Ruling No.: 22-22-1614
Application No.: B-2022-13
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 Article 4.3.1.1. and Sentence 9.23.12.3.(1) of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Brad Johnstone, for the resolution of a dispute with Mike Zimmer, Chief Building Official, to determine whether the proposed alternative solution to use LAMCO-LFL® Laminated Finger Jointed Lumber beams (LFL) as a substitute for Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) beams for the garage door headers and breezeway/walkway roof support of a new addition to an existing dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 4.3.1.1. and Sentence 9.23.12.3.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at 880 Metler Rd., Pelham, Ontario.
APPLICANT Brad Johnstone Owner Fenwick, Ontario
RESPONDENT Mike Zimmer Chief Building Official Town Of Pelham Fonthill, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair Matthew Graham Albert Schepers
PLACE City of Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING December 13, 2022.
DATE OF RULING December 13, 2022
APPEARANCES Alex Wimbush Regional Sales Manager – EWP Taiga Building Products Milton, Ontario Agent for the Applicant
Mike Zimmer Chief Building Official Town Of Pelham Fonthill, Ontario The Respondent
Andrew McMurtrie Deputy Chief Building Official Town Of Pelham Fonthill, Ontario Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant prepared an alternative solution related to a building permit under the Building Code Act, 1992, to install LAMCO-LFL® Laminated Finger Jointed Lumber (LFL) beams as a substitute for Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) beams in the one storey addition of garage and breezeway at 880 Metler Rd, Fenwick, Ontario.
The construction in dispute involves the installation of LAMCO-LFL® beams in two door headers of the new garage and the installation of two LAMCO-LFL® beams to support the roof of the new breezeway/walkway being constructed as part of an addition to an existing dwelling.
Before proceeding with the hearing, the Building Code Commission (the “Commission”) considered the matter of jurisdiction. The Commission noted that LAMCO-LFL® has made an application to the Canadian Construction Materials Centre (CCMC) division of the National Research Council (NRC), for the preparation of a Technical Guide and corresponding evaluation of the LFL products for CCMC listing. To make a determination on its jurisdiction to hear this matter, the Commission sought legal advice and reviewed its mandate and relevant Building Code Act provisions. Based on the legal advice received, the Commission determined that it had the jurisdiction to hear the matter and the hearing could proceed. Both the Applicant and Respondent acknowledged that a decision relating to the hearing would be site specific and limited to LAMCO-LFL® beams being used for two garage door wood lintels (headers) and two breezeway roof support beams.
During the hearing, the Commission heard that an alternative solution application was attempted by the Applicant but it was not processed by the building department and no decision was made by the Respondent regarding the matter. However, at the hearing the parties agreed that the dispute before the Commission centered on whether the proposed alternative solution to use LAMCO-LFL® Laminated Finger Jointed Lumber beams (LFL) as a substitute for Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) beams for the garage door headers and breezeway/walkway roof support of a new addition to an existing dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 4.3.1.1. and Sentence 9.23.12.3.(1) of Division B of the Building Code.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
9.23.12.3. Lintel Spans and Sizes
(1) Spans and sizes of wood lintels shall conform to the spans shown in Tables A-12 to A-16,
(a) for buildings of residential occupancy,
(b) where the wall studs exceed 38 mm by 64 mm in size,
(c) where the spans of supported joists do not exceed 4.9 m, and
(d) where the spans of trusses do not exceed 9.8 m.
4.3.1.1. Design Basis for Wood
(1) Buildings and their structural members made of wood shall conform to CSA O86, “Engineering Design in Wood”.
3. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant (Agent) advised that an alternative solution under Div. A, 1.2.1.1.(1)(b) of the Building Code has been proposed to demonstrate that LAMCO-LFL® beams, when used in accordance with the conditions and limitations of ICC-ES Listing Report ESL-1232 prepared by ICC-ES Evaluation Services, LLC (ICC-ES) and Technical Evaluation Report TER 1401-01 prepared by DrJ Certification (DrJ), will perform as well as a design prescribed by the applicable acceptable solutions in satisfying the requirements of Article 4.3.1.1. and Sentence 9.23.12.3.(1) of Division B of the Building Code. However, he advised, the Respondent refused to consider the application for a proposed alternative solution.
