Ruling No.: 19-15-1535
Application No.: B-2019-17
BUILDING CODE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF Subsection 24(1) of the Building Code Act, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended.
AND IN THE MATTER OF Articles 4.3.4.1., and 4.3.4.2. of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Drew Hauser, for the resolution of a dispute with Ed VanderWindt, to determine whether the rational engineering analysis used in the design method of SIN beam members (hot rolled steel wide flanges welded to a sinusoidal cold formed steel web) installed in the floor structure to support the precast concrete slab and in the roof structure to support the open web steel joists and steel deck of a 3 storey, Group F2 occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles 4.3.4.1., and 4.3.4.2. of Division B of the Building Code, at 107 MacNab Street North, Hamilton, Ontario.
APPLICANT Drew Hauser
McCallum Sather Architects Inc.,
Hamilton, Ontario
RESPONDENT Ed VanderWindt
Chief Building Official
City of Hamilton
Hamilton, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
Andrew Steen
Rick Mori
PLACE City of Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING August 16, 2019
DATE OF RULING August 16, 2019
APPEARANCES Jamie Spotswood
Lawyer
Clyde and Co Canada LLP
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Derek Van Ee
VP Engineering
Steelcon Fabrication
Brampton, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
George Wong
Manager
City of Hamilton Building Division
Hamilton, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
Radek Wodzinowski
Building Engineer
City of Hamilton Building Division
Hamilton, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has applied for a building permit to construct a 3 storey building and has received an Order to Comply to remedy certain alleged deficiencies at 107 MacNab Street North, Hamilton, Ontario.
The building to be constructed is a 3 storey addition to an existing building with a Group F, Division 2 occupancy and a building area of 1500 m2. The existing building along with the new addition have a total building area of 2515 m2.The proposed building is 3 storeys in building height, is comprised of non-combustible construction, and is equipped with a sprinkler system and fire alarm system.
The subject project was originally designed with conventional hot rolled wide flange steel beams and a building permit was issued on that basis. During construction, the Applicant installed SIN beams instead of conventional steel beams in the floor structure to support the precast concrete slabs, and in the roof structure to support the open web steel joist and steel deck.
The dispute centers on whether the rational engineering analysis used in the design method of SIN beam members (hot rolled steel wide flanges welded to a sinusoidal cold formed steel web) installed in the floor structure and in the roof structure provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles 4.3.4.1., and 4.3.4.2. of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Article 4.3.4.1. Design Basis for Structural Steel
(1) Buildings and their structural members made of structural steel shall conform to CSA S16, “Design of Steel Structures”. (See Appendix A.)
Article 4.3.4.2. Design Basis for Cold Formed Steel
(1) Buildings and their structural members made of cold-formed steel shall conform to CSA S136, “North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members”. (See Appendix A.)
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant submitted that the issue in dispute is whether the use of a sinusoidal corrugated web steel beam (“SIN Beam”) meets the technical requirements of the Ontario Building Code for use at 107 MacNab Street North, Hamilton, Ontario.
The Agent submitted that Subsection 4.3.4. of Division B of the Building Code sets out the required standards for structural steel. This section provides that structural steel and cold formed steel must meet the standards set out in CSA S16 and CSA S136 respectively. The SIN beams meet the requirements of both and as such, it complies with the requirements set out in Section 4.3.4. of the Code.
The Agent further submitted that the SIN beams meet the standards set out in CSA S136 through “rational engineering analysis”. The rational engineering analysis has been applied and approved by other professional engineers, has been extensively tested, is accepted under the European Code and Standards, and is supported by relevant academic research and expert evidence.
The Agent submitted that the exact same issue has already been determined on three separate occasions by the Commission, each time in favour of the Applicant, in BCC Ruling 16-30-1458, 18-05-1501 and 18-21-1517.
SIN beams are manufactured with hot rolled steel for the top and bottom flanges with a cold rolled sinusoidal corrugated steel web. Subsection 4.3.4. of Division B of the Code requires that structural steel and cold formed steel must conform to the CSA S16 and CSA S136 standards respectively.
