Citation : Vorobeichik v. Szonyi 2023 ONBCC 02
Ruling No.: 23-02-1616
Application No.: B-2022-21
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 Sentences 4.3.1.1.(1), 9.3.2.1.(1), 9.3.2.5.(1), Clause 9.4.1.1.(1)(c), Article 9.23.4.2., and 9.23.8.3. of Division B of Regulation 332/12, as amended, (the “Building Code”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by Marina Vorobeichik, Aspen Ridge Homes, for the resolution of a dispute with Andras Szonyi, 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 to support the floor and roof loads of a new two storey house, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 4.3.1.1.(1), 9.3.2.1.(1), 9.3.2.5.(1), Clause 9.4.1.1.(1)(c), Article 9.23.4.2,, and Article 9.23.8.3. at 17 Kentledge Ave (Lot 218), East Gwillimbury, Ontario.
APPLICANT Marina Vorobeichik
Project Manager
Aspen Ridge Homes
Concord, Ontario
RESPONDENT Andras Szonyi
Chief Building Official
Town of East Gwillimbury, Ontario
PANEL Stephen Wong, Chair
Albert Schepers
Matthew Graham
PLACE via video conference
DATE OF HEARING January 31, 2023
DATE OF RULING February 17, 2023
APPEARANCES Alex Wimbush
Regional Sales Manager – EWP
Taiga Building Products
Milton, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Robert Onorati
Vice President of Purchasing & Architecture
Aspen Ridge Homes
Concord, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Sandro Campoli
Vice President of Low-Rise Operations
Aspen Ridge Homes
Concord, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Marina Vorobeichik
Project Manager
Aspen Ridge Homes
Concord, Ontario
The Applicant
Mike McDonald
Planmac Engineering Inc.
Mississauga, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Kourosh Shirani
Planmac Engineering Inc.
Mississauga, Ontario
Agent for the Applicant
Andras Szonyi
Chief Building Official
Town of East Gwillimbury, Ontario
The Respondent
Chris Burns
Deputy Chief Building Official
Town of East Gwillimbury, Ontario
Designate for the Respondent
RULING
1. Particulars of Dispute
The Applicant made an application for a building permit dated August 22, 2022, under the Building Code Act for an alternative solution to use LAMCO-LFL® Laminated Finger Jointed Lumber (LFL) beams as a substitute for Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) beams to support the floor and roof loads at 17 Kentledge Ave (Lot 218), East Gwillimbury, Ontario.
The subject building is a two-storey single family dwelling and represents a typical house built in this subdivision. The Applicant’s documentation described LAMCO-LFL® products as members “comprised of short segments of visually graded or MSR black spruce and jack pine lumber, glued edgewise with compound tongue and groove horizontal joints and glued lengthwise with vertical finger joints”. MSR stands for “machine-stress rated”. Connections of the finger jointed sections are made with heat resistant adhesives (HRA).
The construction in dispute between the Applicant and Respondent centers on whether LAMCO-LFL® beams, used as an alternative solution, provides sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 4.3.1.1.(1), 9.3.2.1.(1), 9.3.2.5.(1), Clause 9.4.1.1.(1)(c), Article 9.23.4.2., and Article 9.23.8.3. of Division B of the Building Code. The Applicant indicated that there are other residential lots under separate building permits in the Town of East Gwillimbury, Ontario, that have the same substitutions. The LAMCO-LFL® beams in question were supplied as substitutes for all LVL beams called for on the approved permit drawings.
The Respondent expressed concern regarding the Building Code Commission’s jurisdiction with respect to considering technical matters for new and innovative products currently under evaluation by the Canadian Construction Materials Centre (CCMC) and/or the Building Materials Evaluation Commission (BMEC), which typically review new and innovative building products and materials. When the Respondent and the Applicant were asked if there was any objection for the hearing to proceed, the Respondent and Applicant both indicated no objection.
