Citation : Pasut v. Johnston 2022 ONBCC 13
Ruling No.: 22-13-1605
Application No.: 2021-27
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 Subclauses 3.1.8.8.(2)(a)(i) and 3.1.8.8A.(2)(a)(i) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by David Pasut, for the resolution of a dispute with Will Johnston, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposed alternative solution to waive the requirement for combination smoke and fire dampers at the branch ductwork supplying ventilation air to the individual student residence rooms, provides sufficiency of compliance with Subclauses 3.1.8.8.(2)(a)(i) and 3.1.8.8A.(2)(a)(i) of Division B of the Building Code at University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, 3300 Ellesmere Road, Toronto, Ontario.
APPLICANT David Pasut
Pre-Construction Manager
Pomerleau
Toronto, Ontario
RESPONDENT Will Johnston
Chief Building Official
City of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
Alexandra Chow
Michael Egberts
PLACE Via Video Conference
DATE OF HEARING 1st Hearing April 26, 2022
2nd Hearing May 5, 2022
3rd Hearing June 22, 2022
DATE OF RULING June 22, 2022
APPEARANCES David Pasut
Pomerleau
Toronto, Ontario
Applicant
David MacKeracher
MCW Group of Companies
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
David Bellamy
MCW Group of Companies
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
James Ware
LMDG Building Code Consultants Ltd.
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Justin Biordi
Black and Macdonald
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Michael Faustini
Pomerleau
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Irvin San Juan
Pomerleau
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Nathan Lao
MCW Group of Companies
Toronto, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Josh Heisterkamp
City of Toronto Building
Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
Donald Philpot
City of Toronto Building
Toronto, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant has applied for a permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to construct a 9-storey high-rise residential building located at the University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, 3300 Ellesmere Road, Toronto, Ontario.
The subject building is a 9-storey high-rise student residence building with one storey below-grade consisting of Group C and Group A, Division 2 major occupancies. The building is equipped with a fire alarm system, a standpipe and hose system and an automatic sprinkler system.
The dispute between the two parties centers on the Building Code requirements for combination smoke and fire dampers and the permission to waive the combination smoke and fire dampers for the branch ducts that penetrate a fire separation, based on whether the ventilation air supply from these ducts is being directed through a terminal air-conditioning unit or combined air-conditioning and heating unit.
More specifically, the dispute for the Commission to determine is whether the proposed alternative solution to waive the requirement for combination smoke and fire dampers at the branch ductwork supplying ventilation air to the individual student residence rooms, provides sufficiency of compliance with Subclauses 3.1.8.8.(2)(a)(i) and 3.1.8.8.A.(2)(a)(i) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
Article 3.1.8.8. Fire Dampers Waived
(2) The requirement for fire dampers described in Sentence 3.1.8.7.(1) is permitted to be waived for noncombustible branch ducts having a melting point above 760°C that penetrate a fire separation,
(a) provided the ducts,
(i) have a cross-sectional area not more than 130 cm2 and serve only air-conditioning units or combined air-conditioning and heating units discharging air not more than 1.2 m above the floor, or
(ii) extend not less than 500 mm inside exhaust duct risers that are under negative pressure and in which the airflow is upward as required by Article 3.6.3.4., or
(b) provided the fire separation separates a vertical service space from the remainder of the building and provided each individual duct exhausts directly to the outdoors at the top of the vertical service space.
Article 3.1.8.8A. Smoke Damper Waived
(2) The requirement for smoke dampers or combination smoke and fire dampers described in Sentence 3.1.8.7.(2) is permitted to be waived for noncombustible branch ducts having a melting point above 760°C that penetrate a fire separation,
(a) provided the ducts,
(i) have a cross-sectional area not more than 130 cm² and serve only air conditioning units or combined air-conditioning and heating units discharging air not more than 1.2 m above the floor,
(ii) extend not less than 500 mm inside exhaust duct risers that are under negative pressure and in which the airflow is upward as required by Article 3.6.3.4., or
(iii) are required to function as part of a smoke control system, or
(b) provided the fire separation separates a vertical service space from the remainder of the building and provided each individual duct exhausts directly to the outdoors at the top of the vertical service space.
