Provider
Another challenge faced during the development of ASTM
E2813 was the very strong perception among those on the Task
Group, as well as our colleagues at the Institute, that building enclosure commissioning was being defined and, in fact, practiced
by a segment of the consulting profession that may be less than
adequately prepared to provide that service at a level envisioned
by both organizations.
The response to that concern was two-fold. First, the Task Group
had to consider whether or not an ASTM standard could, in fact,
include a list of minimum qualifications for a BECx service-provider at all—a difficult step for ASTM to take given the potentially
Demonstration of AAMA 501.1 adapted for application in the field.
Summer 2012 27
Pre-construction laboratory evaluation of thermal movement in
accordance with AAMA 501.5, Test Method for Thermal Cycling
of Exterior Walls.
exclusionary nature of that type of language and the chilling effect
it could have on the broader use and application of the standard.
Second, the Task Group had to consider the development of a joint
ASTM-Institute BECx Certification and Training Program, from
which the building enclosure commissioning agent, authority or
consultant could potentially emerge as a qualified service-provider under the requirements of ASTM E2813. That program is currently under development by ASTM Task Group E06.55.10.
After discussing these challenges in some detail with our liaisons to ASHRAE and the Institute, as well as our liaison to the
group responsible for the development of Canadian Standard
Z320 on building commissioning, the Task Group arrived at a solution that we strongly felt would be well-received by the ASTM community and, at the same time, would serve as a potential basis for
the curriculum that would define the personnel certification and
training program to be jointly developed.
The minimum core competencies established in the standard
(ASTM E2813, Section 4.2) are summarized as follows:
Building and materials science
Including, at a minimum:
• Principles associated with heat transfer;
• Principles associated with moisture storage and transport; and
• Characteristics and behavior of enclosure-related materials,
components, systems and assemblies.
Procurement and project delivery
Including, at a minimum:
• Influence of the project delivery method selected by the owner
on the BECx process as defined in this standard;
• Influence of the number and type of contracts on the role and
responsibilities of the BECx team;
28 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
• Influence of design and construction scheduling, phasing and
sequencing of the work on the BECx process; and
• Influence of the experience on the role and responsibilities of
the BECxA (and BECx team).
Contract documents and construction administration
Including, at a minimum:
• Interrelationship between procurement documents, contract
documents, contract drawings and specifications developed
during the design phase of the BECx process;
• Influence of enclosure-related design, detailing and integration
on total building performance;
• Influence of product selection, allowable construction tolerances and dimensional requirements;
• Importance of material compatibility and continuity of primary
heat, air and moisture control layers throughout the building
enclosure; and
• Importance of the timely preparation and distribution of subject-direct, technically sound and actionable documentation
and feedback throughout the construction phase of the BECx
process.
Performance test standards and methodology
Including, at a minimum:
• Pre-construction laboratory and field-applied test standards
and methodology;
• Importance of establishing quantifiable thresholds of
performance;
• Influence of modifications to the intended use and application of pre-construction laboratory and field test standards and
methodology;
• Importance of ensuring the timely, clear and unambiguous
transfer of information relating to modifications to the design,
construction and integration of enclosure-related materials,
components, systems and assemblies ;
• Importance of recognizing the distinction between errors and
omissions in architectural and/or product design versus defective installation and/or workmanship; and
• Distinction between test standards and methodologies “recognized in the industry” versus test standards developed by independent standards-writing organizations.
Strength Through Collaboration
Establishing a fully-aligned family of standards to support
BECx has always been the goal at ASTM. Development and publication of ASTM E2813, Standard Practice for Building Enclosure
Commissioning, with the input and support of our liaisons at both
ASHRAE and the National Institute of Building Sciences was the
first step in that process.
