JBED Journal of Building Enclosure Design€¦ · to update you on the progress made in this effort. The Final Action Hearings for the IBC will occur in October in Portland, Oregon

An official publication of the National Institute of Building Sciences Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council (BETEC)

Journal of Building Enclosure DesignJBEDSummer 2012

National Institute of Building Sciences: An Authoritative Source of Innovative Solutions for the Built Environment

Testing for Foam Insulation on

Exterior Walls

Summer 2012 7

Contents

JBEDPublished For:The National Institute of BuildingSciences Building Enclosure Technology andEnvironment Council1090 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 700Washington, DC 20005-4905Phone: (202) 289-7800Fax: (202) [email protected]

PRESIDENT Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA

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

PRESIDENT & CEO Jack Andress

CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER Jessica Potter [email protected]

PUBLISHER Peter Schulz

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Shannon Savory [email protected]

EDITOR Alexandra Walld

FINANCE/ACCOUNTING &ADMINISTRATION Shoshana Weinberg, Pat Andress, Nathan Redekop [email protected]

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:

09 Message from Institute President Henry L. Green

11 Message from BETEC Chairman Wagdy Anis

Industry Updates:

25 Trust but Verify: Building Enclosure Commissioning Comes of Age

31 BEC Corner

36 Buyer’s Guide

Features:

13 NFPA 285: What You Need to Know

17 Understanding NFPA 285: A Consultant’s Perspective on the Code

19 How do the Requirements of NFPA 285 Affect the Work of General Contractors?

21 Building Enclosure Design Considerations with NFPA 285

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 as-semblies 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 9

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 Protec-tion Association (NFPA) 285 standard and how these provisions relate to the building enclosure. Over the past several months, I have been engaged with mem-bers of the Building Enclosure Technology and Environment Council (BETEC) in the preparation of proposed changes to the International Code Council (ICC) Interna-tional 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 infiltra-tion, water migration and moisture pen-etration. 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 of-ficials who administer and, specifically, enforce the construction regulations in their respective communities and serve as representatives of governmental subdivi-sions throughout the country. Industry representatives and others may partici-pate 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 lat-eral flame propagation, and 2603.5, Foam plastic insulation in exterior walls of build-ings 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 sup-pliers. The committee reviews the pro-posed revisions with care, listens to all who wish to comment on the code pro-posal and provides a recommended de-cision for consideration by the entire ICC membership. This recommended deci-sion 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 disap-proval. The third, Code Proposal FS147-12, was unanimously recommended for approval by the committee. This provision includes an exception for use of certain combustible materials and water resis-tive barriers. In the two proposals recom-mended 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 dis-cussion 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 provi-sions 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 regula-tory 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 impor-tant 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 dis-cussions 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 in-volved in the code development process.

Henry L. Green, Hon. AIAPresidentNational Institute of Building Sciences

Message from the National Institute of Building Sciences

Henry L. Green, Hon. AIA

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.

10 Journal of Building Enclosure Design

Summer 2012 11

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 Confer-ence (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-de-signed Westin Peachtree Plaza hotel, the tallest hotel in the western hemisphere.

Dinner was at the exquisite award-winning 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 construc-tion industry. We also had the opportunity to view the exquisite art collection.

BEST3 offered participants two concur-rent conference tracks: Energy Efficiency/Fenestration and Whole Buildings. Confer-ence highlights included an expert panel presentation on quality management. Twenty-two sessions offered more than 70 peer-reviewed papers and allowed partici-pants to earn continuing education cred-its. 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 with-out reported incidents.

The insulation testing requirements dis-allow closed cell plastic foam as continu-ous 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 south-ern climates. Each of these values adds to the ability to provide energy-efficient as-semblies that meet the International Ener-gy 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 revi-sions to address these issues. NFPA 285 is not applicable to buildings with sprinklers. The test is for a two-story enclosure assem-bly 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 report-edly the equivalent of six tonnes of maple wood burning, simulated by a gas fire flash-ing out of the window and supplemented by another fire outside. These seem to be exces-sive loads that are unlikely and may not oc-cur 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 stan-dards, 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 high-performing energy-efficient structures. Looking at a building system without tak-ing a holistic approach is counter-intuitive and may not produce the best overall re-sults. The cost of testing to meet the re-quirements 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 assem-blies that involve multiple manufacturers, which may provide technical solutions to some of the problems. The tested assem-blies, to this point, far from meet the tech-nical requirements of energy-efficient, durable assemblies.