Sentences 3.1.8.7.(1) and 3.1.8.7.(2) as referenced in these 2 Subclauses in dispute provide requirements for where fire dampers and smoke dampers or combination smoke and fire dampers are to be located in ducts or air-transfer openings that penetrate a required fire separation. The objectives and functional statement attributed to Article 3.1.8.7. are:
Number
Function / Objectives
F03
To retard the effects of fire on areas beyond its point of origin
OP1.2
An objective of this Code is to limit the probability that, as a result of its design or construction, a building will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of damage due to fire caused by fire or explosion impacting areas beyond its point of origin.
OS1.2
An objective of this Code is to limit the probability that, as a result of the design or construction of a building, a person in or adjacent to the building will be exposed to an unacceptable risk of injury due to fire caused by fire or explosion impacting areas beyond its point of origin.
Sentences 3.1.8.8.(1) and 3.1.8.8A.(1) do not have objectives and functional statement pairs and are permissions to waive the requirements of Article 3.1.8.7. Location of Fire Dampers and Smoke Dampers.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Applicant noted that their proposed alternate solution will achieve the purpose for energy efficiency in their design.
The Applicant submitted that the proposed branch ducts that will penetrate each student residence room’s vertical fire separation are noncombustable ducts having a melting point above 760°C. These branch ducts have:
a cross sectional area that is not more than 130 sq.cm. and
is less than 1.2 m from the finished floor elevation.
The Agent for the Applicant (“the Agent”) explained that the proposed design is missing a terminal air-conditioning unit or combined air-conditioning and heating unit at which the ventilation branch ductwork is to terminate as per the requirements in Subclauses 3.1.8.8.(2)(a)(i) and 3.1.8.8A.(2)(a)(i) for fire damper and smoke damper waivers. The branch duct will terminate at an air grille into the room instead.
The Agent provided background to the relevant Building Code clauses noting changes from 1975 to 1997 Building Code versions. The Agent submitted that common practice for air-conditioning in 1975 was to provide air-conditioning through a positive pressure supply with an induction type air-conditioning unit at the distribution nozzle. This configuration was common practice and met the requirements of the Building Code at that time when induction air-conditioning units were commonly used. The Agent also noted that the waiver requirements have not substantively changed and are present in the current version of the Building Code while air-conditioning equipment design has continued to evolve.
The Agent noted the waivers in the 2 Subclauses in dispute require three conditions:
have a relatively small nozzle area,
be located close to the floor to prevent hot air or smoke, which is buoyant, from entering the duct, and
have an air-conditioning unit at the end of the nozzle, which was common practice at the time this provision of the Building Code first came into force.
The Agent argued that the area of the nozzle and location relative to the floor had meaningful impact on retarding smoke distribution and that the air-conditioning unit would have a negligible impact on retarding fire or smoke from entering the branch duct.
The Agent further submitted that the Building Code definition for ‘air-conditioning’ as per Division A, Article 1.4.1.2. is:
“Air-conditioning is the process of treating air in a space to control simultaneously its temperature, humidity, cleanliness, and distribution to meet the comfort requirements of the occupants of the space.”
The Agent noted that the definition could include both an induction type unit and a fan coil type unit. The Agent further noted that there are no ULC listings or similarly recognized standards that define the performance requirement for the reduction or retardation of smoke and fire movement through an air-conditioning unit. The Agent argued that a fan coil unit would meet the waiver requirement in the Building Code, as it can act as an air-conditioning unit but would not restrict smoke or fire movement. Further, in the event of a fire, air-conditioning units would be configured to turn off which would stop positive pressure from the unit.
Following the second hearing date, the Building Code Commission requested the Applicant to provide engineering data and calculations that demonstrate the risk of fire and smoke migration back into the branch ducts through the air grilles, in the absence of the air-conditioning or combined heating and air-conditioning units, is the same or better than when complying fully with the conditions for waiver as stipulated in the Building Code.