The ICC-ES Listing Report describes the LAMCO-LFL® as a product that “consists of short segments of MSR black spruce and jack pine lumber, glued edgewise with compound tongue and groove horizontal joints and glued lengthwise with vertical finger joints”. The Commission notes that MSR means machine-stressed rated. The Agent reported that connections of the finger jointed sections are made with heat resistant adhesives (HRA) and comply with appropriate standards.
The Agent submitted that LAMCO-LFL® products have been manufactured for approximately 20 years in St-Félicien, Québec by Produits Forestiers Lamco Inc. (LAMCO), and have historically been used in the United States but are now gaining use in Ontario and Quebec. As a result of supply chain limitation issues, and to facilitate construction, the Applicant decided to use LAMCO-LFL® beams in lieu of LVL beams which were called for on the approved building permit plans. In response to questions from the Commission, the Agent advised that LAMCO-LFL® products are manufactured and primarily used in Quebec and are accepted based on site specific engineering for individual municipalities.
The Agent advised that LAMCO-LFL® products has been evaluated by ICC-ES and DrJ, and are compliance stamped by PFS Corporation. The Agent stated that shop drawings submitted for LAMCO-LFL® beams related to the breezeway/walkway roof beams and garage door headers for the subject dwelling are consistent with industry standards and are a component of the design bearing the seal of a professional engineer licensed to practice in Ontario.
As part of the Application to the Commission, the Agent reported that stamped and sealed plans and shop drawings from an Ontario Professional Engineer for the individual beams and headers have been provided. The proposed alternative solution application submitted by Taiga Building Products has been sealed and signed by an Ontario Professional Engineer. Further, the DrJ Technical Evaluation Report TER 1401-01 has also been sealed and signed by an Ontario Professional Engineer.
The Agent submitted that because the LAMCO-LFL® product was primarily used for 20 years in the United States, LAMCO sought approval from DrJ and corresponding PFS compliance stamps. The DrJ report was included in support of the proposed alterative solution. The Agent further submitted that LAMCO-LFL® products were tested and evaluated to determine its structural resistance properties, which are used to develop reference design values for Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and Limit States Design (LSD). The Agent acknowledged American testing agencies are not accredited testing agencies in Canada.
In addition to the DrJ report and PFS compliance stamps, the Agent advised that an ICC-ES Listing Report ESL 1232 was included in support of the proposed alternative solution. The ICC-ES product certification process included evaluating reports of tests of standard manufactured products prepared by accredited testing laboratories, which were then provided by LAMCO to ICC-ES to verify compliance with applicable codes and standards in Ontario.
In consideration of the ICC-ES Listing Report ESL-1232, the Agent pointed out several elements regarding compliance with CSA O86 - Engineering Design of Wood as required by Article 4.3.1.1. of Division B of the Building Code. ICC-ES evaluated the products based on ASTM D5456 - Standard Specification for Evaluation of Structural Composite Lumber Products, ASTM D3737 - Standard Practice for Establishing Allowable Properties for Structural Glued Laminated Timber (Glulam) and CSA O86 - Engineering Design of Wood. Specifically, the Agent acknowledged that LAMCO-LFL® products described in the ICC-ES Listing Report ESL-1232 are considered as alternatives to sawn lumber for floor, wall, and roof structural members. In response to questions regarding testing of the LAMCO-LFL® products as advance engineered lumber, which is referenced in CSA O86 standard, the Agent advised that full scale testing in accordance with ASTM D5456 was a requirement in the Quality Assurance Manual from LAMCO.
In response to questions, the Agent submitted that the ICC-ES Listing Report ESL-1232 is limited to LAMCO-LFL® GRADES 1.6E, 1.7E, 1.9E and 2.1E and that these products would be stamped accordingly.
