• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Manufacturer's Instructions

KZQuixote

KZQuixote

Sawhorse
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
503
Location
Bend, Oregon
2009 IRC

What sections, if any, address the requirement that any manufactured product be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions?

Sec R102.4 "Exception:Where enforcement of a code provision would violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or appliance, the conditions of the listing and the manufacturer's instructions shall apply."

What if the code is silent on an issue? This section falls short of saying all manufactured products must be installed according to the manufacturer's instructions.

Sec R106.1.2 Manufacturer's installation instructions. Requires they be on the jobsite but falls short of saying they must be followed.

Is there another section that ties up this issue?

TIA

Bill
 
KZQuixote said:
Thanks Chris,No I'm specifically thinking about windows and doors.

Bill
Click to expand...
R104.9 Approved Materials and Equipment

The approval of materials and equipment could be based on the manufacturers installation instructions for its intended use applied to a specific purpose.
 
2009 IRC, R 612.1 Specifically requires window flashing to be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's "written installation instructions." and that "Written installation instructions shall be provided by the fenestration (windows and doors) manufacturer for each window or door."

Hope this helps,
 
Though I bet the manufacturers would like to the see the language to protect their best interest; the IRC seems to be written in as obligatory not compulsory for the AHJ to enforce compliance IMO.

R106.1.2 "as required by this code" is the section R612.1 posted by Uncle Bob agrees with Section 106.1.3 in IBC following the manufacturer's installation instruction is mandatory for flashing and weather protection.

Francis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Guys!

With UB's direction I found the same section in the 2011 Oregon Residential Code.

Sec R612.1 General. “…Windows and sliding doors shall be installed in accordance with the fenestration manufacturer’s written installation instructions. Window and door openings shall be flashed in accordance with Section R703.8.”

And Thank You Francis,

The "as required by this code" in Section R106.1.2 is referring to section R612.1. It was the piece I was missing.

Bill
 
I consider the code provisions that require compliance with manufacturer's instructions to be disturbing.

There are instances not involving life safety where an individual may desire to use a product in a manner not totally consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations yet these provisions prohibit this.

This is also inconsistent with the legal principle that all regulations must be explicitly defined at time of adotion. Instead we are allowing the manufacturer to modify the code.
 
Mark,

You have a good point.

It has always been the code's position that we must follow the installation instructions unless there is a conflict with the code but a lot of code is gone and we have nothing but "Follow the manu....."

I have come across installation instructions that contained questionable instructions.

I have contacted manufactures and gotten the feeling that they don't know much and have been given wrong information.
 
Mark K said:
I consider the code provisions that require compliance with manufacturer's instructions to be disturbing. There are instances not involving life safety where an individual may desire to use a product in a manner not totally consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations yet these provisions prohibit this.

This is also inconsistent with the legal principle that all regulations must be explicitly defined at time of adotion. Instead we are allowing the manufacturer to modify the code.
Click to expand...
Mark,

Windows are required to withstand structural(wind), air infiltration, water infiltration and resistance to forced entry. In order to meet these standards they have to be installed as they were tested.

If all we had to rely upon was the code how could anyone believe that a DP 35 window was just that?

Bill
 
One of those install it the way the manufacturer says to that causes may of our "We know better dan ita all" mechanical inspectors to scream themselves blue in the face is the use of SCH 40 PVC for intake and exhaust vents on Manufacturer Tested Listed Instructed installations of Direct vent vents? ..

They say with indignation that the PVC manufactures do not List such a product as permitted , tested, or recommended for such a thing..

So what the Appliance manufacturer did, does, and says make it so!!!

Drywall screw manufacturers only say their product is to be used on drywall and we all know thats a lie?
 
There is problem with requiring a product to be used as it was qualified based an objective test such as for fire assemblies.

But what are the limits on what can be included in the manufacturer's instructions? Are these instructions only limited to physical attributes?