In response, the Commission advised both parties that it is aware Produits Forestiers Lamco Inc. (LAMCO) has made an application to the 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, and the Commission had previously sought legal advice in this regard.
In consideration of a BMEC application, it is understood that the BMEC does not review a product currently being reviewed by the CCMC, as per s. 29(8) of the Building Code Act.
The Commission notes that an engineering report prepared by Tacoma Engineers dated September 16, 2022, was filed by the Respondent, and was entered as one of the exhibits at the hearing. In addition, the Commission notes an engineering report prepared by Planmac Engineering Inc. dated December 2, 2022, was filed by the Applicant and was entered as one of the exhibits at the hearing. Two representatives from Planmac Engineering, Inc. also attended the hearing. However, after the decision was verbally communicated to the parties, and while the Commission was finalizing the written decision, Planmac Engineering Inc. requested that their report “be retracted” from the evidence record of this hearing. Since the hearing was completed when the request by Planmac was received, the Commission decided it could not delete the report from the record of the hearing.
The Commission advised the parties that its ruling is site specific and not intended to be precedent setting.
2. Provisions of the Building Code in Dispute
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”.
9.3.2.1. Grade Marking
(1) Lumber for joists, rafters, trusses and beams and for the uses listed in Table 9.3.2.1. shall be identified by a grade stamp to indicate its grade as determined by the NLGA, “Standard Grading Rules for Canadian Lumber”.
9.3.2.5. Moisture Content
(1) Moisture content of lumber shall be not more than 19% at the time of installation.
9.4.1.1. General
(1) Subject to the application limitations defined elsewhere in this Part, structural members and their connections shall,
a), b), or
(c) be designed according to Part 4 using the loads and deflection and vibration limits specified in,
(i) this Part, or
(ii) Part 4.
9.23.4.2. Spans for Joists, Rafters and Beams
(1) Except as required in Sentence (2) and Article 9.23.13.10., the spans for wood joists and rafters shall conform to the spans shown in Tables A-1 to A-7 for the uniform live loads shown in the Tables.
(2) Spans for floor joists that are not selected from Tables A-1 and A-2 and that are required to be designed for the same loading conditions, shall not exceed the design requirements for uniform loading and vibration criteria.
(3) Spans for built-up wood and glued-laminated timber floor beams shall conform to the spans in Tables A-8 to A-11. (See Appendix A.)
(4) Spans for roof ridge beams shall conform to the spans in Table A-12 for the uniform snow load shown.
9.23.8.3. Built-up Wood Beams
(1) Where a beam is made up of individual pieces of lumber that are nailed together, the individual members shall be 38 mm or greater in thickness and installed on edge.
(2) Except as permitted in Sentence (3), where individual members of a built-up beam are butted together to form a joint, the joint shall occur over a support.
(3) Where a beam is continuous over more than one span, individual members are permitted to be butted together to form a joint at or within 150 mm of the end quarter points of the clear spans, provided the quarter points are not those closest to the ends of the beam.
(4) Members joined at quarter points shall be continuous over adjacent supports.
(5) Joints in individual members of a beam that are located at or near the end quarter points shall not occur in adjacent members at the same quarter point and shall not reduce the effective beam width by more than half.
(6) Not more than one butt joint shall occur in any individual member of a built-up beam within any one span.
(7) Except as provided in Sentence (8), where 38 mm members are laid on edge to form a built-up beam, individual members shall be nailed together with a double row of nails not less than 89 mm in length, spaced not more than 450 mm apart in each row with the end nails located 100 mm to 150 mm from the end of each piece.
(8) Where 38 mm members in built-up wood beams are not nailed together as provided in Sentence (7), they shall be bolted together with not less than 12.7 mm diam bolts equipped with washers and spaced not more than 1.2 m o.c, with the end bolts located not more than 600 mm from the ends of the members.
