Ruling No. 03-25-923
Application No. 2003-25
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER OF Sentence 3.1.5.1.(1) of Regulation 403, as amended by O. Reg. 22/98,
102/98, 122/98, 152/99, 278/99, 593/99, 597/99, 205/00, 283/01 and 220/02 (the “Ontario Building
Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Jeremy Sguigna, Architectural Design Group Inc.,
for the resolution of a dispute with Brenda Campbell, Chief Building Official, City of Brampton, to
determine whether the plastic, concrete-filled, “remain in place”, wall forms that are intended to be used
in load bearing applications and which in “Building B” are proposed as an interior partition and in
“Building C” as part of a thermal barrier wall assembly, provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence
3.1.5.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code at 7057 and 7659 Bramalea Road, Brampton, Ontario.
APPLICANT
Jeremy Sguigna
Architectural Design Group Inc.
Woodbridge, Ontario
RESPONDENT
Brenda Campbell
Chief Building Official
City of Brampton
PANEL
John Guthrie, Chair-Designate
Fred Barkhouse
Robert De Berardis
PLACE
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING
June 19, 2003
DATE OF RULING
June 19, 2003
APPEARANCES
David Johhnson
Randal Brown & Associates
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Lillyan McGinn
Manager of Plans & Permits
City of Brampton
Designate for the Respondent
-2-
RULING
1.
The Applicant
Jeremy Sguigna, Architectural Design Group Inc., has received a building permit under the Building Code
Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and is constructing two industrial buildings at 7057 and 7659 Bramalea
Road, Brampton, Ontario.
2.
Description of Construction
The Applicant is constructing two, one storey plus mezzanine structures referred to as “Building B” and
“Building C”. Both buildings have a Group F, Division 2 major occupancy classification and are 9,734
m2 and 18,084 m2 respectively. The structures are required to be comprised of noncombustible
construction and will be equipped with sprinkler systems.
Building B has a two-storey office component, the second storey of which is situated on the mezzanine
level. The mezzanine terminates at a vertical partition which separates the office from the warehouse
portion of the building. A PVC skin and web, concrete filled wall assembly (Royal Building System’s
RBS6), which is considered a “remain in place” wall form, is proposed for this interior partition.
Further, a RBS6 wall will also support a small shipping office complete with a one-hour fire-rated
mezzanine above. In this location, the assembly will serve in a loadbearing capacity.
Building C also has a two-storey office component with the second storey being located on the
mezzanine. Again, the mezzanine is to be separated from the adjacent warehouse by a vertical fire
separation. The Applicant is proposing the use of a similar “remain in place” wall form from Royal
Building System’s (RBS8i). This wall assembly includes foam plastic insulation facing the office side
which will be protected by a thermal barrier, such as drywall, installed independent of the insulation.
This loadbearing wall assembly also provides structural support to the mezzanine.
The construction in dispute involves the use of the Royal Building System’s wall forms in buildings
required to be constructed using noncombustible construction. The RBS6 and RBS8i wall systems are
comprised of a 2.5 mm thick plastic skin and web form, filled with concrete and, in the case of the
RBS8i wall, also includes foam plastic insulation. Testing at ULC has been undertaken on the RBS wall
forms. The plastic skin, when tested to CAN/ULC-S102.2-M88 “Standard Method of Test for Surface
Burning Characteristics of Flooring, Floor Covering and Miscellaneous Materials”, has a flame spread
rating of 13. Further, the fire resistance rating based on testing conducted in accordance with
CAN/ULC-S101-M89 “Standard Methods of Fire Endurance Tests of Building Construction and
Materials”, was found to be 2 hours. The materials, however, have not been tested to the requirements
of CAN/ULC S114 “Standard Method of Test for Determination of Noncombustibility in Building
Materials”.
3.
Dispute
The issue at dispute between the Applicant and Respondent is whether the PVC skin and web,
concrete-filled, “remain in place”, wall forms that are intended to be used in loadbearing applications
and which, in Building B, are proposed as an interior partition and, in Building C, as part of a thermal
barrier wall assembly, provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 3.1.5.1.(1) of the Ontario
Building Code.