The Agent submitted that the parties agree that the flanges of the SIN beams meet the requirements of CSA S16 and therefore, there is no dispute regarding this point.
CSA S136 is the standard with respect to the design of cold formed steel, which apply to the SIN beams. The Agent pointed out that the resistance or shear capacity of the corrugated web cannot be accurately determined by the formula set out in CSA S136. However, the standard provides that this requirement can be met through rational engineering analysis.
The Agent submitted that Section A1.2 of CSA S136 states:
Where the composition or configuration of such components is such that calculation of strength [resistance] and/or stiffness cannot be made in accordance with those provisions, structural performance shall be established from either of the following:
a) Available strength [factored resistance] or stiffness by tests, undertaken and evaluated in accordance with Chapter F,
b) Available strength [factored resistance] or stiffness by rational engineering analysis based on appropriate theory, related testing if data available, and engineering judgement. (emphasis added)
The Agent submitted that “rational engineering analysis” is defined as “analysis based on theory that is appropriate for the situation, any relevant test data, if available, and sound engineering judgement”.
Derek Van Ee, P.Eng, a structural engineer at Steelcon, performed the rational engineering analysis to calculate the shear capacity of the SIN beams. The formula used for the SIN beams was developed based on extensive theory, research, testing and modeling. The calculations are set out and explained in the Steelcon’s SIN Beam Code Compliance report submitted to the Commission.
The Agent submitted that Mr. Van Ee’s rational engineering analysis confirmed that the SIN beams meet the requirements for shear capacity contained in CSA S136, and other requirements in the standard.
In response to questions, Mr. Van Ee confirmed that the SIN beams used in this project were within the size range of the beams tested and observed.
The Agent submitted that evidence from other experts confirms that the SIN beams comply with the Building Code. He stated that Dr. Reinhold Schuster is a professional engineer, the Director of the Canadian Cold Formed Steel Research Group, Chairman of the CSA Technical Committee for Cold Formed Steel Structural Members, CSA -S136, and a member of the CSA Technical Committee for CSA S16. Furthermore, Dr. Schuster is the leading authority on the requirements set out in the CSA S136 standard and has done a comprehensive review of Steelcon’s rational engineering analysis, including its formula for calculating shear resistance and has concluded that Steelcon’s rational engineering analysis meets the requirements of CSA S136. The referenced letter was submitted to the Commission.
Paul Stanford is a professional engineer and the Chief Engineer at exp Services Inc., the engineering firm that conducted testing on the SIN beams. Sanford reviewed the design and procedures, theory, formula and calculations used by Steelcon in its rational engineering analysis. Sanford concluded that the SIN beams meet the requirements of CSA S16 and CSA S136. The referenced letter was submitted to the Commission.
Gerry Egberts is a professional engineer who has comprehensively reviewed Steelcon’s rational engineering analysis, including its formula for calculating shear resistance. Egberts has concluded that Steelcon has provided adequate evidence of compliance with Article 4.1.1.4. of Division B of the Building Code. The referenced letter was submitted to the Commission.
In response to questions, Mr. Van Ee submitted that the shear resistance formula contained in CAN/CSA-S136 does not account for the stiffening effect of a corrugated steel web present in SIN beams, and that the European Code EN1993-1-5 provides a well-established approach to shear design for a corrugated steel web beam. He submitted that the formula contained in Annex D of the European Code was appropriately modified and applied in determining the shear resistance of the subject SIN beams.
The Agent maintained that the Commission has the jurisdiction to make a decision in this matter and had done so on three separate applications for hearing related to SIN beams. He further submitted that the Ontario Superior Court decision regarding Craft-Built Materials Ltd. V. Toronto determined that both the Chief Building Official and the Building Code Commission had the jurisdiction to consider whether a design meets the Building Code.
In response to questions, Mr. Van Ee submitted that Steelcon has made application three years ago to the Canadian Construction Materials Center (CCMC) to review SIN beams. However, the application is still under review as CCMC’s process is lengthy.
