Code changes
On May 4, 2011, the ICC-ES Evaluation Committee invited interested parties to submit comments on three proposed revisions to AC 385 due to the passage of Proposed Code Change FS4-09/10. The following was added to the 2012 International Building Code (IBC) as a result of the adopted code change:
703.4 Automatic sprinklers. Under the prescriptive fire resistance requirements of the International Building Code, the fire resistance rating of a building element, component or assembly shall be established without the use of automatic sprinklers or any other fire suppression system being incorporated as part of the assembly tested in accordance with the fire exposure, procedures, and acceptance criteria specified in ASTM E119 or UL 263. However, this section shall not prohibit or limit the duties and powers of the building official allowed by Section 104.10 and 104.11.
On June 3, 2011, due to a lack of public comments being submitted prior to the established deadline, the ICC-ES Evaluation Committee issued a memo announcing it had disapproved of the proposed revisions to AC 385, withdrawn AC 385 from use, and revoked the evaluation report (ESR-2397) based on the acceptance criteria. Undeterred by the setback, the sprinkler head manufacturer’s renewed effort emerged.
In August 2012, the ICC-ES Evaluation Committee invited public comments on the reinstatement of AC 385. The central theme among those respondents supportive of reinstatement focused on IBC sections addressing alternative materials, design, and construction methods. For example, in his written supportive submission to the committee, David Collins, FAIA, NCARB, contended the American Institute of Architects (AIA):
believes that the very existence of AC385 is directly derived from the authority granted to the code official authority through Sections 703.3 and 104.11 of the 2012 IBC. Alternative methods and materials has been a strong element of virtually every model building code and survive today to assist the entire industry to be able to respond to the evolution of systems.
Section 104.11 of IBC states:
An alternative material, design, or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method, or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety.
Section 104.10 of IBC addresses that a waiver of code requirements is to be considered:
Wherever there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this code, the building official shall have the authority to grant modifications for individual cases, upon application of the owner or owner’s representative, provided the building official shall first find that special individual reason makes the strict letter of this code impractical and the modification is in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code and that such modification does not lessen health, accessibility, life and fire safety, or structural requirements.
So in the case of AC 385, the code does not seem to inhibit an evolution of systems since no practical difficulty seems to exist given fully code-compliant fire-rated glazing is readily available, and no equivalency has been established as the hose stream test requirement has been ignored. However, the onslaught of innovative ‘green’ products streaming into the construction marketplace while fully complying with existing testing standards are but one example of how system evolution can freely develop without any hindrance posed by the IBC code cycle and the need for ICC-ES reports.
AIA’s sentiments were echoed by two prominent engineers at Arup USA Inc.—Matthew Johann and Ray Grill. In a written supportive submission to the committee, they claimed:
The assembly supported by ESR-2397 provides design freedom to architects and code consultants and has been utilized to help maintain the design vision for several of our projects. Our typical applications involve the separation of adjacent occupancies when there is a need or desire to include glazing to promote an open feel or to support a given operation.
Again, there was no mention of any practical difficulty being overcome by virtue of AC 385. Their endorsement did mention:
There is no history of failure associated with this type of assembly, and no evidence that it provides a reduced level of fire and life safety as compared to a solid, fully-passive fire-rated barrier when designed and installed in accordance with ESR-2397 and applicable standards.
This faith in ESR-2397 and the stipulated alternative method of construction seems to hinge on the absence of any disaster to date, but overlooks the empirical research data confirming sprinklers systems can fail.
Robert Davidson, an independent fire and life safety consultant, points out in his public comments the code:
specifically allows for the use of wetted glass in two locations – for enclosures of atriums, a low fuel load use area, in Section 404.6, in addition to other fire protection system installation; and in pedestrian walkways connecting buildings, in Section 3104.5, also a low to no fuel load area, with additional conditions including automatic sprinkler systems throughout both buildings and the walkway.
Davidson goes on to make the point:
Both of these provisions are for very specific use areas and require specific levels of fire protection above and beyond the fire barriers where the wetted glass is permitted. Just as important, both of these provisions were added to the body of the code with specific language vetted by the appropriate code committee and the membership. What is being proposed to the Evaluation Services committee does not meet those parameters.
The conditions of use stated in ESR-2397 only limit the wetted wall assembly from being used in:
• areas containing potentially explosive materials;
• areas having penetrations or protected openings; and
• exterior wall applications where the distance between buildings is greater than 1.5 m (5 ft). No other prescriptive guidelines for use are identified.
