How to determine if proprietary members are code compliant

[EngDM]

Hey all,

I practice in Canada and follow the NBCC2020 for reference. I am wondering if anyone can tell me what exactly deems something code compliant as far as tests go. Some products say things like "tabulated loads calculated in accordance with S136 (in the case of steel studs), but others refer to some testing or nothing at all. There are these Hilti Fasteners click here which provide load tables, but they don't provide an ESR on the website, it simply has "Approvals / Test reports: N/A" in the description of the fastener.

I have used Hilti fasteners extensively in the past, so I don't doubt that their load tables are accurate, but can I use these in commercial applications without an ESR?

I have seen these used before when performing field reviews where we are EOR and steel studs are by others.

 

[ANE91]

I’ve worked on the west coast (US)—where ICC ESRs and IAOPMO UESs or Intertek CCRRs were required by various parties for damn near anything that went into a building—and in markets where nobody’s heard of such reports. I’ve also worked for manufacturers of proprietary products and can tell you that while ESRs are a convenient way to satisfy IBC 104.11, they are certainly not the only way. ESRs are expensive and often used (rightly or wrongly) as a marketing tool to drive certain products.

Hilti’s tech guide likely suffices, as the published values are based on their internal testing. It’s ultimately up to the building official in your area. There is something to be said about testing to an Acceptance Criteria vs. testing to internal, black-box standards. An Acceptance Criteria is the level playing field for all comers, with input provided by owners, contractors, and the vendors (i.e., ICC’s main customers) themselves.

 

[EngDM]

I’ve worked on the west coast (US)—where ICC ESRs and IAOPMO UESs or Intertek CCRRs were required by various parties for damn near anything that went into a building—and in markets where nobody’s heard of such reports. I’ve also worked for manufacturers of proprietary products and can tell you that while ESRs are a convenient way to satisfy IBC 104.11, they are certainly not the only way. ESRs are expensive and often used (rightly or wrongly) as a marketing tool to drive certain products.

Hilti’s tech guide likely suffices, as the published values are based on their internal testing. It’s ultimately up to the building official in your area. There is something to be said about testing to an Acceptance Criteria vs. testing to internal, black-box standards. An Acceptance Criteria is the level playing field for all comers, with input provided by owners, contractors, and the vendors (i.e., ICC’s main customers) themselves.

So as long as my use of these values is done with sound engineering judgement I should be okay, and then if a building official ever requests something either I contact the manufacturer or substitute the product for something that has the required reports. Does this sound reasonable?

 

[ANE91]

So as long as my use of these values is done with sound engineering judgement I should be okay, and then if a building official ever requests something either I contact the manufacturer or substitute the product for something that has the required reports. Does this sound reasonable?

Sounds reasonable to me. My understanding is that the BO can still reject at their discretion, even if your calcs and such are sound. Moving to a report-backed product will be more expensive.

If something ever goes bad, then Hilti would have to explain why their tech-guide values didn’t hold, and you’d have to explain why your use of their values was proper. Last thing I’ll mention here is that the devil is really in the details on some of these products. If you’re even one criterion off, then it’s “your fault” that the thing broke, even if unrelated, due to the optics. Examples in your case include the overhead installation footnote. Does that mean 90 degrees or is anything above horizontal considered by Hilti to be “overhead” and requiring a 2x reduction? I’ll bet the answer is in their IFUs.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Did you send in a question to your Hilti representative? I'm sure they could give you better guidance than anyone on this forum? In my experience they're pretty well informed and helpful.... Surprisingly generous with their time.

If I were to wager a guess, it would be that this is a newer product that doesn't have an ICBO engineering report yet. Or, that it is a product that isn't really intended for structural use.... like maybe it's meant for anchoring small items like pictures or such.

 

[Enable]

The specific product you've linked to is quite widely used in Ontario, so I wouldn't have concerns about satisfying your building department (sans seismic at least). In general, there is no grand test for fasteners that de facto qualifies them as NBCC compliant. However, the NBCC sometimes references testing standards (usually ASTM) or other codes (such as S16) that in turn reference testing standards. You can find the list of standards referenced in Table 1.3.1.2, which attaches them to specific clauses / use cases (excerpt below). What that means is that if the thing you're looking at has an applicable standard referenced in that table for the given use case, it should be qualified to that standard. If not, then gloves are off, and you can feel free to do as you please under engineering judgement and all that.

To be honest, this would not be a concern of mine (NBCC compliance that is) so much as does the fastener have test data / hilti backing for the use case I need it for. Outside of the most anal retentive building departments in seismic country, you shouldn't have an issue.