In response to questions, Mr. Van Ee submitted that Steelcon had approached the Building Materials Evaluation Commission (BMEC) to evaluate SIN beams but were advised that the BMEC does not have jurisdiction to review materials that are either compliant with the Building Code or that are currently being reviewed by CCMC.
In response to questions, Mr. Van Ee submitted that earthquake design had been considered in this project and the appropriate measures had been taken.
In conclusion, the Agent submitted that the SIN beams meet the requirements of CSA S16 and CSA S136 through the rational engineering analysis and therefore, provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles 4.3.4.1. and 4.3.4.2. of Division B of the Building Code.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate submitted that the addition to the existing building was originally designed with conventional hot rolled wide flange steel beams and a building permit was issued on that basis. The Designate explained that sometime during the construction of the building a change was made to substitute conventional steel beams with SIN beams. However, an application to revise the permit drawings was not made to the municipality when the material change was made. The Designate submitted that an application for the revision had since been received and denied by the municipality, which is the subject of the dispute before the Commission.
In response to questions, the Designate submitted that the engineer of record on the project was aware that the conventional steel beams had been substituted with SIN beams.
The Designate submitted that the SIN beams the Applicant wishes to use are a proprietary structural system that has not been approved under a Subsection 2.4.1. “Minister’s Ruling” of Division C of the Building Code.
The Designate explained that Section 4.3. of Division B of the Building Code sets out the requirements for structural materials. More specifically, he advised Sentence 4.3.4.1.(1) requires that structural steel elements must be designed in accordance with CSA S16 and Sentence 4.3.4.2.(1) requires that cold-formed steel elements be designed to CSA S136 standards.
The Designate submitted that the proposed SIN beams have been designed to the requirements of CSA S16 and CSA-S136 (where applicable) and to international standards that are not approved under Ontario’s Building Code. The Designate submitted that the rational engineering analysis approach provided for in CSA S136 was used to evaluate the shear capacity of the SIN beams including the use of calculations based on international standards not referenced by the Building Code.
The Designate advised that although CSA S136 does permit rational engineering analysis, it is the Respondent’s opinion that the proposed SIN beams require evaluation and testing by a third-party with the objective to permit their use in Ontario. The Designate submitted that Part 2 of Division C, of the Building Code, sets out two options that are specifically suited for the evaluation and approval of innovative products such as SIN beams, either by way of applying for and receiving an authorization from the Building Materials Evaluation Commission or by obtaining a Minister’s Ruling.
The Designate submitted that although separate applications have been made to the Commission in the past, it is understood that the Commission’s decisions are site specific and not precedent setting. Therefore, he maintained that a previous Building Code Commission decision cannot be applied to other buildings including the building in question.
In response to questions, the Designate submitted that Dr. Schuster’s letter along with the other professional engineers’ letters submitted by the Applicant as evidence for compliance with the Building Code, do not reference this site or building. The Designate submitted that as the letters are not site specific, further analysis, beyond shear capacity, may be required.
The Designate submitted that shear failures of structural elements are sudden and catastrophic, and therefore, their proper design is critical. He submitted that building officials are not trained to study the behaviour of materials nor to conduct a structural analysis of innovative products. Furthermore, he submitted that even if the Respondent were to solely rely on the expertise of outside consultants, it is the Respondent’s opinion that the options for approval afforded in the Building Code (i.e. compliance with the prescriptive requirements of the Building Code or compliance by way of an alternative solution) are not intended nor are they appropriate to be used for the approval of innovative products designed to standards that are not listed in Ontario’s Building Code.