2. Applicant’s Position
The Agent for the Applicant (Agent) advised that an alternative solution under Division A, Clause 1.2.1.1.(1)(b) of the Building Code had been submitted to the municipality’s building department 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 Evaluation Services, LLC (ICC-ES) and Technical Evaluation Report TER 1401-01 prepared by DrJ Certification (DrJ), will perform as well as a design that would satisfy the applicable acceptable solutions attributed to Article 4.3.1.1. and Sentence 9.23.4.2.(1) of Division B of the Building Code. The Commission noted that both ICC-ES and DrJ are organizations based in the United States.
Additionally, the Agent advised that Planmac Engineering Inc. (Planmac) was retained by Taiga Building Products to provide a report dated December 2, 2022, regarding their professional opinion and engineering rational relative to the LAMCO-LFL® alternative solution. However, the Agent advised that the Chief Building Official has refused the product as an alternative solution.
The Agent submitted that LAMCO-LFL® products have been manufactured for approximately 20 years in St-Félicien, Québec by Produits Forestiers Lamco Inc. for export and use 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 schedules, the Applicant decided to use LAMCO-LFL® beams in lieu of LVL beams which were called for on the approved permit drawings. The Agent advised that LAMCO-LFL® beams are manufactured and primarily used in Quebec and have been accepted based on site specific engineering in some Ontario municipalities.
The Agent advised that LAMCO-LFL® products have been evaluated by ICC Evaluation Service, LLC and DrJ Certification, and have validation stamps by PFS Corporation. The Agent also advised that shop drawings submitted for LAMCO-LFL® beams related to 17 Kentledge Ave (Lot 218) are consistent with industry standards and the design bears the seal of a professional engineer licensed to practice in Ontario. The alternative solution application submitted by Taiga Building Products has been sealed and signed by an Ontario Professional Engineer. Further, the DrJ Certification Technical Evaluation Report (TER 1401-01) has also been sealed by an Ontario Professional Engineer. In response to questions from the Commission, the Applicant clarified that beam designs were established using MiTek software and validated by independent engineers. Further to the Commissions’ questions, the Applicant explained that data input for the program was derived from information and interpretation of the two (2) evaluation reports mentioned above.
The Agent submitted that as the LAMCO-LFL® products have been used for 20 years in the United States, LAMCO sought approval from DrJ Certification and corresponding PFS compliance stamps. LAMCO-LFL® beams were tested and evaluated to determine structural resistance properties, which were used to develop reference design values for Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and Limit States Design (LSD). The Agent acknowledges these American testing agencies might not be fully accredited testing agencies in Canada.
The Agent further advised that the ICC-ES product certification process included evaluating reports of tests of standard manufactured products as prepared by accredited testing laboratories, which were provided by LAMCO, to ICC-ES to verify compliance with applicable codes and standards in Ontario.
In consideration of the ICC-ES Evaluation Report ESL 1232, the Agent pointed out several elements demonstrating compliance with CSA O86 - Engineering Design of Wood as required by Article 4.3.1.1. of Division B of the Building Code. The Agent advised that 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 report are considered as alternatives to sawn lumber for floor, wall, and roof structural members. In response to questions regarding testing of the LFL advanced engineered lumber, the Agent advised that full scale testing in accordance with ASTM D5456 was a requirement in the Quality Assurance Manual from LAMCO.
In a letter dated January 28, 2022 to LAMCO, ICC-ES clarified its position regarding the evaluation of wood beams stating: “The basis for the evaluation of the LAMCO-LFL® products was to test to the Structural Composite Lumber requirements as noted in Clauses 15.3 and 16.3 of CSA O86-14 (Clauses 13.3 and 14.3 of CSA O86-09); where these clauses are based on meeting the requirements in accordance with ASTM D5456. The resulting test data/characteristic values were analyzed to derive corresponding reference Limit States Design (LSD) values detailed in ESL-1232.” and “Through our engineering judgement to allow the evaluation of LAMCO-LFL® products as alternatives to sawn lumber, we can state that in ESL-1232, LAMCO-LFL® products have met the testing requirements as noted in ASTM D5456 which is referenced in CSA O86, as well as the extra longitudinal shear strength test requirements in Annex A7 of ASTM D3737.”