Codes and standards should not yield to special interests but must provide an ap-proach that strives to achieve the safest and most cost effective solutions that achieve energy-efficient, durable enclosures.

Wagdy Anis, FAIA, LEED-APChairman, BETECWiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.

Wagdy Anis, FAIA, LEED-AP

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.


Summer 2012 13

Feature

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 ex-terior 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) Inter-national 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 evalu-ate 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 con-cern 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 pro-vide 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 ex-terior 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 con-struction 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 Assem-blies 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 ap-paratus, 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 intermedi-ate-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 Character-istics of Exterior Non-Load-Bearing Wall Assemblies Containing

NFPA 285: What You Need to KnowBy Jesse J. Beitel

Figure 1. UBC 17-6 test in progress.


Combustible Components. This standard was based on the UBC 26-9 test and is technically the same with the only differences be-ing formatting and editorial issues. FIGURE 2 provides a photo-graph 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 exte-

rior 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 exte-rior-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 assem-

bly. 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 barri-ers 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 “Alter-native 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 signifi-cant 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 ma-terials, 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 com-bined to create a new wall assembly, will meet the require-ments of NFPA 285. For example, if two materials, such as exterior cladding and a combustible insulation, are each test-ed independently and meet the criteria of the NFPA 285 test, the combination of these two materials may not meet the in-tent 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 evalu-

ate 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 plas-tics. He is an expert on fire performance and the flammability of materials.

ThE ThrEE LEgAcy codEs1. BOCA National Building Code (BOCA/NBC) by the Build-

ing Officials Code Administrators International (BOCA).2. Uniform Building Code (UBC) by the International Confer-

ence of Building Officials (ICBO).3. Standard Building Code (SBC) by the Southern Building

Code Congress International (SBCCI).Figure 2. An NFPA 285 test in progress.

Summer 2012 15


Summer 2012 17

Feature

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 con-tinually revising, rewriting and clarifying what is in the public’s best interest in terms of health and life safety. Occasionally dur-ing this process, unintended consequences arise when seemingly unrelated areas of the code are thrown into opposition.

As we strive for improved energy ef-ficiency 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 re-quirement 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 continu-ous 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 in-dustries. Because they understood that a highly combustible material was being used in large quantities in exposed areas, code officials and manufacturers got to-gether and established codes and poli-cies 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 plas-tic to meet continuous insulation require-ments 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 trig-gered the need for an NFPA 285 tested as-sembly. The building code officials—the plans examiners themselves—are often caught off-guard and unaware of the situ-ation. It is not hard to understand the ar-chitect’s confusion at being told by the enclosure consultant that their wall assem-bly 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 confu-sion and frustration. As designers adapt to the ever-changing flood of requirements, products and technologies, they under-standably 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 deliv-ering the message.

As building enclosure consultants, we find ourselves in a difficult position. Be-cause we are aware of the code language, we must say something about non-com-plying 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 circum-stances. 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 re-ceived more attention is probably because of the lack of actual, centralized, docu-mentable 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 in-sulation assemblies, the possibility of real damage from fire constantly grows. And, as with most code issues, the architect is ulti-mately responsible. The code official, while charged with enforcement, has no legal

Understanding NFPA 285: A Consultant’s Perspective on the CodeBy David L. Wolff, AIA

Figure 1. Typical foam plastic cavity insulation installation.


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 clad-ding 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 as-sembly must pass NFPA 285. The individ-ual materials are not being tested as much as the entire assembly, including instal-lation. 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 speci-fications 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 assem-blies that discourage competitive bidding.

