WINDOW/WALL WORKGROUP
AUGUST 11, 2009—MEETING II
RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION WORKSHEET
This list of options is a
preliminary list and is not meant to be an exhaustive or all inclusive list.
The options were provided by members. During the meeting(s) members will be
asked to propose any additional option(s) they would like the Workgroup to
evaluate, and to develop and rank options, and following discussions and
refinements, may be asked to do additional rankings of the options if requested
by a Workgroup member. Members should be prepared to offer specific refinements
to address their reservations. The following scale will be utilized for the
ranking exercises:
|
Acceptability Ranking Scale |
4 = acceptable, I agree |
3 = acceptable, I agree with minor reservations |
2 = not acceptable, I don’t agree unless major reservations addressed |
1 = not acceptable |
WORKGROUP’S OPTIONS EVALUATION PROCESS OVERVIEW
For
each key topical issue area the following format will be used:
*
Research/data
presentation(s) will be given (if any on the topic),
*
Questions and
answers on the presentation(s),
*
General
discussion with Workgroup members on the topic/issue,
*
Identification
of new options (if any),
*
Refinements
proposed to existing options (to enhance option’s acceptability, if possible),
*
Acceptability
ranking of options (new, those with some level of support from previous
meeting(s), and those a Workgroup member proposes to be re-evaluated),
*
Additional
data/research needs identified, as needed.
During Workgroup Meetings:
For each of the key
topical issue areas, members will be asked to review existing options and
invited to propose additional options for Workgroup consideration. The
worksheet is organized, by key topical issue areas with relevant options for
each, to address key issues regarding window/wall interface code amendments for
the 2010 Florida Building Code. A preliminary list of options was drafted, and
the Workgroup may add any additional options they deem appropriate. When
available, staff will provide relevant information from data collections,
research studies, and other pertinent sources. Members should request any
information they feel necessary for evaluating an issue, option or range of
options. Once ranked by the Workgroup, options will be listed within relevant
key topical issue areas, in descending order of initial support as indicated by
the initial acceptability ranking. Options with 75% or greater number of 4’s
and 3’s in proportion to 2’s and 1’s shall be considered consensus draft
recommendations.
The Worksheet is organized as follows:
The Window/Wall Workgroup is charged with
evaluating and
developing recommendations regarding the
window-wall
interface (installation and water intrusion).
1. 2010 Code Amendment Proposals
Format
Reorganize
the sections to split curtain wall from garage door requirements.
Installation
Instructions
Consider
adopting the FMA/AAMA prescriptive installation documents by reference.
Consider
including
Would
adoption of inspection checklist for window installation be a helpful addition
to the code.
Require installation
details for product approval to cover masonry, Stucco and wood installations.
Manufactures must state
on their product approval compatible wall systems with proper installation
drawings.
Prescriptive
Requirements
Require a stucco stop to
keep stucco off window frame.
Installation details
should provide the correct detail regarding not having stucco in contact with
window frame.
Installation
requirements should include ensuring there are good options to trim and service
the system later.
Add head flashing requirement for through wall
flashing.
Add requirement to chapter one, plan
review requirements, detail through wall
penetrations for both commercial and residential plans.
Add language for window
maintenance in the Existing Building Code.
Discuss the use of three
sided sill pans under sills.
For single family
residential construction, no design professional is required yet these
interfaces are getting more and more complex. Perhaps a standard detail for
each type of installation should be placed in the code and eliminate long drawn
out code language.
106.3.5 Minimum plan
review criteria for buildings. The
examination of the documents by the building official shall include the
following minimum criteria and documents: a floor plan; site plan; foundation
plan; floor/roof framing plan or truss layout; all through wall
penetrations; flashing; and all exterior
elevations.
Inclusion of verbiage to require job-specific
installation instructions to accompany each window and door, and make access to
instructions easier and more assured.
Section R613.1, be
amended to read: “Windows shall be installed and flashed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s written job-specific installation instructions. Written job-specific
installation instructions shall be provided by the manufacturer for each
window”.
Inclusion of Structural,
Free-Foam PVC as an acceptable buck material for CMU construction.
Section R613.6.1.1 states, in part: “Masonry, concrete
or other
structural substrate. Where the wood shim or buck
thickness is less than 1-1/2 inches
(38mm), window and door assemblies shall be anchored
through the main frame or by
jamb clip or sub-frame system, in accordance with the
manufacturers published
installation instructions.” Tends to limit
interpretation that the buck system needs to be
wood. Either removing the wood reference or adding
“Structural Free Foam PVC”.
Acceptance of visco-elastic
foam tape as equivalent to materials and methods currently used for
weatherproofing window wall joints. (aka impregnated acrylic foam tape).
Visco elastic foam weather sealing “tapes” need
to be made acceptable for use in CMU (and other) installations governed by the
Florida Building Code and cannot be held contrary to in-place definitions for
Flashing, Insulation and Vapor Retardant, etc. while it’s maybe contrary to
their definitions, it performs these functions in field application.
Options:
1. Grandfather-in the applicable European
standards and tests cited as
equivalencies.
2. Field Test as part of the on-going testing
performed at UF to demonstrate
performance.
3. Create code language to be inserted in
appropriate Code Sections to create de
facto or implied code approval.
How
can aging problems be addressed? Previous discussion indicated some of the
issue is improper design and part is ineffective maintenance.
Standards
Standards referenced in
the codes must be readily available.
2. Market Incentive Initiatives
3. Installer Training and Certification Initiatives
Possibly, in conjunction
with the Education Department (at UF) courses following the curriculum could be
offered with the intent to include in the education and certification of
contractors who will be licensed to install window and door products.
In addition, CEU courses
should be developed to be offered to existing licensees to elevate their window
installation knowledge.
Courses should be
developed and implemented to educate Building Departments and Inspectors.
Education seems to on of
the biggest holes in the overall picture.
4. Beyond Code Window Performance Initiatives
In the residential
market manufactures have product lines adaptable to different
applications
and lack the accessory products required to install some of the systems
correctly
5. Research Initiatives
Comparison
of testing methods, static, pulsating and dynamic
Performance
of installation method details
Water
resistance of field and factory mullions
Secondary
water resistance of impact protection products
Water
resistance of doors
Pre-storm
water management techniques
Survey
asking what other specific changes to code organization should be made.
Survey
asking what specific standards enhancements should be made.
Test and evaluate the
option of stucco installation in direct contact with flanged window
installations.
|
|
4=acceptable |
3= minor reservations |
2=major reservations |
1= not acceptable |
|
Initial
Ranking 8/11/09 |
|
|
|
|
Member’s Comments and Reservations (August 11,
2009):