-3This provision requires, with certain exceptions, that noncombustible materials must be used in a
building that, under the Code, is required to be of noncombustible construction. The two buildings
subject to this dispute are required by the Code to be constructed of noncombustible construction. As
noted above, the buildings incorporate Royal Building System’s wall forms used as loadbearing supports
for two small mezzanines. These wall systems include plastic components that have not been tested to
ULC-S144, the “Standard Method of Test for Determination of Noncombustibility in Building
Materials”.
The exceptions to the noncombustiblity provisions listed in Sentence 3.1.5.1.(1), include items permitted
in Articles 3.1.5.2 to 3.1.5.23., and Articles 3.1.13.4. and 3.2.2.16. The Applicant suggests that the subject
wall systems can be considered as permitted minor combustible components as specified in Sentence
3.1.5.10.(2) of the Code. This Sentence permits combustible interior wall finishes, other than foamed
plastics, in a building required to be of noncombustible construction.
4.
Provisions of the Ontario Building Code
3.1.5.1. Noncombustible Materials
(1) Except as permitted by Articles 3.1.5.2. to 3.1.5.23., 3.1.13.4. and 3.2.2.16., a building or part of a
building required to be of noncombustible construction, shall be constructed with noncombustible materials.
5.
Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant highlighted the nature of the dispute and described the proposed wall
systems involved. He suggested that these walls could be considered minor combustible components
in a building required to be of noncombustible construction as permitted under Sentence 3.1.5.10.(2)
of the Building Code. The Agent submitted that the “interior plastic webs are of a lesser hazard since
they are protected from heat and flame impingement due to the heat sink provided by the adjacent
poured
concrete. In these specific applications, the building is also provided with automatic sprinklers which
would limit the size of any fire exposure to the exterior or interior portions of the wall.”
The Agent submitted that “since the ULC testing clearly identifies that the wall assembly stays in place
for a 2 h period under loadbearing conditions, it has been shown that the web structure of the RBS panel
does not detract from the performance of this wall. Since the webs are embedded within the poured
concrete wall areas, it is extremely unlikely that they would ever contribute to the fuel loading of an
exposure fire.”
In summation, the Agent stated that, in his opinion, the wall forms being used meet the Code
requirements for permitted combustible finishes. Further, the performance criteria indicate that the wall
systems are suitable for the proposed application.
6.
Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent submitted that a building permit was issued for the subject buildings
on the basis that the disputed walls would be constructed of noncombustible materials to provide onehour fie rated separations between the offices and the industrial portions of the buildings. Instead, the
Applicant is proposing the use of a wall system approved for use as an exterior wall by the Building
Materials Evaluation Commission. She noted that this wall system “contains a plastic skin and web
-4form, filled with concrete and also includes foam plastic insulation” in the case of Building C.
The Designate noted that the subject buildings are required to be constructed of noncombustible
construction according to their classification and as specified in Article 3.2.2.68. of the OBC. It is her
concern that the combustible elements of the wall assemblies may no longer render the wall system as
noncombustible. She acknowledged the ULC testing which indicated that the wall system will achieve
a fire-resistance rating of 2 hours but noted that the assembly had not been tested to the standard for
noncombustibility. She suggested that the Building Materials Evaluation Commission may be the most
appropriate body to determine whether the proposed RBS assemblies can be used in buildings required
to be of noncombustible construction.
In summation, the Designate stated that the subject wall systems contain some combustible elements
and do not meet the Building Code requirements for noncombustibility. Therefore, the proposed
construction is not acceptable for approval by the City.
7.
Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the plastic concrete filled “remain in place” wall
forms that are intended to be used in load bearing applications and which in “Building B” are proposed
as an interior partition and in “Building C” as part of a thermal barrier wall assembly provide sufficiency
with Sentence 3.1.5.1.(1) of the Ontario Building Code at 7057 and 7659 Bramalea Road, Brampton,
Ontario.
8.
Reasons
i)
UL and ULC testing provides sufficiency of compliance with the fire separation requirements
of the Code.
-5Dated at Toronto this 19th day in the month of June in the year 2003 for application number
2003-25.
John Guthrie, Chair-Designate
______
Fred Barkhouse
________
Robert De Berardis