Architects need to be able to design wall systems with a reasonable amount of flex-ibility and confidence while meeting or ex-ceeding 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 pos-sible that we need to revisit the appropri-ateness of Chapter 26/NFPA 285. Further education, discussion and review are nec-essary to attain reasonable, economical solutions to our enclosure challenges while remaining sensitive to life safety issues. n

David L. Wolff, AIA, is a building enclo-sure consultant with over 30 years’ experi-ence in architecture and construction. He holds a Masters of Architecture from the University of Texas in Austin and has expe-rience with projects worldwide. At The Fa-cade Group, Wolff is responsible for project management, sustainability research, de-sign and code compliance reviews, as well as marketing and business development efforts.

rEFErENcE1. Underwriters Laboratories is an

independent, not-for-profit prod-uct safety testing and certification organization.

Figure 2. Using mineral wool insulation instead of foam plastic eliminates the need for fire testing.

Summer 2012 19

Feature

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 con-struction 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 com-ponent to their financial stability. Because so many clients continue to own and oper-ate the facilities we build for them, they are acutely aware of the impact of rising energy costs to their bottom line. And because in-creases in energy costs are far in excess of the cost of living increases our clients re-ceive for providing housing, controlling energy consumption has become a high priority.

During the same period, the 2010 Or-egon Energy Efficiency Specialty Code iden-tified continuous exterior insulation as a prescriptive path to energy code compli-ance. 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 cli-ents’ 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 con-tinuous exterior foam plastic insulation be-came apparent.

OSSC Section 2603.5.5 requires that wall assemblies that include foam plastic insu-lation be tested according to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 285. For a general contractor, knowledge of this code requirement requires that we ask our de-sign 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 af-fects our work.

NFPA 285 is an assembly test, not a com-ponent test. As such, the entire assembly, with each specified material, is required to create a compliant assembly. This means that neither the designer, general contrac-tor nor subcontractors can substitute ma-terials into this assembly—to do so would render it non-compliant. Each assembly tested according to NFPA 285 is therefore a proprietary assembly. Proprietary assem-blies lock contractors into specific materi-als, 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 re-duced by the use of proprietary assemblies. Generic assemblies tend to allow the con-tractor 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 land-ing the job, so we must look for options to meet the increasing demands for energy ef-ficient assemblies.

Using mineral wool in lieu of foam plas-tic insulation is one option currently con-sidered 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 advan-tages 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 fa-miliar with the product and the distribution network reliability is unknown.

Assemblies using mineral wool insula-tion 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 materi-als (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 high-ly energy-efficient assemblies that provide the required fire resistance—at a competi-tive cost.

There are clear cost implications to the inclusion of foam plastic insulation in exte-rior assemblies. They include not only the cost of the insulation itself, but also addi-tional materials and detailing around open-ings 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 effec-tive, requiring more attention to detail (and therefore time) than installing traditional batt insulation. Despite the cost and sched-ule implications, there is a compelling case to be made for the increase in project qual-ity through the use of continuous exterior insulation. A continuous thermal control layer certainly reduces energy consump-tion but it also eliminates the thermal cy-cling of the building structure and protects

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


both the structure and any control layers it surrounds from the negative effects of UV and bulk moisture. The consequent in-crease in building durability indicates that an exterior insulated assembly is a clear im-provement in building quality.

Over the past two years, we have joined a growing number of industry profession-als seeking clarity on the application of this code language, to no avail. The design com-munity in general has been caught off guard by OSSC Section 2603.5.5. During construc-tability reviews we conduct on each project during pre-construction, we have repeat-edly asked our design partners, “Does this assembly, which includes continuous ex-terior foam plastic insulation, meet the re-quirements 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 Au-thorities 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 exte-rior 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 interpreta-tions issued by the ICC.