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between ASTM and
the Institute is a natural extension of that effort and, with the migration of NIBS Guideline 3, Exterior Enclosure Technical Requirements for the Commissioning Process, to ASTM for balloting and
re-publication as an ASTM Standard Guide for Building Enclosure
Commissioning, we will, for the first time, be in a position to bring
clarity and purpose to the concept of building enclosure commissioning in a marketplace where none currently exists. Publication
of each of these standards and guidelines through ASTM, together with the development of a BECx Certification and Training
Program under joint leadership, will take us one step closer to the
broader goal of total, or “whole building” commissioning and
the delivery of fully-integrated, high-performance buildings and
structures that are truly responsive to the demands of climate, human comfort and productivity.
A key provision in the MOA will be the migration of Guideline 3
to ASTM for publication as an ASTM document. After that effort is
complete and the new ASTM Guide has been successfully balloted
and approved, it will be published by ASTM and serve as a replacement for the existing Guideline 3. To accomplish this, a new Task
Group has been formed at ASTM that will be responsible for repositioning Guideline 3 as an ASTM document that will align with
E2813 and reflect the requirements of the new training program.
Areas of reconciliation that will be subject to balloting and the
ASTM consensus process include:
• The core competencies outlined in ASTM E2813 will be expanded upon and ultimately replaced by a requirement to
comply with the BECx Certification and Training Program.
• The procedure outlined in ASTM E2813 will continue to align
with and ultimately be replaced by a reference to the new ASTM
Standard Guide for BECx.
• The performance attributes outlined in Annex A1 of ASTM
E2813 will be considered for incorporation into the body of the
standard and listed as minimum requirements for BECx.
• The performance test standards outlined in Annex A2 of ASTM
E2813 will be further updated and refined through actual use
and application to maximize flexibility in the application and
use of those tests relative to building type, scale and use.
Collaboration between ASTM and the Institute will be the hallmark of this effort and, through balloting and the ASTM consensus
process, will yield a family of fully-aligned and complementary
standards for BECx.
To learn more about getting involved in the new Guideline
3, contact Dan Lemieux at dlemieux@wje.com or Rob Kistler at
rkistler@facadegroup.com.
n
Portions of this article were reprinted with permission from Real
Estate Issues® (Vol. 33, No. 3, 2008), published by The Counselors of
Real Estate®. CRE® is a nonprofit professional organization for leading real estate advisors around the world. Visit www.cre.org for
more information.
Daniel J. Lemieux, AIA, is principal and unit manager of the
Washington, D.C. office of Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. In
addition to a professional practice that includes Building Enclosure Commissioning (BECx), Lemieux has authored, co-authored
and peer-reviewed a wide range of technical papers on BECx and
is chairman of ASTM Sub-Committee E06.55 on Exterior Walls and
the Task Group responsible for the development and the publication
of ASTM E2813-12, Standard Practice for Building Enclosure Commissioning. Lemieux is currently a licensed architect in Washington,
D.C., Virginia, Maryland, New York and Georgia, and is a graduate
of Georgia Tech.
A longer version of this article is available by contacting
ssavory@matrixgroupinc.net.
Summer 2012 29
Industry Updates
BEC Corner
CHARLESTON
By Wayne Butler, Associate AIA, Applied
Building Sciences, Inc.; BEC-Charleston
Chair
BEC-Charleston has embarked on its
seventh year of bringing building science
to South Carolina’s LowCountry design
and construction community. In January,
we received a refresher course in Contractual Issues & Legal Pitfalls Related to Building Enclosures (by Paul Sperry, Patrick
Norris and Tyler Winton). In February, we
theoretically deconstructed case studies
related to our program, entitled Self-Composting Buildings: Durability and Green
Construction (by J. Lawrence Elkin). April
brought us Whole Building Performance
Testing: A Systems Approach to Ensure
Moisture Exclusion, Energy Efficiency and
Hurricane Protection from Design through
Construction (by John Runkle and Larry
Livermore). Andre Desjarlais explained
Roofing Systems in the 21st Century: DOE
Research Program to Reduce Energy Impact during our May event.
BEC-Charleston has continued to help
promote and encourage the education of
students in our hot and humid climate.
