The evolving code evaluation process

by Erik Missio | February 1, 2016 12:33 pm

HORIZONS
By Michael Beaton, PE
Manufacturers are continuously developing and introducing new building products and assemblies to the market. These products and systems need to be evaluated to the requirements of building codes by appropriate third-party entities, a process that helps code officials approve their use in jurisdictions.

Recently, the traditional code evaluation process has seen significant changes that are dramatically affecting manufacturers. Accordingly, the market is opening up to new product certification agencies that offer technical evaluations of, and technical reports on, new building products, components, methods, and materials.

This article provides an overview of the code evaluation process as it relates to the approval of alternative materials used within the built environment. It also discusses options available to manufacturers of building products and to code officials, who are charged with approving the use of those building products.

Building codes background and the code evaluation process
International Building Code (IBC) Section 104, “Duties and Powers of Building Official,” directs the code official to enforce the code provisions. In the case of alternative materials, designs, and methods of construction, Section 104.11, “Alternative Materials, Design, and Methods of Construction and Equipment,” specifically 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.

Further, Section 104.11.1 specifies “supporting data, where necessary to assist in the approval of materials or assemblies not specifically provided for in this code, shall consist of valid research reports from approved sources.” IBC Section 1703, “Approvals,” provides further clarification an approved ‘agency’ must be objective, competent, and independent from the contactor responsible for the work being inspected.

Since the 1960s, several organizations within the field of code evaluation—including International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI), Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) and their ultimate successor, International Code Council (ICC)—have offered evaluation services to manufacturers for the express purpose of easing the burden on the code official. The primary role of these organizations was to provide a mechanism for manufacturers of alternative materials and systems to establish equivalence to code requirements and to convey information to the code official in a manner that would facilitate product approval. For a fee, ICC’s Evaluation Service (ICC-ES) would develop a guideline—known as an ‘Acceptance Criteria’ (AC)—that described the means by which the manufacturer can demonstrate compliance of its product or system.

The AC has historically been developed in an open process involving input from industry, the engineering community, and code officials. The criteria are often collections of code requirements together with specialized test methods developed and funded by industry in combination with inputs from testing labs, inspection agencies, and manufacturers. In some cases, the criteria are so well-accepted they are made into nationally recognized standards. Other criteria are driven by industry and ‘managed’ by the not-for-profit ICC-ES on behalf of the industry. Examples include:

• ASTM E2568, Standard Specification for PB Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems, for exterior insulation and finishing system (EIFS);
• ASTM E2550, Standard Test Method for Thermal Stability by Thermogravimetry, for water-resistive barriers (WRBs); and
• American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA) 711, Voluntary Specification for Self Adhering Flashing Used for Installation of Exterior Wall Fenestration Products, for self-adhering flashing.

The final decision on acceptability is made by an evaluation committee, appointed by ICC-ES. Following approval of the Acceptance Criteria by the committee, there is an evaluation of the manufacturer’s data, followed by a Research Report (i.e. Evaluation Report or Code Report). These reports are posted on the ICC-ES website and made available to the public free of charge. Acceptance Criteria are made available for a fee.

ICC-ES has historically played a vital and leadership role in the industry with respect to the approval of alternative materials and in particular the process of developing Acceptance Criteria. However, once the criteria are developed and there is a common understanding of how the product is to be evaluated, the evaluation can in fact be done by competent, independent, accredited agencies.

Designation of alternative products
The product approval decision is the responsibility of the code official, who can determine the information to be submitted to establish code compliance. When the product or system is well-defined in the code, a manufacturer’s self-certification may be acceptable, although the code official may also ask to see evidence of third-party certification to the standards referenced in the code.

When the code requirements are not clearly defined or the product or system is an alternative under the code, the code official may ask for data justifying code compliance to be submitted for their review. However, when the manufacturer has a Research Report, the code official will often accept it in lieu of substantiating data (provided, of course, the official has confidence in the agency that prepared the report). Manufacturers may also choose to get a Research Report as a way of showing due diligence or to ease the path for product approval, even when the requirements in the code are well-defined. Additionally, some industry groups voluntarily seek Research Reports as a way of ensuring a level playing field.