During Walsh Construction’s Quality Seminar on Fire Rated Construction in Port-land in June 2011, one presentation focused on this code section. We outlined changes in the energy code that drive the use of contin-uous exterior insulated assemblies, stressing that such assemblies must be tested accord-ing 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 pre-sentation in March of this year, presented by David Wolff of the Façade Group, which focused on energy code changes, includ-ing the implications of Section 2603.5. The

group in attendance seemed genuinely in-credulous that such a requirement would become part of the code without their knowledge. Despite the efforts of many in-dividuals nationwide, there still appears to be little widespread understanding of this code requirement and widely varying inter-pretations among jurisdictions.

The latest iteration of the model code includes a requirement that all weather re-sistive barriers (WRBs) be tested according to NFPA 285, which would appear to ben-efit 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 reduc-ing the number of approved assemblies (all of which would, by definition, be propri-etary) and consequently reducing the abil-ity 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 construc-tion, 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 cre-ate the code, but rather we have to com-ply with its requirements. There is much discussion about whether or not this code requirement is necessary, with some not-ing 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 commu-nity 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 improve-ment 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 Di-rector 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 Thermogra-pher. With WCC since 2006, Houston’s focus includes ensuring overall build-ing quality while concentrating on high-performance envelopes and emerging technologies for building envelope com-missioning and diagnosis.

AbouT MINErAL WooLMineral 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 pro-longed 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.

Summer 2012 21

Feature

THE INCREASING DEMAND FOR HIGH-performance, energy-efficient buildings over the last 20 years has led to the evo-lution of building enclosure designs that incorporate multiple layers of materials, sized and sequenced to control condensa-tion, water leakage and heat transfer. The spectrum of materials available to design-ers continues to expand as their place-ment directly behind exterior rain screen claddings has become commonplace. This evolution has been accompanied by the development of highly-efficient and effec-tive insulating and waterproofing products. Some membranes, for example, can simul-taneously 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 intro-duced a wider range of combustible compo-nents 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 other-wise 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-Bear-ing 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)

with the various material combinations to account for typical assemblies.

This article discusses the consider-ations 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 code-compliant without specific approval from the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ).

Currently, the industry lacks pub-lished summaries of NFPA 285 tested assemblies, making it cumbersome to de-termine what has been tested. Fire-resis-tance 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 in-stead refer to the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC ES) reports or litera-ture from the manufacturers of building ma-terials. 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 compli-ant,” although actual NFPA 285 testing has not been completed; the basis for said com-pliance 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 primar-ily 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 vari-ous barriers to meet energy code require-ments, reduce thermal bridging and provide resistance to water penetration

Building Enclosure Design Considerations with NFPA 285By Brian D. Kuhn, Jr., PE and Andrew E. Jeffrey, PE, LEED AP

Figure 1. The NFPA 285 test apparatus.

Arch

itectural Testin

g.

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


and excessive air infiltration and vapor migration. However, the designer is chal-lenged to find a passing NFPA 285 test assembly that incorporates all of the com-ponents and features of these high-per-forming wall systems.

The following should be considered when selecting components and design-ing 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,

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 thick-ness 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, va-por and/or water-resistive barriers includ-ed 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 addi-tional consideration for exterior wall de-sign. 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, spray-applied expanding polyurethane foam (SPuF) insulation can shrink and debond from substrates at elevated atmospheric temperature and humidity unless prop-erly restrained at edges and termina-tions. 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 insula-tion: 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). De-signers should consider the following with mineral wool insulation:• Mineral wool insulation has a lower R-

value per inch compared to foam plas-tic 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: Sev-eral combustible cladding materials have passed the NFPA 285 test. However, de-signers should be aware of the limitations of the given test assembly. For example, combustible cladding materials are often tested only with a noncombustible in-sulation and without an air, vapor and/or water-resistive barrier. Therefore, de-signers 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 ex-isting test assembly, or pursue new testing (and incurred project costs) or other jus-tification 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 wa-terproofing in exterior walls. New in the 2012 IBC, exterior walls greater than 40 ft. in height that contain a combustible WRB

Summer 2012 23

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 as-semblies 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 fol-lowing when using building wraps or fluid-applied products as an alternative to rubberized asphalt:• Many building wraps and some fluid-

applied products are vapor permeable and may require a separate vapor re-tarder 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 min-eral 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.

coNcLusIoNsExterior wall system designs have

evolved to provide reliable, weather-resistant and energy-efficient perfor-mance. 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 con-struction (FIGURE 2).