This year, we have successfully integrated
our monetary BEC-Charleston Award into
a graduate design course at the Clemson
University School of Architecture.
Environmental Systems, a joint architecture/material science and engineering
class, is being used to expose graduate
students to envelope performance software, thermal dynamics processes and
material innovations as they relate to energy storage. The semester-ending project pushed the students to violate and
rethink current paradigms and focus on
performance-based design that can be
quantified in terms of heat exchange due
to radiation, heat gain and heat loss, and
passive/active system control strategies.
The seated board reviewed 10 submissions, all of which included energy
analysis of the building enclosure as a
function of BTUs saved or stored. The winning design received an award of $500,
intended to help foster the curiosity and
investigation of the building enclosure
and to reward the student for a well-conceived and thought-provoking performance-based design.
BEC-Charleston has over 200 professionals on our membership list and greets
about 40 to 50 members at each meeting.
For additional information, contact me at
wbutler@appliedbuildingsciences.com or
Ken Huggins (vice-chair) at luckymud@
kenhugginsaia.com.
CHICAGO
By Kevin Kalata, RA, SE, Wiss, Janney,
Elstner Associates Inc.; BEC-Chicago
Chairman
BEC-Chicago welcomed its new officers for 2012. Sarah Flock (Raths, Raths
& Johnson, Inc.) was elected vice-chair
and Elizabeth Cassin (Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.) was re-elected
secretary. Ken Lies (Raths, Raths &
Johnson, Inc.) stayed on as treasurer
and Kevin Kalata (Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc.), previous vice-chair,
succeeded Richard Fencl (Gensler) as
chairperson. BEC-Chicago would like to
publicly thank Richard for all of his hard
work and dedication. Also returning were
Jeff Diqui (Sto Corp.), program director
and Ken Soch (Solomon Cordwell Buenz),
assistant program director.
In February 2012, BEC-Chicago
launched its fully revamped website
(www.bec-chicago.org). It is based on an
interactive platform that allows users to
create and update their profiles and access contact information for other members, as well as view and post upcoming
building enclosure events. The site also
serves as a resource for building enclosure documents and links. Forty-two
new members have registered since the
launch, bringing our membership numbers to over 160. BEC-Chicago would like
to thank our sponsors for their generous support that enabled us to create the
new website: BASF; CertainTeed; Grace;
Henry; Raths, Raths & Johnson; Sto; USG;
Wiss, Janney, Elstner; and our latest sponsor, Powers Fasteners.
High-quality technical presentations
are the cornerstone of our organization.
Monthly lunch meetings are typically attended by 40 to 60 members. Our 2012
presentations included a January presentation by Gate Precast Co. on precast
concrete enclosure technologies, a February presentation on effective U-values of
curtain walls by ARUP, and a March presentation by Professor Mark McGinley on
rational design of masonry veneer. SAGE
presented on electronically tintable glass
in April, and our latest presentation was
by Fox River Systems, on building diagnostics using infrared thermography.
Future presentations include our annual evening event in September, which
will feature a presentation by Curtain
Wall Design and Consulting, Inc. on solar reflectivity of facades. Presentations
on stone materials and cladding systems,
thermal performance of cladding supports and the Green Construction Code are
also being planned.
CLEVELAND
By Nate Gamber, PE, Wiss, Janney, Elstner,
Associates, Inc.; and Ed Taylor, Technical
Assurance, Inc.; BEC-Cleveland Co-Chairs
Officially founded in spring 2012, BECCleveland is the newest Building Enclosure Council chapter. With enthusiastic
support from Kurt Weaver, president of
AIA Cleveland, BEC-Cleveland has also
been established as a committee of AIA
Cleveland. The chapter was created as a
means to bring education and discussion
to the local building community and to
create a venue to share knowledge and
resources impacting building enclosures
located in the unique climatic conditions
of Northeast Ohio and its surroundings.