The Agent also noted that the Report Number TW-00661-22 dated September 30, 2022, from Tacoma Engineering (Tacoma), commissioned by the Respondent, supports the alternative solution process to justify the use of LAMCO-LFL® beams for the subject dwelling. In summary, the Agent submitted that the proposed alternative solution satisfies the objectives and functional statements attributed to Article 4.3.1.1. and Sentence 9.23.12.3.(1) of Division B of the Building Code. The Agent argued that evidence has been provided that the LAMCO-LFL® beams meet the minimum structural provisions of the Building Code. Site specific engineering sealed by a professional engineer licensed to practice in Ontario and product listing report from an American accredited organization had been provided. Through rational engineering analysis, accredited agencies, and third-party testing, the Agent maintained that the product performs as well as the prescribed requirements in Division B of the Building Code. Further, the Agent stated that the municipality has refused to review the proposed alternative solution and has indicated that LAMCO-LFL® products are not within the scope of the Building Code and therefore cannot be used. However, the Agent argued that the report commissioned by the municipality from Tacoma clearly indicates the product is acceptable in this instance by way of the proposed alternative solution.
In response to questions the Agent summarized that the proposed alternative solution was submitted around the end of June and was refused, which prompted the Commission application process. Further, it was the Commission application that initiated the Tacoma report. By the time the Agent received the Tacoma report, the Commission hearing process was already set in motion.
4. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent advised that there are two pathways to comply with the Building Code: 1) meet the prescriptive requirements of Division B of the Building Code or 2) obtain an alternative solution approval. Since LAMCO-LFL® products are not approved as a recognized product and do not specifically meet CSA O86, “Engineering Design in Wood” as prescribed by Article 4.3.1.1. of Division B of the Building Code, they cannot be used. Based on the information submitted, it was not possible for the municipality to determine if LAMCO-LFL® products meet the objectives and functional statements, given that the products do not meet the definition of the standards. In consideration of an innovative product, those factors may not be appropriate for the design and testing. There seems to be a disconnect between the evaluation and testing agencies. Therefore, the municipality cannot consider the proposed alterative solution.
The Respondent noted that sealed and signed shop drawings by a professional engineer were not provided as part of the initial discussion with the municipality regarding a proposed alternative solution. Further, engineering calculations were also not provided during the building permit application process. The Respondent stated that he received these engineering calculations as part of the application for hearing documentation submitted to the Commission by the Applicant.
In response to questions, the parties clarified that an alternative solution permit application had been proposed by the Applicant in June of 2022, which was subsequently refused for processing by the Respondent. Following the refusal, an application for hearing was made to the Commission. The Respondent indicated that new and additional information was submitted by the Applicant as part of their application to the Commission that had not been reviewed or considered by the Respondent.
The Respondent advised that there is no CCMC evaluation for LAMCO-LFL® products. These products are not structural components as recognized by Article 4.3.1.1. and Sentence 9.23.12.3.(1) of Division B of the Building Code. The Respondent submitted that under CSA O86 and ASTM 5456, LAMCO-LFL® products do not meet the definition of Structural Composite Lumber (SCL). Further, LAMCO-LFL® products do not fall within the scope of glue-laminated lumber as referenced by CSA O86 and CAN/CSA-O122 standards. The municipality maintains that if the product does not meet or is not directly addressed in CSA O86, “Engineering Design in Wood”, the product cannot be used.
Report Number TW-00661-22 dated September 30, 2022, from Tacoma Engineering was submitted by the Respondent as part of the Confirmation of Dispute. The Respondent advised the Commission that Tacoma Engineering was engaged for review only, and that Tacoma Engineering was retained by The Town of Pelham to provide a professional opinion on whether the LAMCO-LFL® product was suitable as a proposed alternative solution.
The Commission noted that the Tacoma report included the following information:
The report’s focus was on the LAMCO-LFL® structural properties relative to Articles 9.23.4.2, 9.23.12.3, and 4.3.1.1. of Division B of the Building Code and did not include other serviceability elements such as fire resistive properties, sound transmission ratings, or any other structural matters beyond the scope of the proposed alternative solution.