To remain code-compliant, designers must either conform to the products and details of successfully tested systems, use noncombustible alternatives (when avail-able), 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 success-fully tested assemblies and the cost for ad-ditional testing, the designer’s ability to develop effective, efficient and innovative wall systems and details is currently hin-dered. 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 eval-uating equivalent risk when substituting components into a tested wall system.

The National Institute of Building Sci-ences and the Building Enclosure Councils (BECs) are leading such an effort. These organizations are attempting to iden-tify 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 chal-lenged to create exterior walls that are durable, technically reliable and aestheti-cally 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 investiga-tion of building envelopes, including fa-cades, windows, curtain walls, roofing and waterproofing.

Figure 2. Post-test condition of an exterior wall assembly.

Cop

yrig

ht ©

2012

Ow

ens

Cor

nin

g.

Summer 2012 25

Industry Updates

PROFESSOR BARRY YATT, A COLLEAGUE OF MINE AND an Associate Dean of the School of Architecture at Catholic Univer-sity 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 in-dividuals as renaissance people—licensed professionals who think in the abstract and possess the rare combination of vi-sion, 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 success-ful piece of legislation. We use the term reverentially because, as a society, we have come to recognize architects as individu-als with a proven ability to solve major problems through the use of a creative, yet structured and thoughtfully applied intel-lectual process.”Ironically, this societal view of the architect has begun to apply

less and less to the overwhelming majority of those who, by defi-nition, 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 ar-chitecture 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. Devel-opers, for their part, unknowingly contributed to this retreat by creating an increasingly competitive environment for design ser-vices that—particularly for those who see architecture as a “call-ing” 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 se-cure a commission and sustain a commercially viable design prac-tice. 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 pro-vide the level of detail, our fees would need to increase dramati-cally 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 indefensi-ble redistribution of design responsibility downstream to the con-struction 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 devel-opers increasingly turned to consultants to fill this void. And ar-chitects who did, in fact, invest the time and financial resources to design responsively increas ingly 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 PErForMANcEOptimum 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 produc tivity

Trust but Verify: Building Enclosure Commissioning Comes of AgeBy Daniel J. Lemieux, AIA

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.


of the end user—it is critical that issues of service ability, durabil-ity and performance receive the same weight as those associated with programming, massing, site orientation and climate. These concepts are inextri cably linked, of course, and must be fully con-sidered during the early stages of a project, when ideas are promul-gated 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 in-tended 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-construc-tion, construction, and occupancy and operation.

TurNINg coNcEPT INTo rEALITyAn ASTM Task Group was created in 2009 to create a standard

that could serve as a complete and authoritative practice for build-ing 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 expecta-tions 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 al-ready undertaken by the Institute, its Building Enclosure Technol-ogy and Environment Council (BETEC), and its High Performance

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 Own-ers 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 Protec-tion and Disaster Management Division (IDD), was made avail-able 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 at-tributes 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 met-rics 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 criti-cally, the total cost of ownership.

LEvELs oF coMMIssIoNINg One of the first challenges faced by the Task Group in the de-

velopment of ASTM E2813 was to consider why the original NIBS

Summer 2012 27

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 prin-ciples 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 con-

cept of establishing minimum enforceable “levels” of BECx (in-cluding 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 pre-ferred project delivery methodology.

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 ap-proved 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 mini-mum requirements established in the standard for baseline (fun-damental) 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 engi-neering-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 in-dividual members of the BECx team, and the methodology

established to verify and document compliance with the re-quirements of the approved contract documents.

• Direct and substantive participation during the pre-construc-tion, construction and occupancy and operations phases of the BECx process.