Regarding lumber grading, an explanation was provided in the Planmac report indicating the NLGA SPS standards cannot be directly used to approve the LAMCO-LFL® product in Canada. However, the intent of the NLGA SPS 1, 2, and 4 for testing finger joints was met in the full-scale tests under ICC-ES document “AC47 Acceptance Criteria for Structural Wood-Based Products”. The report further indicated that, in the Canadian context of traditional finger-joined materials, a full-scale test may not actually test the finger joint itself fully due to the typical spacing of finger joints. The Planmac report indicated the LAMCO-LFL® product falls into the Advanced Engineered Lumber category and therefore under ICC-ES document AC47, finger joints are tested via full scale testing rather than a specific test for the finger joints. Planmac concluded that a full-scale test meets the intent of the NLGA SPS requirement to also test the finger joints themselves. The Commission notes that “AC 47 Acceptance Criteria of Structural Wood-based Products” is an ICC-ES document and is not a standard referenced in the Building Code. In response to questions from the Commission the Agent advised that a Canadian University has been engaged to perform testing but did not provide information regarding the progress of such testing program and its details due to privacy restrictions.
The Planmac report notes the span tables in the DrJ report are for Allowable Stress Design only and are not valid for the Limit States Design methodology required by the Building Code.
Further, the Planmac report states this product may only be used in conjunction with an alternative solution application process such as the current application. As such, it was the opinion of Planmac that 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 to demonstrate the safety and serviceability of the resulting structure.
The Agent advised that the lumber used to manufacture LAMCO-LFL® products was kiln dried to 19% moisture content. Further, the Planmac report referenced sections of the NLGA Standard indicating lumber must be maintained in a Dry Service Condition where moisture content would not exceed 19%.
In summary, the Agent submitted that the application for alternative solution satisfies the objectives and functional statements attributed to Article 4.3.1.1. and Sentence 9.23.4.2.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, and that sufficient evidence has been provided to show the LAMCO-LFL® beams meet the minimum structural provisions of the Building Code. With site specific engineering validated by a professional engineer licensed to practice in Ontario, product listing and evaluation reports from ICC-ES and DrJ providing the rational engineering analysis, relevant ASTM standards, and third-party testing, the Agent claims the product performs as well as the requirements in Division B of the Building Code.
The Commission notes the following scope statement from the Planmac report which states: “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”.
Subsequent to the hearing, the Commission requested the following information from the Agent.
Question 1. In reference to the document titled “Doc-10 - ICC-ES-Scope-of-Accreditation” as part of Exhibit 1 for the hearing, provide confirmation that ICC Evaluation Service, LLC (ICC-ES) is accredited by Standards Council of Canada (SCC) to certify products under the category of “Shop Fabricated Structural Wood” as referenced in the ICC-ES Listing Report (ESL-1232) for the LAMCO laminated finger-jointed lumber (LFL) product.
The Agent advised that ICC Evaluation Service, LLC (ICC-ES) is accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) to certify products under the category of “Shop Fabricated Structural Wood” as reference in the ICC-ES Listing Report (ESL-1232) for the LAMCO-LFL® product and that the Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) is a standardized system of organizing construction documents in North America. The Canadian equivalent used by the NRC is the National Master Construction Specification (NMS). The NMS table of contents references Section 06 17 00 – Shop Fabricated Structural Wood as seen in the ICC ESL-1232 Listing Report. CSI and NMS 06 17 00 are industry documents for the consistent referencing of information, they are not standards. The Agent reported that the scope of accreditation ICC-ES maintains includes the ICS code 79.060.01. Also, LAMCO-LFL® beams have been certified to ASTM D5456 and ASTM D3737 as referenced in ICS code 79.060.01. The Agent indicated that CSI or NMS 06 17 00 format is the most appropriate reporting mechanism and would include most Engineered Wood Products.