The newly formed BEC-Cleveland
board has been meeting monthly and is
actively seeking sponsors to support the
chapter. In addition, planning for technical presentations to be held at the inaugural BEC-Cleveland chapter meetings later
this fall is currently underway. To date, the
inaugural BEC-Cleveland board includes
co-chairs Ed Taylor (Technical Assurance,
Inc.) and Nate Gamber (Wiss, Janney, Elstner, Associates, Inc.), secretary Mehmet Turkel (Technical Assurance, Inc.),
Summer 2012 31
treasurer Mike Kotheimer (Wiss, Janney,
Elstner, Associates, Inc.), as well as Matt
Nelson (ECO Commissions), A.J. Mazza
and Matt Setzekorn (Integrated Engineering Consultants, Inc.), and Mark Evans
(Technical Assurance, Inc.).
For 2012, BEC-Colorado will continue
to explore diverse topics for its programs,
plans to host a sixth annual BEC seminar
on September 12, and will fund the chair,
who will represent BEC-Colorado at the
national BEC conference.
COLORADO
By Chip Weincek, AIA, LEED-AP, CWA
Architecture; BEC-Colorado Chair
BEC-Colorado continues into its seventh year. We have an average attendance
of 40 professionals at our meetings, held
the first Wednesday of each month. Participants have diverse backgrounds in
architecture, engineering, construction,
consulting, testing, manufacturing and
other building representation interests.
We are grateful for the generosity of JE
Dunn Construction for the continued use
of their office conference room for these
meetings and presentations.
Following is a summary of BEC-Colorado’s programs presented in 2011: January: Laboratory Curtain Wall Performance
Mock-up Testing; February: Masonry Troubles: Performance Issue with Old & New;
March: Fluid Applied Air, Vapor and Water
Resistive Barriers; April: Testing Masonry
Filed Mock-ups, a Case Study; April: a site
tour of the new National Renewable Energy
Laboratories (NREL) facility; May: Wärme
und Feuchte Instationär (WUFI) Analysis
of Wall Types; June: Moisture Management
in a World of More Insulation; July: Liability Issues in Design & Construction; August:
Steep Slope Roofing – Practical Solutions
to Some Common Problems; September:
BEC-Colorado’s annual seminar, Troubleshooting in Design of Construction Details,
presented by Mark Lawton, PE, from Morrison Hershfield in Vancouver, British Columbia; October: Annual BEC-Colorado
planning meeting; November: a Contractor’s Roundtable; and December: Sustainable Design and Pre-cast Enclosure Systems.
The success of BEC-Colorado is due, in
large part, to the support of our sponsors:
SBSA; Group 14 Engineering; Building
Consultants & Engineers, Inc.; Carlisle;
DOW; Elliott Associates – Vapor Shield;
Fentress Architecture; Georgia Pacific
Gypsum; Grace, R/W Specialties, Inc.;
Tyvek, Sto Corporation, Rocky Mountain
Prestress; Rocky Mountain Producers
Council; CWA Architecture; Davis Partnership Architects; and Viracon.
HOUSTON
By Herman Coronado, AIA, LEED-AP,
BD+C, Curry Boudreaux Architects, LLP;
BEC-Houston Chair
BEC-Houston has focused the last
four years on establishing a stable core of
board members to control and direct our
efforts. Meetings of the board are held
monthly and events average nine a year.
At this time, we have yearly BEC memberships that admit members to all meetings
for the year. This year we have focused on
our new state energy code and the impact
on the exterior skin.
This year’s events started with our kickoff social at the Houston AIA office and a
brief presentation on evaluating a building’s exterior with infrared thermography.
The March event was about and held at
a multi-story insulated concrete forms
(ICF) building. The presentation included an overview of how this technology
has evolved and included many lessons
learned about the construction and detailing of the openings.
April and May featured programs on
how the new state energy code has affected glazing selection and how building
integrated glass photovoltaics can be an
option for exterior skin. At June’s event we
reviewed the various building enclosure
energy modeling software options available and what works best for each aspect
of the design model. We will take July off
for vacation and return August 21 to the
AIA Houston office with a roundtable discussion on the current state of flat roofing
from a number of different viewpoints.