Enhanced BECxEnhanced 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 develop-

ment 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 re-view 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 enclo-sure for compliance with ASTM E2813. Selection, application and use of those test standards shall be determined at the sole discre-tion 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 en-closure 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-pro-vider at all—a difficult step for ASTM to take given the potentially

Demonstration of AAMA 501.1 adapted for application in the field.

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.


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-provid-er under the requirements of ASTM E2813. That program is cur-rently under development by ASTM Task Group E06.55.10.

After discussing these challenges in some detail with our li-aisons 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 solu-tion that we strongly felt would be well-received by the ASTM com-munity 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;

• 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 toler-ances 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 sub-ject-direct, technically sound and actionable documentation and feedback throughout the construction phase of the BECx process.

Performance test standards and methodologyIncluding, 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 applica-tion 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 defec-tive installation and/or workmanship; and

• Distinction between test standards and methodologies “recog-nized in the industry” versus test standards developed by inde-pendent 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 pub-lication 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 mi-gration of NIBS Guideline 3, Exterior Enclosure Technical Require-ments 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 commis-sioning in a marketplace where none currently exists. Publication of each of these standards and guidelines through ASTM, to-gether with the development of a BECx Certification and Training

Pre-construction laboratory evaluation of thermal movement in accordance with AAMA 501.5, Test Method for Thermal Cycling of Exterior Walls.

Summer 2012 29

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, hu-man 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 replace-ment for the existing Guideline 3. To accomplish this, a new Task Group has been formed at ASTM that will be responsible for repo-sitioning 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 ex-

panded 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 hall-mark 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 [email protected] or Rob Kistler at [email protected]. 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 lead-ing 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 Enclo-sure 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 Com-missioning. 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 [email protected].

Summer 2012 31

Industry Updates

chArLEsToNBy 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 Contrac-tual Issues & Legal Pitfalls Related to Build-ing Enclosures (by Paul Sperry, Patrick Norris and Tyler Winton). In February, we theoretically deconstructed case studies related to our program, entitled Self-Com-posting 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 Im-pact 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 archi-tecture/material science and engineering class, is being used to expose graduate students to envelope performance soft-ware, thermal dynamics processes and material innovations as they relate to en-ergy storage. The semester-ending proj-ect 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 sub-missions, all of which included energy analysis of the building enclosure as a function of BTUs saved or stored. The win-ning 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-con-ceived and thought-provoking perfor-mance-based design.

BEC-Charleston has over 200 profes-sionals on our membership list and greets about 40 to 50 members at each meeting. For additional information, contact me at [email protected] or Ken Huggins (vice-chair) at [email protected].

chIcAgoBy Kevin Kalata, RA, SE, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates Inc.; BEC-Chicago Chairman

BEC-Chicago welcomed its new of-ficers for 2012. Sarah Flock (Raths, Raths & Johnson, Inc.) was elected vice-chair and Elizabeth Cassin (Wiss, Janney, El-stner 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 ac-cess contact information for other mem-bers, as well as view and post upcoming building enclosure events. The site also serves as a resource for building enclo-sure documents and links. Forty-two new members have registered since the launch, bringing our membership num-bers to over 160. BEC-Chicago would like to thank our sponsors for their gener-ous support that enabled us to create the new website: BASF; CertainTeed; Grace; Henry; Raths, Raths & Johnson; Sto; USG; Wiss, Janney, Elstner; and our latest spon-sor, Powers Fasteners.

High-quality technical presentations are the cornerstone of our organization.

Monthly lunch meetings are typically at-tended by 40 to 60 members. Our 2012 presentations included a January pre-sentation by Gate Precast Co. on precast concrete enclosure technologies, a Febru-ary presentation on effective U-values of curtain walls by ARUP, and a March pre-sentation 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 diag-nostics using infrared thermography.