The Applicant submitted a response, which was also reviewed by the Respondent, and due to the substantive and technical nature of the response, it was heard during a third hearing day.
The Applicant submitted and presented additional information to demonstrate that the proposed alternative solution will provide smoke migration resistance that will perform as-well-as, and by calculations, better than a solution involving a supply air branch duct connected to an air-conditioning unit, where a fan coil was considered in the calculations.
In response to questions, the Agent confirmed that the vertical ventilation air supply main duct has a combination smoke and fire damper at the top of the duct located at the roof level, and that positive air will continue to be supplied to the student residence room branch ducts in a fire emergency, unless that combination smoke and fire damper is activated to shut off by fire or smoke likely originating in the mechanical room on the roof. The Agent submitted that such positive air pressure will keep smoke from entering the branch ducts.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Designate for the Respondent (“the Designate”) submitted that fire dampers, smoke dampers or combination of smoke and fire dampers shall be installed in fire separations required to be rated as per Article 3.1.8.7.
The Designate stated that the proposed ventilation air system for the student residence rooms, provided through rated vertical shafts, has no fire or smoke control dampers in the proposed duct system located between student residence rooms. The proposed system would have supply air grilles which penetrate the fire and smoke separation of the rated vertical shafts.
The Designate further stated that the Applicant’s proposal does not satisfy all three conditions of Subclauses 3.1.8.8.(2)(a)(i) and 3.1.8.8A.(2)(a)(i); thus, it is not permitted to waive the requirement for fire dampers, smoke dampers or combination of smoke and fire dampers.
The Designate referenced the defined term “Air-conditioning” under Division A, Article 1.4.1.2. and stated that the ventilation air supply grille is neither an air-conditioning unit nor a combination air-conditioning and heating unit. In addition, the Designate argued that a fan coil type unit is not considered an air-conditioning unit and therefore would not meet the requirements of the waiver. The Designate acknowledged that an induction type unit would be acceptable.
The Designate further submitted that the proposed student residence room ventilation air supply grille system does not retard the effects of fire and smoke originating in the room, and the proposal does not meet Objectives OS1.2 or OP1.2 or Functional Statement F03 attributed to Article 3.1.8.7. of the Building Code and, therefore, does not comply with Subclauses 3.1.8.8.(2)(a)(i) and 3.1.8.8A.(2)(a)(i) of the Building Code for the waivers to apply.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed alternative solution to waive the requirement for combination smoke and fire dampers at the branch ductwork supplying ventilation air to the individual student residence rooms, provides sufficiency of compliance with Subclauses 3.1.8.8.(2)(a)(i) and 3.1.8.8A.(2)(a)(i) of Division B of the Building Code at University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, 3300 Ellesmere Road, Toronto, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) In the event of a fire, in a student residence room, smoke and fire will likely be confined to the originating room due to the life and fire systems in the building including the fire alarm system, the automatic sprinkler system, and fire fighting response.
ii) The waivers identified in Subclauses 3.1.8.8.(2)(a)(i) and 3.1.8.8A.(2)(a)(i) do not specify the type of air-conditioning units. The Commission is of the opinion that the waivers can be applied to any air conditioning unit, regardless of whether it is an induction or fan coil type device.
iii) The Applicant submitted engineering data and calculations to demonstrate that the proposed alternative solution will provide smoke migration resistance that is better than a solution involving a supply air branch duct connected to a fan coil type air-conditioning unit.
iv) The Applicant submitted engineering data and calculations which demonstrated that the proposed alternative solution, having quantitative performance targets, would meet or exceed the objectives and functional statement attributed to Article 3.1.8.7. Location of Fire Dampers and Smoke Dampers of Division B of the Building Code.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 22nd day in the month of June in the year 2022 for application number B-2021-27.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Alexandra Chow
Michael Egberts