Legal Report
May 5, 2008
1. DCA07-DEC-085 by Walter A. Tillit, Jr., PE, Tilteco, Inc.
Question One: Are the fasteners used to install a product which has been evaluated for Product Approval using Rule 9B-72 method 1-B (testing method) required to meet the factor of safety of the testing standard ?
Committee Action: Yes, and this is consistent with the Commission action of DCA06-DEC-200.
Question Two: In addition to question one, are the fasteners used to install a product which has been evaluated for Product Approval using Rule 9B-72 method 1-B (testing method) required to demonstrate compliance with the factor of safety as required by the material standard ?
Committee Action: Yes, product assemblies evaluated for product approval using Rule 9B-72.070, Method 1-B (Test report method) must be anchored in accordance with the fastener manufacturer’s instructions which have been evaluated to the materials standards referenced in the Florida Building Code and/or in accordance with acceptable engineering practices.
2. DCA08-DEC-002 by Scott Hampton, PE
Question # 1: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004
FBC, Including supplements through 2007), in non-HVHZ areas, to require
adequate separation of storm shutters (impact protective systems porous and/or
non-porous) from the underlying glazing to prevent glass breakage due to
missile impacts on the storm shutter, regardless of the separation requirements
within the referenced ASTM E1996 standard?
Answer: No. Based on current standards, breakage is permissible, and it is the intent of the Code to prevent internal pressurization.
Question # 2: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004 FBC, Including supplements through 2007), in non-HVHZ areas, to require adequate separation of storm shutters (impact protective systems porous and/or non-porous) from the underlying glazing to prevent glass breakage due to missile impacts on the storm shutter caused by cyclic wind pressures, regardless of the separation requirements within the referenced ASTM E1996 standard?
Answer:
Refer to answer in Question# 1.
Question # 3: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004 FBC, Including supplements through 2007) that storm shutter contact with glazing be considered synonymous with glass breakage? That is, in order to prevent glass breakage, glass contact must be prevented. Note: This considers both porous and/or non-porous protective systems, and contact as established through testing of a storm shutter with the fenestration assembly or contact as determined analytically by comparing independent storm shutter test deflections with prescribed offsets.
a. The FBC referenced standard (ASTM E1996), in Section 7, provides pass/fail criteria for different consideration. These considerations being---Porous or non-porous; in Wind Zone 1, 2, 3, or in Wind Zone 4; tested with or separately from fenestration assembly; and enhanced or non-enhanced protection. But this standard is a little ambiguous as to if shutter contact with the glazing constitutes failure. For certain conditions, the standard describes failure as ‘penetration of the inner plane of the infill’ but not shutter contact with the infill(glass)
Answer: Refer to answer in Question #1.
Question # 4: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004 FBC, Including supplements through 2007), in non-HVHZ areas, to allow glass breakage due to shutter contact with the glass if the shutter seals the protected opening from wind pressure?
4a. If the answer to question #4 is yes, then please describe the defining requirement(s) of “seals the protected opening”, and indicate if this is equally applicable for both positive and negative wind pressure?
i. With reference to question #4a, if the opening covering requirements for storm shutters of HVHZ Section 2413.7 of the 2004 FBC (ie., ¼” side clearance and overlap of 1.5 times side clearance) are satisfied, does this constitute sealing the protected opening from wind pressure?
ii. With reference to question #4a, are there any special provisions for fabric storm shutters that allow them to be installed closed enough to the protected glass that glass breakage can occur from missile impact with the fabric? The caveat being that under positive pressure the fabric presses against the broken glass to prevent internal over pressurization (note that under negative pressure the fabric shutter would pull away from the broken glass and potentially cause a depressurization depending on how the fabric is attached around the perimeter---fabric attached only at opposite ends will have large separation on the un-attached side that can easily exceed the 10% opening limitation that defines the shutter as porous).
Answer: Refer to answer to Question #1.
Question # 5: Is it the intent of Section 1609.1.4 (2004 FBC, Including supplements through 2007) in non-HVHZ areas, that storm shutter separation from protected glazing be based on the maximum storm shutter deflection from either positive or negative wind pressure, or missile impact.
a. Note that in ASTM E1996 (2002, 2005b, and 2006), the deflection as described in Section3, Section 5.5, and Section 8.3, is the maximum deflection in the direction of the glazing. Obviously missile impact deflection will be in the direction of the glazing, but wind pressure deflection could be (and usually is) greater in the direction away from the glazing 9i.e. negative pressure) -- this is normally due to the support constraints of the panel.
b. Depending on the answer to question #5 above, a unique situation can occur with closed weaved (low or no porosity) fabric storm shutters attached on only two opposite edge. This type of shutter, under positive wind pressure (and with an appropriate edge lap over the fenestration opening), can behave as a non-porous shutter….needing only to be offset from the glazing enough to prevent glass breakage (BOAF Informal Interpretation #5503, and ASTM E 1996-06). Under negative wind pressure, the fabric panel will balloon out (away from the glazing) in a parabolic shape, potentially separating a significant distance from the protected glazing. The large open area on the sides of the fabric panel can easily exceed 10% of panel’s projected surface area requiring the shutter to be classified as a porous shutter. As a porous shutter, the panel must meet the more stringent blazing offset requirements of ASTM E1996-02 or 05b (i.e., maximum deflection + 25%). Therefore the direction of the wind pressure can have not only an effect on the glazing offset, but also on the shutter classification.