Question 2. In reference to the document titled “Doc-6 – ATM_628” as part of Exhibit 1 for the hearing, provide confirmation that the PFS TECO Authorization to Mark issued for the LAMCO LFL product has been renewed and is still valid.
The Applicant provided an updated version of the PFS TECO Authorization to Mark to confirm validation and renewal.
Question 3. Further to the confirmation at the hearing by the Agent of the Applicant that testing of the LAMCO LFL product was performed by PFS TECO, confirm where the original testing was performed to produce the test data for the ICC-ES Listing Report (ESL-1232), in which certified testing facility, and whether the testing was conducted in accordance with Canadian testing standards.
In response the Agent advised that the original testing was performed at PFS Laboratory in Cottage Grove, Wisconsin, which is accredited to ISO 17025 to test materials to ASTM D5456 as referenced in standard CSA O86-14. In response to Canadian testing standards, the Agent provided a letter dated February 9, 2023, from ICC-ES, stating the following, “the scope of accreditation that ICC‐ES maintains with the SCC includes the ICS Code 79.060.01 – Wood‐based panels in general (link to ICC‐ES SCC scope of accreditation). The products in question have been certified to ASTM D5456 and ASTM D3737, which is classified under ICS Code 79.060.01 (ASTM link). Therefore, through this accreditation of the SCC, sufficient evidence exists of these LAMCO products meet the compliance demonstration requirements for AHJ approval.” Embedded live links were provided in the Agent’s response in a PDF file.
Question 4. Provide confirmation of the status of the CCMC application for LAMCO LFL product and provide the Application Registration Number and estimated timeline for completion of the evaluation process.
In response, the Agent provided a letter dated February 6, 2023, wherein CCMC confirmed LAMCO submitted a formal application for evaluation and a corresponding job number. CCMC indicated an updated Technical Guide would be required as the original was developed in 2012 and now requires update in accordance with NBC 2020 and CSA O86-2019. CCMC advised the evaluation would include a review of all technical documents such as test reports, engineering reports, verification of acceptable design values, quality control manual, installation manual and design literature for raw materials including adhesives. Broad based timelines were provided, indicating multiple months for each stage of review and no guarantee of acceptance.
Question 5. Confirm and describe the ongoing surveillance testing program by PFS TECO for the LAMCO LFL product.
The Agent provided a letter dated February 9, 2023, from PFS TECO to M. René Fortin, Vice President, Produits Forestiers Lamco Inc. stating: “PFS TECO is a third-party inspection agency accredited to ISO/IEC 17020 by International Accreditation Service (IAS). In this role, we (or our agent in Quebec) conduct inspections of your manufacturing facility in St-Félicien where LAMCO-LFL® advanced engineered lumber products, described in ICC-ES ESL-1232, are produced. Our inspections are done to verify that your manufacturing facility operates in accordance with the approved quality control manual (QCM). Those inspections are conducted once each month and our records confirm compliance with the plant’s Quality Control Manual (QCM) and quality system.”
Question 6. Provide the approximate number of LAMCO LFL product installations in Quebec and in the U.S., and the geographical locations of such installations. Also, provide statistical information regarding reported issues, if any, associated with the use of the product.
In response, the Agent advised that for the year of 2022, LAMCO produced 6 million board feet of LFL. Four million board feet was exported to the United States. Two million board feet were sold in Quebec, Canada. Thousands of projects have been supplied with LAMCO-LFL® products in Quebec and the Eastern United States. The manufacturer has stated there are no reported issues associated with the use of the product.
