BCAB 1976 - Alternative solution regarding the fire-resistance rating of structural insulated panels

Alternative solution regarding the fire-resistance rating of structural insulated panels

Project Description

The project is the design and construction of a two-storey, sprinklered, residential building containing four dwelling units under Part 9 of the Code.  Some walls will be constructed of proprietary structural insulated panels (SIPs).

Each dwelling unit must be separated from the remainder of the building and fire separations having one-hour fire resistance ratings are generally required.  In some locations walls constructed of SIPs require a one-hour fire resistance rating and an alternative solution related to the fire-resistance rating requirement is proposed.

Applicable Code requirements (BCBC 2024)

Sentence 1.2.1.1.(1), Division A, Compliance with this Code

(1) Compliance with this Code shall be achieved by

(a) complying with the applicable acceptable solutions in Division B (see Note A-1.2.1.1.(1)(a)), or

(b) except as required by Sentence (3), using alternative solutions, accepted by the authority having jurisdiction under Section 2.3 of Division C, that will achieve at least the minimum level of performance required by Division B in the areas defined by the objectives and functional statements attributed to the applicable acceptable solutions (see Note A-1.2.1.1.(1)(b)).

Sentence 9.10.3.1.(1), Division B, Fire-Resistance and Fire-Protection Ratings

(1) Except as permitted in Sentences (2) and (3), where a fire-resistance rating or a fire-protection rating is required in this Section for an element of a building, such rating shall be determined in conformance with

(a) the test methods described in Part 3,

(b) the calculation method presented in Appendix D, or

(c) the construction specifications presented in Tables 9.10.3.1.-A and 9.10.3.1.-B  (See Note A-9.10.3.1.(1)(c).).

Sentences 2.3.1.2.(1-5), Division C, Documentation

(1) The authority having jurisdiction may require a person requesting the use of an alternative solution to provide documentation to demonstrate that the proposed alternative solution will achieve at least the level of performance required by Clause 1.2.1.1.(1)(b) of Division A.

(2) The documentation referred to in Sentence (1) shall include

(a) a Code analysis outlining the analytical methods and rationales used to determine that a proposed alternative solution will achieve at least the level of performance required by Clause 1.2.1.1.(1)(b) of Division A, and

(b) information concerning any special maintenance or operational requirements, including any building component commissioning requirements, that are necessary for the alternative solution to achieve compliance with the Code after the building is constructed.

(3) The Code analysis referred to in Clause (2)(a) shall identify the applicable objectives, functional statements and acceptable solutions, and any assumptions, limiting or restricting factors, testing procedures, engineering studies or building performance parameters that will support a Code compliance assessment.

(4) The Code analysis referred to in Clause (2)(a) shall include information about the qualifications, experience and background of the person or persons taking responsibility for the design.

(5) The information provided under Sentence (3) shall be in sufficient detail to convey the design intent and to support the validity, accuracy, relevance and precision of the Code analysis.

Decision being appealed (Local Authority’s position)

The fire testing laboratory has confirmed that they have not tested the proprietary SIPs proposed for the project to determine a fire-resistance rating.  Further, the fire-resistance rating cannot be determined by following the calculation method in Appendix D, and the SIPs are not in conformance with the assemblies in the Part 9 tables.  The alternative solution is not accepted because it cannot be confirmed that the proposed alternative solution provides at least the level of performance required by the acceptable solutions of Division B.

Appellant's position

A fire test for a different proprietary SIP was conducted in accordance with CAN/ULC-S101 for the manufacturer of that SIP and the fire testing laboratory produced a test report.  Under a “Licensing and Waiver Agreement” between the two SIP manufacturers, the manufacturer of the SIP proposed for this project is specifically authorized by the manufacturer of the tested SIP to use the report for this project.  An alternative solution prepared by an engineer for this project states that the test report is directly applicable to the SIPs used in this project.

Appeal Board Decision #1976

The Board confirms the decision of the local authority.

It is the determination of the Board that the documentation provided does not demonstrate that the proposed alternative solution will achieve the level of performance required by the acceptable solution.

Reason for decision

No analysis or documentation was provided to indicate that the proposed proprietary SIP is identical or similar to the tested proprietary SIP, that the fire performance of the two products would be identical or similar, or that the proposed alternative solution will achieve at least the required level of performance.

A commercial licensing agreement between manufacturers does not, by itself, demonstrate any equivalency between the products and is not a substitute for the analysis and documentation required by the Code for an alternative solution.

Don Pedde
Chair, Building Code Appeal Board

Dated:  August 21, 2025