Answer: See answer to Question # 1.
Question # 6: Do the answers to any of the preceding questions change if reference is made to the 2004 Florida Residential Building Code (including supplements through 2007)(re: Sections R301.2.1.2 and R4410.4.7).
Answer: With regard to section R301.2.1.2, the answer is same as the answer to question #1 because the same standards apply; however, with regards to section R4410.4.7, the section is specific to the HVHZ where specific criteria exist for glass breakage.
3.
DCA08-DEC-71 by G. David Rogers, Executive Vice President, FPGA
Withdrawn
4.
DCA08-DEC-083 by Steven M. Sincere, PE.
Withdrawn
5.
DCA08-DEC-085 by Robert A. Walz, PE, Walz Engineering, LLC –
Withdrawn
6. DCA08-DEC-086
by Ruben Fabian Arroyo, Arroyo Enterprises, Inc.
Question One: Can the above Sunroom be built as partially enclosed?
Answer: Yes, However, the exception of the general requirement for Wind-borne Debris Protection would NOT be applicable because the above referenced project is NOT constructed under a existing roof.
Question Two: Can the described structure, with its own new roof, be built as partially enclosed?
Answer: Yes, But it would NOT be exempt from the requirement for Wind-borne Debris protection because that exemption requires that the sunroom be constructed under an existing roof.
Question Three: Does a partially enclosed sunroom have to be shuttered even though it is separated from the existing structure by either impact glass or shutters?
Answer: Yes.
Question Four: For a sunroom being added to an existing single family home less than 3 stories, which code applies, the Building code or the Residential code?
Answer:
The Florida Building Code, Residential volume.
7. DCA08-DEC-087 by Joseph Hermann, Arroyo Enterprises, Inc.
Question One: Can a non-habitable structure be built as partially
enclosed ?
Answer: Yes,
However, the code does not differentiate between habitable or non-habitable
structures with regard to the requirement for Wind-borne Debris Protection,
with the exception of Storage sheds that are not designed for human habitation
and that have a floor area of 720 square feet. The exception of the general
requirement for Wind-borne Debris Protection would NOT be applicable
because the above referenced project is NOT constructed under a existing
roof.
Question Two: Can this non-habitable sunroom structure be
built as partially enclosed?
Answer: Yes,
However, with the exception of Storage sheds that are not designed for human
habitation and that have a floor area of 720 square feet, the code does not
differentiate between habitable or non-habitable structures with regard to the
requirement for Wind-borne Debris Protection.
Question Three: What categories of sunroom per the 2007 FBC are
required to be shuttered?
Answer: All categories containing glazing, unless they are constructed under existing roofs or decks, and are separated from the building interior by a wall with all openings in the separating wall area protected in accordance with section R301.2.1.2. (emphasis added)
Question Four: Is this sunroom required to be shuttered?
Answer: Yes,
because it is not being constructed under an existing roof.
8. DCA08-DEC-108
by Ruben Fabian Arroyo, Arroyo Enterprises, Inc.
Question One: Is this sunroom its own entity (structure) as defined in the FBC ?
Answer: This sunroom is a structure, because it is built or constructed. However, the definition of “Structure” does not use the term “it’s own entity”.
Question Two: Must a sunroom be constructed under an existing roof or deck ?
Answer: No, to be a sunroom, the structure must meet the definition of “Sunroom” in the code. The code requirement for sunrooms to be constructed under an existing roof, only pertains to whether it is exempted from the Wind-borne Debris protection requirement.
Question Three: Can this structure be built as partially enclosed as per the Florida Building Code ?
Answer: Yes, However, the code would still require Wind-borne Debris protection for the above referenced sunroom because it is not being constructed under an existing roof.
Question Four: If the existing openings of this single family home are shuttered or have impact glass does the sunroom have to be shuttered as well since the sunroom is non-habitable?
Answer: Yes, because it is not being constructed under an existing roof. With the exception of Storage sheds that are not designed for human habitation and that have a floor area of 720 square feet, the code does not differentiate between habitable or non-habitable structures with regard to the requirement for Wind-borne Debris Protection.
9. DCA08-DEC-112 by Lee Arsenault of the Vintage Group, Inc.
Question 1: “When the Residential building code (R303.3) refers to “outside”, does it mean “outside of the conditioned space”?”
Answer: NO, according to the code definition of “outside” it means to the outside of the structure.
Question 2: “Does the practice of “terminating a bathroom exhaust vent into a vented soffit area” comply with the intent of the code?”,
Answer: NO. Terminating a bathroom exhaust vent into a vented attic does not meet the intent of the code.