3. Respondent’s Position
The Respondent stated that LVL beams shown on the approved building permit drawings were substituted with LAMCO-LFL® beams at 17 Kentledge Ave (Lot 218), East Gwillimbury. The Respondent advised this is a typical house within a subdivision that may be impacted by using LFL lintels and beams of all sizes and various load combinations. LFL beam substitutions were done without the benefit of a revision to the building permit, as required by the Building Code Act, and subsequently the Applicant submitted an alternative solution for LFL beams.
The Respondent advised that the Building Code provisions before the Commission were Article 9.23.4.2. “Spans for Joists, Rafters, and Beams”, and Subsection 9.23.8. “Beams to Support Floors” of Division B of the Building Code.
The Respondent pointed to Sentence 9.23.4.2.(3), Table A-11, footnote 4, of Division B of the Building Code, which applies to glue-laminated timber conforming to CAN/CSA-O122 and CSA O177 and noted that LFL beams do not fall within this category of approval. LFL beams do not meet the CSA O86 references or CAN/CSA-O122 and CSA O177 for glue-laminated beams.
The Respondent advised that since the prescriptive part of the Building Code does not apply, Clause 9.4.1.1.(1)(c) requires compliance with Sentence 4.3.1.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code, the design standard for wood, which states, “Structural members made of wood shall conform to CSA O86,” Engineering Design in Wood”. Further, CSA O86 is a Design Standard and not a wood product evaluation standard.
In consideration of the Planmac report dated December 2, 2022, the Respondent provided the following points:
The Planmac report excludes LAMCO-LFL® beams from the scope of CAN/CSA-O122 due to the number of laminating stock within a 1.8 m length of material.
The Planmac report states that LFL beams are not a Structural Composite Lumber (SCL) since “The definition of SCL explicitly covers certain products that do not include the LAMCO-LFL® beams. The significant difference is that SCL products are produced with lumber veneers or strands whereas, LAMCO-LFL® beams are produced with short sections of dimensional lumber”.
The Planmac report states that “The LAMCO-LFL adhesives meet the intent of CSA O86 engineered lumber adhesive requirements”. However, meeting the intent and meeting the requirements are different and ASTM D2559 and CSA O122 standards are not the same.
According to the Planmac report, “Finger-Jointed Structural Lumber is not applicable to the LAMCO-LFL beams due to horizontal laminations”. It also cannot be graded to NLGA standards.
The Planmac report, appropriately states that the “LAMCO-LFL does not fit into any classification category recognized by Division B of the Building Code or CSA O86”. However, the Respondent does not agree with the statement “This product may only be used in conjunction with an alternative solution application”.
The Respondent advised he had contacted CCMC and that CCMC was originally contacted regarding the LAMCO-LFL® products in 2010. No progress for listing approval appeared to have taken place since then. CCMC is now working with LAMCO to move forward with an evaluation of their product for listing.
The Respondent submitted the following technical comments relative to the application for alternative solution:
In consideration of the DrJ report dated January 12, 2022, the report indicated that testing was completed in accordance with ASTM D5456 and EN 14374. EN 14374 is not referenced in the Building Code nor CSA O86 Standard. ASTM D5456 is referenced in the Building Code but permits products tested to D5456 to be used as fire blocking only.
No testing, data analysis, calculations or any other technical information was submitted by the Applicant. The alternative solution submission provided a review of engineering but no 3rd party analysis regarding calculations and tables relative to the DrJ report.
There is no testing or design information on serviceability, fatigue, and vibration design requirements as required by Articles 4.1.3.3., 4.1.3.4., and 4.1.3.6. of Division B of the Building Code.