In theory, a product or system will be considered ‘an alternative’ until provisions for the product or system are adopted into code. In practice, however, many products become mainstream long before that happens, examples include:

• AC38, Acceptance Criteria for Water-resistive Barriers;
• AC07, Acceptance Criteria for Special Roofing Systems; and
• AC377, Acceptance Criteria for Spray-applied Polyurethane Foam Plastic Insulation.

The requirements for these products, while documented in an Acceptance Criteria, are established and stable. The testing and inspection agencies certifying the products for code requirements are generally well-versed in the testing and code applications of the products.

A new paradigm
Whereas the code evaluation process for alternative building materials has traditionally involved front-end testing and inspection from certification organizations and back-end product evaluation from ICC-ES, the market has recently seen a trend toward use of certification agencies to provide both the testing and code evaluation. This paradigm shift can offer many benefits to constituents.

Using an accredited product certification agency to provide the testing, inspection, and evaluation functions, may yield a more streamlined process housed within one entity. This can reduce the time of the previous code evaluation process by anywhere from six months to two years of time. The product certification agency is expanding the scope of work in product areas for which they have already established competency, which eliminates the need for a third-party review/evaluation process. The new approach can eliminate redundancy and significantly reduce the timeline required for product approval, allowing for new and innovative products to come to market sooner. Additionally, the entry of multiple evaluation agencies in the market increases competition, and drives better services and lower costs for manufacturers, which will increase product availability and, in turn, lower the material’s price.

Certification agencies providing research reports should rely on well-established and stable guidelines and base their findings on consistent interpretations of the code. Agencies should be accredited for a code evaluation program under International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 17065, Conformity Assessment–Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes, and services, and demonstrate expertise in the areas in which they are working.

Agencies should be active participants in code and standards development and at acceptance criteria hearings. Research reports should be written in such a way the basis for the research report is transparent to the report user (i.e. the research report should be based on code, standards, and acceptance criteria, in that order). Finally, since many agencies also conduct testing and inspection activities, there must be separation between the testing and inspection activities and the evaluation activity. (Accreditation will ensure the proper firewalls are maintained.)

Role for certification agencies
In the fast-paced market for building materials, a manufacturer’s ability to demonstrate its products are code-compliant is critical in order to gain approval for the products’ use in the thousands of jurisdictions across the nation and can deliver marketing and sales advantages; the speed and accuracy with which the process of verifying code compliance is completed can only benefit a manufacturer in terms of financial performance and competitive advantage.

Accredited third-party safety and performance testing organizations are well-known for helping to take the guess-work out of the all-important process of testing. Several of these organizations now also possess the specialized expertise in evaluation of alternative products, enabling preparation of technical reports that lead to product approval and better enforcement of building regulations.

Conclusion
Competent, independent product certification agencies are now providing manufacturers with efficient, cost-effective solutions to demonstrate code compliance of building products. However, it is critical these agencies be comparably accredited under ISO 17065 and be actively engaged in the development of code, standards, and acceptance criteria.

When Acceptance Criteria are used, they should be well-established and stable with strong industry presence. To maintain a level playing field for evaluation agencies and manufacturers, this criteria for any given subject should continue to be developed and maintained by a single agency. Providers of code evaluations must continue to meet code official and industry expectations; however, there are now multiple sources for that service in the marketplace.

Overall, competent product certification agencies are now offering code evaluations in many product areas within the building products arena. Manufacturers will have a choice of service providers and these agencies will streamline logistics, eliminate redundancy, and significantly reduce the length of the evaluation process for many products, often at lower cost, enabling all constituents to benefit from the effects of competition in this segment.

Michael Beaton, PE, has more than 25 years of experience in the building industry, working with manufacturers and industries to address issues of code compliance. He joined Intertek in 2013 as the senior director of product evaluations where he is responsible for outreach to industry associations and to the code community. Beaton can be contacted by e-mail at michael.beaton@intertek.com[1].

Source URL: https://www.constructionspecifier.com/the-evolving-code-evaluation-process/

---