Future presentations include our an-nual evening event in September, which will feature a presentation by Curtain Wall Design and Consulting, Inc. on so-lar reflectivity of facades. Presentations on stone materials and cladding systems, thermal performance of cladding sup-ports and the Green Construction Code are also being planned.

cLEvELANdBy Nate Gamber, PE, Wiss, Janney, Elstner, Associates, Inc.; and Ed Taylor, Technical Assurance, Inc.; BEC-Cleveland Co-Chairs

Officially founded in spring 2012, BEC-Cleveland is the newest Building Enclo-sure 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 techni-cal presentations to be held at the inaugu-ral 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, El-stner, Associates, Inc.), secretary Mehm-et Turkel (Technical Assurance, Inc.),

BEC Corner

Summer 2012 33

treasurer Mike Kotheimer (Wiss, Janney, Elstner, Associates, Inc.), as well as Matt Nelson (ECO Commissions), A.J. Mazza and Matt Setzekorn (Integrated Engineer-ing Consultants, Inc.), and Mark Evans (Technical Assurance, Inc.).

coLorAdo By Chip Weincek, AIA, LEED-AP, CWA Architecture; BEC-Colorado Chair

BEC-Colorado continues into its sev-enth year. We have an average attendance of 40 professionals at our meetings, held the first Wednesday of each month. Par-ticipants 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-Colo-rado’s programs presented in 2011: Janu-ary: Laboratory Curtain Wall Performance Mock-up Testing; February: Masonry Trou-bles: 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: Liabil-ity Issues in Design & Construction; August: Steep Slope Roofing – Practical Solutions to Some Common Problems; September: BEC-Colorado’s annual seminar, Trouble-shooting in Design of Construction Details, presented by Mark Lawton, PE, from Mor-rison Hershfield in Vancouver, British Co-lumbia; October: Annual BEC-Colorado planning meeting; November: a Contrac-tor’s Roundtable; and December: Sustain-able 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 Part-nership Architects; and Viracon.

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.

housToNBy 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 member-ships 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 kick-off social at the Houston AIA office and a brief presentation on evaluating a build-ing’s exterior with infrared thermography. The March event was about and held at a multi-story insulated concrete forms (ICF) building. The presentation includ-ed an overview of how this technology has evolved and included many lessons learned about the construction and de-tailing of the openings.

April and May featured programs on how the new state energy code has af-fected 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 avail-able 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 dis-cussion 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 commis-sioning 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 cITyBy Dave Herron, herron + partners; BEC-Kansas 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 Cham-berlain, 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 confer-ence, our wonderful city and, of course, our delicious barbeque. See you in 2015!

MINNEsoTABy Judd Peterson, AIA; BEC-Minnesota Chair

At our monthly meetings we’ve wel-comed Ed Reztbach, Technical Rep, and Jon Bauer, Local Rep, with Tremco. They discussed Tremco’s polyurethane water-proofing and the application differences between the low VOC materials and other more volatile materials.

We enjoyed a presentation on high-performance thermal construction by Rolf Jacobson, research fellow at the Center for Sustainable Building Research. He pre-sented his Masters thesis, discussing high-performance, super-insulated, residential envelopes near Trondheim, Norway.

This spring, BEC-Minnesota participat-ed in seminars for the AIA+2030 Sessions being presented by the Center for Sustain-able Building Research (CSBR) of the Col-lege of Design, University of Minnesota. A series of 10 training sessions were coordi-nated by Richard Strong, Senior Research Fellow at CSBR. BEC-Minnesota also pre-sented 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 rep-resentative, visited and talked about va-por permeable and vapor impermeable air barrier situations. Andrew Hulse of SAGE explained dynamic glazing to mini-mize solar heat gain and develop greater energy efficiency along with more effec-tive daylighting. As Rolf Jacobson point-ed out during his recent presentation on extreme insulations in PassiveHaus


construction, daylighting and effective control of solar heat gain become critical when the thermal performance of the ex-terior 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 per-fecting performance.

BEC-Minnesota continues to work with Senator Al Franken and his staff coordina-tor, Lisbeth Kaufman, to help define energy efficiency retrofit possibilities, workforce retraining and education curriculum de-velopment to improve our buildings on a national scale.

