CCMC Product Evaluations Evolve

The Canadian Construction Materials Centre (CCMC) has been evaluating construction products and systems since 1988. In 2005 a number of things happened that resulted in significant changes to the CCMC evaluation process, which are expected to be of great benefit to manufacturers, building officials and evaluation officers.

Responding To Changes To The NBC In 2005
The reorientation of the national model building code (NBC 2005) to an objective-based format has had a major impact on the CCMC evaluation process. This code is structured around objectives – the overall goals that the codes provisions are intended to achieve – and functional statements – the function a building must perform to fulfill the objectives. Section 1.2 of Division A clarifies that compliance can be achieved either by meeting the requirements embodied in the code’s acceptable solutions” (essentially the technical provisions of the code) or by using “alternative solutions” that meet the minimum level of performance of acceptable solutions.

In earlier versions of the NBC, the Equivalents section (the basis for CCMC evaluations) allowed for a broad interpretation of a code requirement. The NBC 2005 goes further than this by linking at least one objective and a functional statement to each code requirement, thus providing the user with more specific background information on requirements as well as guidance on how to evaluate the performance of innovative products and systems. This, in turn, provides a more precise tool for determining conformance, thus facilitating the uptake of innovation.

 The CCMC evaluation of products or systems is an impartial third party technical opinion on the compliance of a product or system to the NBC 2005 (or provincial code). Innovative products are evaluated as an alternative to (a) code-identified solution(s) in NBC Division B. Each CCMC evaluation is a proponent-specific undertaking to establish compliance with the regulatory requirements in force in the jurisdiction where the approval is being sought.

A successful evaluation results in a report that states CCMC’s opinion with regard to the product/system’s performance and its compliance with the minimum acceptable solution stated in the NBC. This opinion is based on the test evidence submitted in accordance with these requirements. Limitations are set based on the scope of the evaluation, the code and the evidence submitted.

As part of the evaluation process, a technical guide, which is prepared for an innovative product for which no standard exists, conveys CCMC’s criteria and requirements to facilitate the assessment. A technical guide, when issued under contract, is proponent- and product-specific, and is valued for one year (i.e. CCMC will accept test results for a period of one year from the date of issue). In order for CCMC to issue a report and an evaluation number, the proponent not only has to meet the technical requirements but also other requirements, such as those related to sample selection, ISO 9000 registration or evidence of a quality assurance program, as outlined in the technical guide.

The issuance of a CCMC report and evaluation number does not constitute an approval or a certification of the product or system. Regulators, specifications writers, builders or general users can use the information to determine approval or acceptability.

The NBC 2005 addresses the issue of what documentation is required to demonstrate compliance for alternative solutions in Division C, Section 2.3. While this section provides guidance, it does not provide information on how to determine the minimum acceptable solution. CCMC’s revamped evaluation process assists in the evaluation of products and systems with regard to code compliance.

Responding To Industry Needs
CCMC’s response to industry requests to re-examine the evaluation guidelines has also had a major impact on the evaluation process. As a result of these requests, CCMC consolidated its existing guidelines to align more closely with the explicit requirements of the NBC, and also eliminated suitability-for-use expectations. In the new streamlined evaluation process, the subjectivity has been removed and the requirements are clearer, making it easier for proponents to know up front what they will be facing, for evaluation officers to conduct the evaluation in a more focused way, and for building officials, who no longer have to distinguish between code minimums and suitability-for-use performance.

For more information about CCMC visit Http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/ccmc/home_e.shtml.