The report considered the proposed alternative solution for LAMCO-LFL® beams at the subject dwelling in terms of design, lumber grading, moisture content, spans for joist rafters and beams and lintel spans and sizes.
The report assumed that all exclusions and limitations including all limitations of use mentioned in both the DrJ Technical Evaluation Report and the ICC-ES Listing Report must be followed.
The report recognized that new or innovative structural elements (Advanced Engineered Lumber) under CSA O86 standard covers situations where structural elements are not contained in the standard.
The Commission notes the concluding statement from the Tacoma Report TW-00661-22 as follows:
“It is clear that the Lamco-LFL product does not match any classification category recognized by OBC Division B Acceptable Solutions or CSA O86. As such, this product may only be used in conjunction with an Alternative Solutions application. As such, the proponent must provide a rational engineering analysis of the material and reliable test data, based on acceptable loads and requirements per CSA O86 4.3.2 in order to demonstrate the safety and serviceability of the resulting structure. In the undersigned’s opinion, the Lamco-LFL product is a good candidate for approval through the Alternative Solutions application process from a structural perspective. However, additional research and/or documentation regarding the fire-resistive properties, sound transmission ratings, and all other uses beyond structural uses must be completed and provided to the Authority Having Jurisdiction in an Alternative Solutions application prior to the use of Lamco-LFL in any of these applications. The undersigned has left the review of the these uses to The Town of Pelham.”
In summary, the Respondent advised there was no formal request for an alternative solution and that new information has been provided since the proposed alternative solution was initiated. The Respondent submitted that in the absence of an approval under CCMC, Ministers Ruling, Building Materials Evaluation Commission (BMEC) or compliance with CSA O86 standard, the municipality cannot accept an application for an alternative solution for use of this product. Further, given the mandate and scope of the Tacoma report, the municipality was not persuaded to accept LAMCO-LFL® as an alternative solution. The Respondent advised that it is their position that the objectives and functional statements of the Building Code have not been satisfied and that CCMC is the path for approval of the use of the LAMCO-LFL® products.
5. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed alternative solution to use the LAMCO Laminated Finger-Jointed lumber (LFL) beams, limited to structural capacity only, as a substitute for LVL beams for the door headers and breezeway/walkway roof support of a new addition to an existing dwelling, provides sufficiency of compliance with Article 4.3.1.1. and Sentence 9.23.12.3.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at 880 Metler Rd., Pelham, Ontario.
6. Reasons
i) The Commission received evidence from the Tacoma report that the application for a proposed alternative solution to use LAMCO-LFL® beams for the subject dwelling could be considered under the direction of a professional engineer licensed to practice in Ontario using analytical and engineering principles, reliable test data, or both, to demonstrate the safety and serviceability of the resulting structure for the purpose intended.
ii) The Commission notes the concluding statement in the Tacoma report which indicates that the LAMCO-LFL® beams do not match any classification category of wood structural members in CSA O86 “Engineering Design in Wood” standard, but are considered to be suitable for approval through the alternative solution application process from a structural perspective only. Therefore, it is the Commission’s opinion that the alternative solution to use the LAMCO-LFL® beams for the garage door headers and breezeway/walkway roof support beams should be considered in this case to be limited for structural purposes.
iii) The Commission heard testimony from the Respondent that additional information was submitted by the Applicant, including shop drawings stamped by a licensed professional engineer and engineering calculations, since the proposed alternative solution discussion was initiated. It is the Commission’s opinion that a formal alternative solution application should be submitted by the Applicant to the Respondent.
iv) The Commission heard that the scope of use for the LAMCO-LFL® Laminated Finger-Jointed lumber in the proposed alternative solution was limited to the garage door wood lintels (headers) and breezeway/walkway roof support beams. It is the Commission’s opinion that when considering the limited and restricted application of the LAMCO-LFL® beams in this instance, sufficiency of compliance is achieved for structural capacity in this application.
Note: In keeping with the Building Code Commission's policy and procedures, this decision is only applicable to the subject property listed above and is not intended to set a precedent for any other site.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 13th day in the month of December in the year 2022 for application number B-2022-13.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Albert Schepers
Matthew Graham