In summary, the Respondent submitted that the application for alternative solution does not demonstrate compliance with the Building Code and the referenced standard CSA O86, and that the Applicant’s engineer, the Respondent’s peer review engineer and CCMC of NRC all agree that the LAMCO-LFL® beams do not meet referenced standards. The product does not meet basic Building Code design requirements since there is no design or testing available on serviceability, fatigue, or vibration resistance. There are also no evaluations or designs for Ultimate Limit States (ULS) as required by the Building Code. The ICC-ES and the DrJ reports do not constitute 3rd party testing or equivalency. Both reports rely on unreferenced standards or sections of the CSA O86 that would not be within the scope of the design. The Respondent further submitted that the Applicant has not submitted a test report and data confirming any of the values being relied on by the DrJ or the ICC-ES reports. The Respondent agreed with the Planmac report that the LAMCO-LFL does not fit into any classification category recognized by Division B of the Building Code or CSA O86 and submitted that LFL beams do not meet CSA O122 “Engineered Lumber Adhesive Requirements”. The Respondent does not agree that an alternative solution path is appropriate for acceptance of the LAMCO-LFL, rather, CCMC or BMEC are the appropriate bodies to review such products.
4. Commission Ruling
It is the decision of the Building Code Commission that the proposed alternative solution to use LAMCO-LFL® beams as a substitute for Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL) beams to support the floor and roof loads of a new two storey house, does not provide sufficiency of compliance with Sentences 4.3.1.1.(1), 9.3.2.1.(1), 9.3.2.5.(1), Clause 9.4.1.1.(1)(c), Article 9.23.4.2., and Article 9.23.8.3. of Division B of the Building Code at 17 Kentledge Ave (Lot 218), East Gwillimbury, Ontario.
5. Reasons
i) Based on the information provided, the functions, responsibilities and reporting mechanisms of ICC-ES, DrJ, ISO and Standards Council of Canada were not clearly identified to demonstrate that LAMCO-LFL® beams have been tested to a Canadian Standard. In addition, the Applicant did not demonstrate a linkage path between CSA O86 “Engineering Wood Design” and CSI “Shop Fabricated Structural Wood” as referenced by NMS 06 17 00 document relative to the data used to establish design criteria stated in the ICC-ES and DrJ reports.
ii) Original test data, test report and testing methodology, including exact dates of load testing and verification of Canadian certification of the testing facility, which formed the basis of the ICC-ES and DrJ reports, were not available nor confirmed and/or demonstrated to be conducted to the requirements of the Standards Council of Canada for such testing to be undertaken in accordance with Canadian testing standards. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Commission that sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 4.3.1.1.(1) and Clause 9.4.1.1.(1)(c) of Division B of the Building Code has not been achieved.
iii) The Commission heard that LAMCO-LFL® beams may be considered as alternatives to solid sawn lumber. However, as stated in reason i) above that sufficiency of compliance with Sentence 4.3.1.1.(1) and Clause 9.4.1.1.(1)(c) has not been achieved, it is, therefore, the opinion of the Commission that sufficiency of compliance with Article 9.23.4.2. “Spans for Joist, Rafters and Beams” of Division B of the Building Code has also not been demonstrated.
iv) The Commission heard testimony that the lumber used to manufacture LAMCO-LFL® products was kiln dried to 19% moisture content. No information was provided to demonstrate how the finished products would meet the moisture content requirement of Sentence 9.3.2.5.(1) of Division B of the Building Code at the time of installation.
v) In reference to Article 9.23.8.3. “Built-up Wood Beams” of Division B of the Building Code, the Commission notes that the Article provides requirements for built-up wood beams comprising of individual pieces of lumber that are nailed together, and evidence provided indicates that LAMCO-LFL® beams do not match such a description. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Commission that this Article is not applicable.
vi) The Commission heard evidence that NLGA SPS standards cannot be directly used to grade the LAMCO-LFL® products. The Applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate how the PFS TECO Authorization to Mark for LAMCO-LFL® products correlates with Sentence 9.3.2.1.(1) of Division B of the Building Code for lumber grade marking. In addition, it was not demonstrated how the requirements of NLGA “Standard Grading Rules for Canadian Lumber” would be met.
Dated at the City of Toronto this 17th day in the month of February in the year 2023 for application number B-2022-21.
Stephen Wong, Chair
Albert Schepers
Matthew Graham