In conclusion, the Designate submitted that in light of the lack of a referenced standard in the Building Code for the approval of SIN beams, it is the Respondent’s position that an approval by the BMEC, CCMC, or via obtaining a Minister’s Ruling would be the most suitable options for approval for use in Ontario for such an innovative material as SIN beams.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the rational engineering analysis used in the design method of SIN beam members (hot rolled steel wide flanges welded to a sinusoidal cold formed steel web) installed in the floor structure to support the precast concrete slab and in the roof structure to support the open web steel joists and steel deck of a 3 storey, Group F2 occupancy building, provides sufficiency of compliance with Articles 4.3.4.1., and 4.3.4.2. of Division B of the Building Code, at 107 MacNab Street North, Hamilton, Ontario on condition that:
a) The signed and sealed letter by Dr. R.M. Schuster dated October 19, 2016 that was submitted as evidence (Ex 5 Tab G), is updated to reference the subject building at 107 MacNab Street North, Hamilton. The letter shall be signed and sealed with a current date and submitted to the Chief Building Official.
6. Reasons
i) Article 1.2.1.1. of Division A of the Building Code states, “Compliance with Division B shall be achieved, (a) by complying with the applicable acceptable solutions in Division B, or (b) by using alternative solutions that will achieve the level of performance required by the applicable acceptable solutions in respect of the objectives and functional statements attributed to the applicable acceptable solutions in MMAH Supplementary Standard SA-1, “Objectives and Functional Statements Attributed to the Acceptable Solutions”.
The Commission heard that the Applicant has chosen to comply with the acceptable solutions in Division B through the compliance path provided in Clause 1.2.1.1.(1)(a) of Division A of the Building Code.
The Commission heard that the issue in dispute relates to Section 4.3. of Division B of the Building Code which provides the design requirements for structural materials, specifically Article 4.3.4.1. relates to structural steel and Article 4.3.4.2. relates to cold-formed steel.
Sentence 4.3.4.1.(1) of Division B states, “Buildings and their structural members made of structural steel shall conform to CSA S16, “Design of Steel Structures”.
Sentence 4.3.4.2.(1) of Division B states, “Buildings and their structural members made of cold-formed steel shall conform to CSA S136, “North American Specification for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members”.
The Commission heard that the SIN beams proposed for use in this building are steel beams comprised of hot rolled steel flanges that are connected by a cold formed web with a sinusoidal shape that is welded to the top and bottom flanges. The Commission also heard that the SIN beams are designed in compliance with CSA S16 and CSA S136, except that the formula used to determine the shear resistance of the cold-formed steel web is not from CSA S136. CSA S136 provides a formula for determining shear resistance for cold-formed steel. The Commission heard that this formula does not accurately predict the behaviour of steel beams with cold-formed corrugated steel webs.
The Commission received evidence and testimony that Clause A1.2. of CSA S136 permits the shear resistance of the SIN beams to be determined by rational engineering analysis.
The Commission heard that the shear resistance formula contained in CSA S136 does not take into account the stiffening effect of the corrugated steel web of the subject SIN beams, and that the European Code EN1993-1-5 provides a well-established approach to shear design for a corrugated steel web beam. The Commission also heard that the formula contained in Annex D of the European Code was appropriately modified and applied in determining the shear resistance of the subject SIN beams.
The Commission heard evidence and testimony that the modified formula was reviewed and deemed appropriate by Dr. Schuster, a structural engineer with specific expertise in structural steel beams with cold-formed structural steel webs. Additionally, the accuracy of the modified formula was validated through load testing that was supervised and witnessed by third party engineers.
The Commission heard that the SIN beams used in this project were within the size range of the beams tested.
Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that the engineering analysis performed to determine shear resistance of the subject SIN beams, as verified by Dr. R.M Schuster, satisfies the requirement for a rational engineering analysis as permitted by CSA S136.
ii) The Commission heard evidence and testimony that the structural steel components of the SIN beams meet the requirements of CSA S16 and CSA S136.
iii) The Commission heard evidence and testimony that all welding related to SIN beams is conducted in accordance with CSA W59 and the procedures are approved by the Canadian Welding Bureau (CWB).
Dated at the City of Toronto this 16th day in the month of August in the year 2019 for application number B-2019-17.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Andrew Steen
Rick Mori