Houston is one of a few cities in the
country to have a City Building Code that
requires a building envelope commissioning plan for any project over 50,000
sf. This is something BEC-Houston met to
discuss two years ago to help inform the
local architecture community. We would
urge all our BEC chapters to stay on top of
any local building code initiatives headed
that direction and become involved in
the process so that you are partners in the
process.
KANSAS CITY
By Dave Herron, herron + partners; BECKansas City Chair
The leadership group of BEC-Kansas
City is excited and grateful to be selected as
the host city for the BEST4 Conference. As
our chapter continues to grow, this will be
an exceptional opportunity to further reach
out to our community and region. I would
like to thank our leadership team for their
support enthusiasm for BEST4: David Ford,
Katrina Gerber, Bob Thurn, Hank Chamberlain, Robert Dye, Matt Henderson, Vern
Keeth, Don Hunt, J.W. Mollohan and Vickie
Enloe. We hope that you will all join us in
Kansas City to enjoy an excellent conference, our wonderful city and, of course, our
delicious barbeque. See you in 2015!
MINNESOTA
By Judd Peterson, AIA; BEC-Minnesota
Chair
At our monthly meetings we’ve welcomed Ed Reztbach, Technical Rep, and
Jon Bauer, Local Rep, with Tremco. They
discussed Tremco’s polyurethane waterproofing and the application differences
between the low VOC materials and other
more volatile materials.
We enjoyed a presentation on highperformance thermal construction by Rolf
Jacobson, research fellow at the Center for
Sustainable Building Research. He presented his Masters thesis, discussing highperformance, super-insulated, residential
envelopes near Trondheim, Norway.
This spring, BEC-Minnesota participated in seminars for the AIA+2030 Sessions
being presented by the Center for Sustainable Building Research (CSBR) of the College of Design, University of Minnesota. A
series of 10 training sessions were coordinated by Richard Strong, Senior Research
Fellow at CSBR. BEC-Minnesota also presented a session on Planes of Performance
in the Building Enclosure, along with Rolf
Jacobson and John Carmody of CSBR.
In April, Paul Thompson, a BASF representative, visited and talked about vapor permeable and vapor impermeable
air barrier situations. Andrew Hulse of
SAGE explained dynamic glazing to minimize solar heat gain and develop greater
energy efficiency along with more effective daylighting. As Rolf Jacobson pointed out during his recent presentation
on extreme insulations in PassiveHaus
Summer 2012 33
construction, daylighting and effective
control of solar heat gain become critical
when the thermal performance of the exterior enclosure is increased. Don Cate of
Multivista showed us their method of field
documenting job progress before, after
and during the construction process. With
the importance of air barrier performance
and the difficulty in correcting flaws late
in construction, it has become apparent
that onsite observations are critical to perfecting performance.
BEC-Minnesota continues to work with
Senator Al Franken and his staff coordinator, Lisbeth Kaufman, to help define energy
efficiency retrofit possibilities, workforce
retraining and education curriculum development to improve our buildings on a
national scale.
PORTLAND
By David C. Young, PE, RDH Building
Sciences, Inc.; Portland-BEC Chair
As I write this update, the Portland-BEC
has just hosted its first biannual Technology Symposium: the Art and Science of Air
Barriers. While I love this topic, it’s hard to
make air barriers sound sexy. Nonetheless,
we had a powerhouse of speakers at the
June 4, 2012, event, which was held at the
Oregon Zoo.
Laverne Dalgleish, Executive Director
of the Air Barrier Association of America
(ABAA), was our keynote speaker and
opened the session by talking about the
history of air barriers. Other speakers included Mike Steffen, Walsh Construction,
who discussed air barrier commissioning
from a contractor’s perspective; Lee Durston, Director of Building Science, BCRA,
who provided an update on air tightness
performance of buildings in the Army
Corps of Engineers; Jeff Speert, JRS Engineering, discussed air tightness in relation
to mechanical systems; and Dr. Alexander
Zhivov, Senior Researcher, Engineer Research and Development Center Construction Engineering Research Laboratory,
spoke about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Whole Building Air Tightness Program. In addition, Portland YouthBuilds
volunteered to construct four different wall
assemblies in order to perform air tightness testing. Results were presented at the
symposium.