PorTLANdBy 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 Technol-ogy 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 in-cluded Mike Steffen, Walsh Construction, who discussed air barrier commissioning from a contractor’s perspective; Lee Dur-ston, Director of Building Science, BCRA, who provided an update on air tightness performance of buildings in the Army Corps of Engineers; Jeff Speert, JRS Engi-neering, discussed air tightness in relation to mechanical systems; and Dr. Alexander Zhivov, Senior Researcher, Engineer Re-search and Development Center Construc-tion Engineering Research Laboratory, spoke about the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-neers Whole Building Air Tightness Pro-gram. In addition, Portland YouthBuilds volunteered to construct four different wall assemblies in order to perform air tight-ness testing. Results were presented at the symposium.

On behalf of the Portland-BEC, I wish to thank our organizing committee who

worked tirelessly to coordinate the sympo-sium, our speakers, Portland YouthBuild-ers, 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 ANToNIoBy Erik Murray, AIA, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.; BEC-San Antonio Chair

BEC-San Antonio kicked-off in Febru-ary 2012 and is looking forward to an ex-citing first year. There has been a strong response from the local AEC community and a desire for technical educational pro-grams for building enclosures in the sate.

We are planning six educational pro-grams and events for the year, including a hands-on building enclosure competition that will involve several teams of architects, engineers, contractors and vendors con-structing air and watertight building wall mock-ups and subjecting them to rigorous air and water leakage testing.

In case you missed it, our first pre-sentation/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 test-ing 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 pro-cess; 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.

sEATTLEBy Roxanne Navrides, Seattle Housing Authority; Seattle-BEC Chair

Seattle Building Enclosure Council (SEABEC) currently has over 100 mem-bers 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 grap-pling with an economy that is recovering

slowly. We provide free membership to stu-dents, 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, Ther-mal 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 current-ly 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, spon-sorship, programming and education.

Since re-launching our monthly meet-ings in January, with an open forum ses-sion 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.

Summer 2012 35

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.

WIscoNsINBy Brian Stroik, The Boldt Company; BEC-Wisconsin Co-Chair

BEC-Wisconsin (BEC-WI) has just com-pleted a successful 2012 spring schedule,

which was full of informative and interest-ing courses. In January, we held an open fo-rum 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 sav-ings through energy production.

March brought Dr. John Straube, from The University of Waterloo/Building Sci-ences 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 flex-ible 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 sum-mer 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 com-mittee. BEC-WI will continue with its webi-nar format in the fall of 2012 as members from across the state appreciate the ability to attend informative sessions without hav-ing to drive hours to attend. n

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 [email protected] or phone (865-574-0022).

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:


Air and Vapor BarriersHohmann & Barnard, Inc. ..................29, 36BASF Wall Systems .....................................5

AssociationsAir Barrier Association of America ...........30The Glass Association of North America ..32RCI, Inc. ...................................................15

Below Grade Water and Containment BarrierPolyguard ....................................................6

Building Sciences and Restoration ConsultantsRead Jones Christofferson.........................36

Consulting, Commissioning, Engineering, Testing, Certification and InspectionsArchitectural Testing ............................OBC

FastenersLeland Industries Inc. ...............................26

Fluid Commercial WrapE.I. DuPont .................................................4

GovernmentHomeowner Protection Office ..................24

Industrial Glass SupplierPPG Industries .................................38, IBC

Masonry Anchoring SystemsHohmann & Barnard, Inc. ..................29, 36

Masonry and BIM ModelingEndicott .......................................................3

Masonry ProductsHohmann & Barnard, Inc. ..................29, 36

Mineral Wool InsulationRoxul, Inc. .................................................16

Rain Barrier ManufacturerThermafiber, Inc. .......................................10

Rain Screen SystemsCosella-Dörken Products, Inc ...................12

RoofingDuro-Last Roofing, Inc. ............................22

Structural Engineering, Design and ConsultantsWJE ...........................................................18

Water Intrusion Test Equipment and TrainingThe RM Group, LLC ................................23

Water Proofing/Air BarriersMFM Building Products Corporation ........8Sto Corp. ................................................IFC

Buyer’s Guide