UES Engineering Evaluation Report - Rebar Couplers 4

[JoelTXCive]

I have a received a submittal for rebar couplers that a contractor would like to use. The contractor has provided a testing report done by an entity called "UES"

UES is part of the IAPMO (International Assoc of Plumbing and Mech Officials)

The report cites IBC and ACI codes; and attests to compliance.

It all looks very legitimate, but I thought that ICC issues these type reports? If you google UES, you see articles on lawsuits between them and the ICC.

I'm leaning to accepting the submittal, but wanted to see if anyone else has seen these reports. What do you think?

 

[r13]

IBC and ACI are design but material testing standards. The coupler shall meet ASTM A 1034 for testing requirements. In the US, I'll reject it if they can't provide evidence that their testing method is ASTM "approved equal".

 

[strucbells]

I saw my first submittal with one of these a few months back (for a different product). Went through the same internet research as my manager had never heard of them. Didn't find a ton of info other than IAPMO's marketing and discussions of the lawsuit between them and the ICC. They appear to have some sort of ANSI accreditation to do this testing.

The report info and accreditation seemed legitimate, and the particular use in our case was not very critical, so ultimately we decided to accept the product. I would've scrutinized it more closely for a critical part of the load path like a rebar coupler.

I'm not surprised another organization popped up to do this testing though, have always heard the ICC reports cost "six figures a sheet".

 

[jjl317]

Four or five years ago I worked for a company that had a single product certified by the ICC, and at the time, due to problems with the ICC, we started investigated other certification agencies, to essentially provide the same certification services. From memory, the position of the non-ICC certification agencies was that as long as all of the relevant certification criteria was met, regardless if the criteria was created by the ICC, or by someone else (ASTM, ANSI, etc.), anyone could complete the certification process. I would imagine that would likely include criteria on being a certification agency, above and beyond the specific criteria for the product at hand.

I never dove too deep into the details, as we were eventually able to get the issues resolved with ICC. But I do remember the process being exceptionally and unnecessarily painful, and vowing I would never use the ICC again for certification if I could avoid it. So I would expect that I wouldn't have been alone in that sentiment, potentially leading to more products going for certification outside of the ICC. The ICC wasn't bad to deal with, as long as you had unlimited time, money and patience, which unfortunately I did not.

This may not really help you in resolving your question, but I thought some background might help. Or at minimum, be some cheap therapy for me in dealing with my ICC issues.

 

[STrctPono]

jjl317, thank you for your insight with experience with the ICC. I had always assumed the ICC operated in this fashion and charged exorbitant fees for their reports. Every manufacturer I've ever dealt with that has to attain ICC certification has never had kind things to say about ICC.

 

[dhengr]

This is just one more example of the A’sHJ, Bldg. Codes, IBC, ICC and ESR reports, etc. running wild and crazy. This system has become a money making, job creating end in itself, almost unrelated the idea of protecting the health and safety of the public as related to our built infrastructure and its design and construction. Their primary effort is turning out new and very expensive publications every couple years; not much new, of real value, but it keeps the Uni. labs and Profs. doing new and ever more complex research and paper writing. They change a bunch of little junk, no evidence that it really improves much in the way of building, but it keeps everyone employed and confused. Testing labs are certified in a number of credible ways and by respected agencies. There are well established stds. and testing procedures up the wazoo, and in fact the engineer doing the design should have a good understanding of what needs to be tested and proven by the testing.

All design professionals are finally going to have to band together and start hassling the hell out of our state and local authorities that this crappy system is not improving anything, it is mostly enriching a small cottage industry. We really don’t need a million suppliers of 16d nails, each of a slightly different dia., length, head shape and size, different manuf. process and material spec., all needing approval, so we have some confidence when designing, if they then end up being used on our job. It should be incumbent upon the originator of a new product or system to prove their product or system before bringing it to market. Of course, we also have to get back to the days when real engineers and experienced people did the designing, and could make wise experienced judgements about the various aspects of the design. We should not need a step by step cook book, with worked examples, etc., to do engineering design unless we don’t know enough to do engineering design. And, these later people should not be allowed to pretend that they are engineers, doing real engineering design.

 

[ATSE]

For reference, Hilti and Simpson Strong-Tie (both reputable companies) use UES / IAMPO in addition to ICC, among many others.
ICC has enjoyed a lock on the code report market for many years, but have also developed a reputation for being expensive and slow.
If there is evidence that UES certification is inferior or in any way less rigorous to ICC, I think most engineers would take that into consideration.
Barring that, I welcome the competition, for the benefit of quicker product development and entry into the construction market.

 

[bones206]

Out of curiosity I browsed some of the lawsuit material (Link) and it seems the main claim is that UES copied/plagiarized ICC's reports. They provide examples such as this one: Link

It doesn't make sense to me why a manufacturer would pay UES to produce evaluation reports of a product for which an ICC report already exists. Maybe the manufacturers are switching to UES after their ICC report expires. In that case, you would expect the reports to be similar if the product has not changed. I guess as an engineer I would want to know if UES performed their own independent evaluation or simply copied over the previous ICC report and put their logo on it.

 

[Tecguru]

IAPMO UES was drafted by the industry to be an alternative to ICCES, who had a monopoly on product evaluation reports in the USA. In most other countries, a government agency serves this function. ICCES abused its position & failed to serve building departments, engineers, etc., with timely reports. ICC struggled financially overall, but ICCES contributed significantly to keep them afloat, so any reforms were not going to happen. In fact, the leadership was changed to try and gouge more money for the organization.

So ICCES lost business to IAPMO UES, which they could not compensate for. Remember, they were a monopoly with no DNA for competing for new work.

Those manufacturers that switched believed they created the reports and therefore could bring them over to IAPMO UES. ICC filed the lawsuit to try and recuperate lost revenue but spent millions in legal fees, far more than the projected losses. You don't see ICC discuss the lawsuit much lately because they cannot prove they contributed any original content. In other words, most everything in the reports came from other sources. Therefore it is reasonable to expect IAPMO UES reports & ICCES reports to be similar because they both rely on the same references (CODES,test reports, etc.).

 

[bones206]

You don't see ICC discuss the lawsuit much lately because they cannot prove they contributed any original content. In other words, most everything in the reports came from other sources.

So these reports are not actually based on independent testing? It's just the manufacturer's own testing data dressed up with ICC letterhead?

 

[Tecguru]

Actually, in most cases the testing is done by independent test labs. But the testing is paid for by the manufacturers, not ICC. The test reports are given to ICC, who apply the test results into their reports. Then the lawsuit comes down to ICC claiming no one else can use these test reports after we have.

However, a year or so ago, ICC announced that they are accepting the manufacturers' testing for certain tests. So yes, you may be reading an ICCES report based on the manufacturers' testing.