On behalf of the Portland-BEC, I wish
to thank our organizing committee who
34 Journal of Building Enclosure Design
worked tirelessly to coordinate the symposium, our speakers, Portland YouthBuilders, and, of course, all of our sponsors,
without whom we could not have offered
such a powerful program. We also wish to
thank all who attended.
SAN ANTONIO
By Erik Murray, AIA, Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc.; BEC-San Antonio Chair
BEC-San Antonio kicked-off in February 2012 and is looking forward to an exciting first year. There has been a strong
response from the local AEC community
and a desire for technical educational programs for building enclosures in the sate.
We are planning six educational programs and events for the year, including a
hands-on building enclosure competition
that will involve several teams of architects,
engineers, contractors and vendors constructing air and watertight building wall
mock-ups and subjecting them to rigorous
air and water leakage testing.
In case you missed it, our first presentation/program was held on May 22,
2012 and entailed a three-part case study
presentation on the common issues that
building enclosures face in regards to the
exterior wall, curtain wall and roof systems.
The three presenters were all architects
who specialize in building enclosure testing and inspection.
We are very excited about providing a
forum for the San Antonio construction
community to get together and discuss the
specific issues that we face from a building
enclosure standpoint. We hope to tackle
this through all aspects of the building process; from design development, through
budgeting and pre-construction and into
the actual construction phases of the
project.
Look for BEC-San Antonio on the web at
www.aiasa.org.
SEATTLE
By Roxanne Navrides, Seattle Housing
Authority; Seattle-BEC Chair
Seattle Building Enclosure Council
(SEABEC) currently has over 100 members and we are growing. We continue to
reach out to students, architects, suppliers,
contractors, building science specialists,
building owners and property managers.
Members in the Seattle area are still grappling with an economy that is recovering
slowly. We provide free membership to students, retired industry colleagues and our
colleagues in professional transition while
they seek new positions.
Our January meeting was snowed-out,
literally, since even a few inches of snow
paralyzes this city of many hills and we
were approaching a foot! Recent meeting
topics include Historic Preservation, Thermal Performance and 3-D Envelope Details;
and The Latest, Greatest Building Enclosure
Systems…oh, Never Mind” (which looked
at systems and components that did not
perform as designed). After the summer
break, we will have a field trip to a curtain
wall manufacturer and a speaker on The
Passive House.
Our meetings are third Thursdays
monthly (except July and August), and we
invite you to join us as our guest if you visit
Seattle. Please extend this invitation to your
BEC members and friends. Details are on
our website at www.SEABEC.org.
Due to his move to a warmer climate,
our board of directors lost Joel Thornburg
of Tatley-Grund, Inc. as vice president.
Dave Bates of OAC Services, Inc. is currently pitching in for this role.
We are in the initial planning stages
for our second all-day symposium in
May, 2013. By press time, we hope to have
more information about this event on our
website.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
By Julie Szabo, AET, Wiss, Janney, Elstner
Associates, Inc.; BEC-D.C. Co-Chair
BEC-DC is off to a great start for 2012
with a lot of feedback from our members
and growing attendance at our monthly
meetings. We are looking forward to the
second half of the year to implement many
positive changes to our organization.
These include the development of a board
of directors and multiple sub-committees
focusing on council operation activities
such as membership, attendance, sponsorship, programming and education.
Since re-launching our monthly meetings in January, with an open forum session discussing the year ahead with our
members, our technical presentations
have covered some of the most pressing
topics facing our membership, including
NFPA 285 and fire code requirements for
foam plastic insulation, fenestration rating
systems and U-values.
