|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Crossmore flat-panel molded interior door
from CMI |
|
|
|
LEGAL
Make Instructions
Work for You |
|
|
|
|
|
The Latest...
Side-Hinged Door Decision Tops Industry News at ICC Hearings
The door is not completely closed, but a requirement for side-hinged doors to be tested and labeled as a system to AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 was disapproved at the recent International Code Council code development hearings in Palm Springs, Calif. Julie Ruth, code consultant for the American Architectural Manufacturers Association and Window & Door columnist, provides the following summary of window and door related activities at the hearings, which concluded March 1:
Labeling of side-hinged doors
The proposal by the Window & Door Manufacturers Association (S141) would have required side-hinged doors to be tested and labeled to AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 in the same manner as windows and sliding glass doors in both the International Residential Code (one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses) and the International Building Code (all other types of residential, and commercial buildings). The Association of Millwork Distributors opposed the requirement, arguing that it would limit consumer choices because it would prevent pre-hangers from putting together a door using components from different suppliers. AAMA had offered a modification to the proposal that would have limited its scope to doors in areas with a wind design speed greater than 110 mph and on doors that did not have a large overhang and which served habitable areas.
Unfortunately AAMA, WDMA and AMD were not able to come to agreement on the proposed modification, including possible further revisions, before the code development hearings. As a result, WDMA ended up asking for, and receiving, disapproval of its proposal at the hearings. By asking for disapproval rather than withdrawing the proposal, WDMA left the door open for this issue to be brought up again during ICC’s final action hearings, scheduled for September.
(Click here to read a related news story discussing AAMA and AMD plans to develop a compromise solution.)
Window installation
A few different proposals to change the requirements in the IRC for window installation, including adding reference to ASTM E2112 (RB172) and permitting pan flashing as a method of window flashing (RB201), were denied. A proposal to require all flexible adhered flashing membranes to comply with AAMA 711 (RB199), however, was approved.
Window opening limiting devices
During previous ICC code change cycles, a lot of controversy was generated by the introduction of a 24-inch-minimum sill height for operable windows that open more than 4 inches and which are located more than 72 inches above the exterior grade or surface below the window. The minimum sill height requirement is designed to help prevent child falls, but there are many who question its effectiveness on that front and note that it creates challenges as far as egress.
The ICC Board of Directors eventually deferred the issue to the ICC code technology committee, which had been developed specifically to address issues that had taken up a lot of time on the hearing floor. The ICC CTC submitted a proposal for this code change cycle (RB173), which added certain exceptions to the 24-inch-minimum sill height requirement. Among these was the equipping of the window with a “window opening limiting device” that initially permitted the window to open no more than 4 inches, but which, upon release, would permit the window to be opened further. The intent of this proposal was to allow these devices to be used on emergency escape and rescue openings, which are required to open to a minimum height of 24 inches and a minimum width of 20 inches under the normal operation of the window, without the use of “keys, tools or special knowledge.“ While it is hoped that this type of proposal may eventually allow the industry to provide a product without limitation on its placement in the wall, at this time there were some concerns that the requirements for these window opening limiting devices were vague, and the proposal was disapproved. A proposal by WDMA to remove the minimum sill height requirements (RB174) was also disapproved.
Size of doors
A proposal by AAMA (E37) to clarify the size of door requirements in the IRC and IBC as a minimum clear width of 32 inches was approved. Within the IRC the proposal was approved with a minimum clear opening height of 78 inches, as proposed by AAMA. Within the IBC the proposal was modified to require a minimum clear opening height of 80 inches.
Glass
The 2000 and 2003 IBC require analysis or test data from a registered design professional for framing that supports glass and deflects more than L/175 under design load, but an exemption exists for products that are labeled to AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440. A proposal to remove this exemption (S142) was disapproved during the hearings.