What is to stop the manufacturer from saying that the product can only be installed by certified installer? Is it the role of the code and the building department to enforce such requirements? This also causes problems for the architect or engineer who specifies the product in a manner not consistent with the manufacturers instructions. If there is a problem related to the product the designer would be considered "negligent per se" which means he would not be able to use the standard of care defense.

I think such code provisions are the result of lazyness on hte part of the code writers.

What if the instruction is related to some attribute that is not related to public safety?
 
Correction.

There is no problem with requiring a product to be used as it was qualified based an objective test such as for fire assemblies.
 
Mark K said:
What is to stop the manufacturer from saying that the product can only be installed by certified installer? Is it the role of the code and the building department to enforce such requirements?
Click to expand...
That happens now with CSST, PE gas pipe and was the case with pex.
 
Mark K said:
What is to stop the manufacturer from saying that the product can only be installed by certified installer? Is it the role of the code and the building department to enforce such requirements? This also causes problems for the architect or engineer who specifies the product in a manner not consistent with the manufacturers instructions. If there is a problem related to the product the designer would be considered "negligent per se" which means he would not be able to use the standard of care defense.

What if the instruction is related to some attribute that is not related to public safety?
Click to expand...
Hi Mark,

I doubt that any manufacturer would require only certified installers. To do so would be to limit their market share, something that cannot be absorbed in this economic situation. Typically, a requirement that only certified installers can do a given install is written by the architect and then before bid opening so that it applies across the board for all bidders.

If the architect or engineer wished to vary from the official written instructions they need only to contact the engineering department of the manufacturer and explain the reason. If it won't cause problems for the testing and certifications, alternate methods can be approved.

Public Safety?

How about energy efficiency? Water infiltration? Both of these rely upon a proper install.

Bill
 
Mark K said:
What is to stop the manufacturer from saying that the product can only be installed by certified installer?
Click to expand...
Revenue from sales to non-certified installers. But, Simplex products still meet code.
 
Bill

I believe you will find that some manufacturers do effectively require certified instalers. This is the case for some roofing products where the manufacture denies any liability unless installed by a certified installer.

So would you require manufacturer's signoff before issuing a certificate of occupancy?

You refer to "official" written instructions but these are not prepared by any government official let alone adopted by any government agency. Are we now outsourcing the adoption of regulations to private entities?

What would you do if the manufacturer revised his written instructions during the life of the project?

What would you do if one manufacture issued manufacturer's instructions but one of his competitors did not? Essentialy the same product but in one case the owner's engineer and the contractor would have to comply with certain requirements while in another these requirements would not apply.

With regards energy efficiency or water infiltration the government can impose requirements on the completed project without trying to controll the means and methods of construction.
 
Mark K said:
BillI believe you will find that some manufacturers do effectively require certified instalers. This is the case for some roofing products where the manufacture denies any liability unless installed by a certified installer.

So would you require manufacturer's signoff before issuing a certificate of occupancy?

You refer to "official" written instructions but these are not prepared by any government official let alone adopted by any government agency. Are we now outsourcing the adoption of regulations to private entities?

What would you do if the manufacturer revised his written instructions during the life of the project?

What would you do if one manufacture issued manufacturer's instructions but one of his competitors did not? Essentialy the same product but in one case the owner's engineer and the contractor would have to comply with certain requirements while in another these requirements would not apply.

With regards energy efficiency or water infiltration the government can impose requirements on the completed project without trying to controll the means and methods of construction.
Click to expand...
Denying liability does not guarantee that you will prevail in court.

Getting a manufacturer to sign off on an installation requires an audited install. The requirement for an audited install is written into the specs by the architect.

If I'm a manufacturer and I write the instructions, they're official enough for me.

The history of the instructions is preserved, revised instructions would apply to the next project.

The code requires written instructions for all exterior windows and doors.

If you don't reference the manufacturer's instructions and you rely on only the code you are prescribing the means and methods of construction. If all the code requires is that the building be commissioned and perform as designed, would you require commissioning of SFD's as well.

Simply, requiring the manufacturer to issue written installation instructions and require that they be followed is the simplest and least intrusive way to assure performance later.

Bill
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top