We have settled nicely into our new
location and our new meeting time slot.
Please consider joining us at 6 pm on the
last Tuesday of the month at the new AIA
District Architecture Center in Washington,
D.C. We are looking forward to building on
our newfound momentum throughout the
year.
WISCONSIN
By Brian Stroik, The Boldt Company; BECWisconsin Co-Chair
BEC-Wisconsin (BEC-WI) has just completed a successful 2012 spring schedule,
which was full of informative and interesting courses. In January, we held an open forum and solicited exterior expansion joint
details from our membership, which we
then reviewed and discussed as a group. In
February, we learned about photovoltaic
curtain walls and their potential cost savings through energy production.
March brought Dr. John Straube, from
The University of Waterloo/Building Sciences Corporation, to Wisconsin for an
excellent, interesting, educational and
entertaining full-day seminar. In April, we
learned about a spray air vapor barrier
product that meets NFPA 285. It is very flexible and has great adhesion. We ended our
spring schedule in May with a presentation
on whole building air tightness testing and
had our largest turnout of the year. As summer approaches, BEC-WI will be taking off
June through August. The time will be used
for polling our membership for topic ideas
and looking to enhance our executive committee. BEC-WI will continue with its webinar format in the fall of 2012 as members
from across the state appreciate the ability
to attend informative sessions without having to drive hours to attend.
n
SAVE THE DATE!
The twelfth international conference on Thermal
Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole
Buildings, sponsored by BETEC, ASHRAE and organized by
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), will be held
on December 1-5, 2013 at the Sheraton Sand Key Resort
in Clearwater Beach, Florida. This conference will be
presented in two concurrent tracks:
Principles - Devoted to Research; and Practices - Focusing on Practical
Applications and Case Studies. Specific topic workshops will be presented
before and/or after the conference.
Inaugurated in 1979, the “Buildings Conference” takes place every three years allowing time to develop new
research and technology applications and to document the findings. Attendance is international and draws heavily
on the advanced technical knowledge of all our global experts.
The “Buildings Conference” presents a great opportunity for product manufacturers, research groups, technical
advisors, builders, designers and other consultants to discuss their work achievements, interest and awareness of
buildings issues, and provide solutions to some of our major building problems.
This is also a great opportunity to create a presence at the conference by becoming a sponsor. For additional
information on sponsorship, please contact Andre Desjarlais at desjarlaisa@ornl.gov or phone (865-574-0022).
Summer 2012 35
Buyer’s Guide
Air and Vapor Barriers
Hohmann & Barnard, Inc....................29, 36
BASF Wall Systems......................................5
Associations
Air Barrier Association of America............30
The Glass Association of North America...32
RCI, Inc.....................................................15
Below Grade Water and
Containment Barrier
Polyguard.....................................................6
Building Sciences and
Restoration Consultants
Read Jones Christofferson.........................36
Consulting, Commissioning,
Engineering, Testing, Certification
and Inspections
Architectural Testing............................. OBC
Fasteners
Leland Industries Inc.................................26
Fluid Commercial Wrap
E.I. DuPont..................................................4
Government
Homeowner Protection Office...................24
Industrial Glass Supplier
PPG Industries..................................38, IBC
Masonry Anchoring Systems
Hohmann & Barnard, Inc....................29, 36
Masonry and BIM Modeling
Endicott........................................................3
Masonry Products
Hohmann & Barnard, Inc....................29, 36
Mineral Wool Insulation
Roxul, Inc...................................................16
Rain Barrier Manufacturer
Thermafiber, Inc.........................................10
Rain Screen Systems
Cosella-Dörken Products, Inc....................12
Roofing
Duro-Last Roofing, Inc..............................22
Structural Engineering, Design and
Consultants
WJE............................................................18
Water Intrusion Test Equipment and
Training
The RM Group, LLC.................................23
Water Proofing/Air Barriers
MFM Building Products Corporation.........8
Sto Corp..................................................IFC
36 Journal of Building Enclosure Design