Energy efficiency
There were a number of proposals submitted that dealt with residential fenestration U-factors in the IRC and International Energy Conservation Code (EC14, EC 16-EC21, EC22-EC26, EC54-EC56). The net results of the code development hearings for these groups of proposals are shown in Tables 1 & 2.
|
Maximum U-factors for Residential Fenestration
(using prescriptive compliance methods) |
|
Climate Zones |
Approved for IRC |
Approved for IECC |
|
1 |
1.20 (No change) |
0.65 |
|
2 |
0.65* |
0.50 |
|
3 |
0.55* |
0.40 |
|
4 |
0.40 |
0.35 |
|
5-8 |
No change |
No change |
| Table 1—*For impact resistant fenestration complying with Section R301.2.1.2, the maximum U-factor shall be 1.20 in zone 2 and 0.70 in zone 3. |
|
Maximum SHGCs for Residential Fenestration
(using prescriptive compliance methods) |
|
Climate Zones |
Approved for IRC* |
Approved for IECC |
|
1 |
0.40 (No change) |
0.30 |
|
2 |
0.40 (No change) |
0.30 |
|
3 |
0.40 (No change) |
0.30 |
| Table 2—Fenestration with a projection factor >0.50 shall be deemed to comply with the SHGC requirements in Climate Zones 1 through 3. |
On the commercial side, a proposal to permit the use of AAMA 507 for fenestration energy rating in commercial buildings (EC4), was disapproved. Among concerns expressed by the IECC committee was the fact that the proposal allowed the glazing contractor to sign the required Certificate of Compliance, and concern that residential window manufacturers might want to use AAMA 507 instead of NFRC labeling for their products.
A WDMA proposal that would have eliminated reference to metal framing in the prescriptive table for fenestration energy performance in commercial buildings, and would have required U-factors as low as 0.35 for all windows and exterior glass doors other than entrance doors (EC113), was disapproved. Also disapproved was a proposal to remove consideration of projection factor in the determination of maximum SHGC for commercial fenestration (EC115).
Although two proposals to remove reference to ASHRAE 90.1 (EC103 & EC104) were disapproved, a proposal that limited the designer to either using the IECC in its entirety, or ASHRAE 90.1 in its entirety (EC105), was approved. The 2003 and 2006 IECC permit the designer to use the IECC for one building system, such as the exterior building envelop or the HVAC system, and ASHRAE 90.1 for another. Proposals by both AAMA and AEC (EC107 & EC108) that would have permitted calculation of the average U-factor for the exterior envelop and average SHGC for the exterior fenestration as a method of compliance with the IECC, were both also denied.
At the present time, residential energy conservation requirements are contained in both the IRC and IECC. Two proposals to remove this redundancy (RE2 & RE3) by deleting the provisions from one of the codes were both disapproved. AAMA stayed neutral on these two proposals, which sought to remove the residential energy provisions from either the IRC or IECC.
Skylight Energy Proposals
Proposals which would have restored separate values for plastic skylights in commercial construction (EC114) and required skylights in 2 percent of the roof area of certain occupancies when automatic lighting controls and other criteria were met (EC120 & EC121); and which would have permitted skylights in up to 6 percent of the roof area of certain occupancies and exempted them from the SHGC limitations of the prescriptive method, when automatic lighting controls were provided (EC122); were all disapproved. These proposals would have all made the prescriptive provisions of the IECC more conducive to manufacturers of plastic skylights.
Standards update
The update of several standards currently referenced in the IBC, IRC and IECC was approved. Among the newer editions of standards currently referenced that were accepted for the 2009 International Codes were AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-08, NFRC 100-04, NFRC 200-04 and NFRC 400-04.
While many decisions were made in Palm Springs, none are final. Those who wish to challenge any of the decisions made during the hearings may do so by submitting a public comment to ICC by June 9. Those public comments will then be heard during ICC final action hearings in Minneapolis, Minn., September 17-23. AAMA has conducted its initial review of these results, and will be preparing public comments on some of the proposals, during the next few months.
—Julie Ruth, code consultant, American Architectural Manufacturers Association
|
|
|
|
