Recognizing this complexity, some initial efforts are being made to compile a database of 285 fire-tested assemblies. Meanwhile some proactive material manufactures are trying to offer a large selection of compliant assemblies that use their products for designers to choose from.

“This is what the architects need at the end of the day,” affirms Beitel. “How soon and how that will come about, I don't know as it is not a simple process, but the construction industry understands that we have to get that together.”

One tool which architects can potentially use is an engineering judgment analysis letter furnished by a reputable code expert. This involves bringing in such a consultant and inquiring as to whether individual products which passed NFPA 285 in separate tests, could be combined together in one assembly and not officially require testing, based upon the expert's opinion that the new combination would theoretically provide acceptable life safety levels.

“It is possible and reasonable to make such judgments,” notes Beitel. “For example, if a steel stud gypsum wall was tested and passed, and now the architect wants to put it on a concrete masonry unit, the code officials would probably accept this.”

At the same time, such an engineering analysis must come from a consultant who is intimately familiar with the 285 test and is knowledgeable in the field. And secondly, the onus lies on the architect and consultant to convince the local AHJs that the NFPA 285 test can be bypassed in this instance.

“This can save a considerable amount of money over a custom 285 test. Of course, if a full test is going to be required, fire safety consultants are essential to get to approval without experimenting with the materials too much,” adds Altenhofen.

Since the legal responsibility doesn't fall on the code officials, but rather the consultant and the party who commissioned the consultant, the AHJs are often willing to consider such well-founded exemptions, or specific exemptions which will be included in future versions of the IBC, such as the WRB exemptions in the 2015 IBC.

Other than recruiting the services of such a consultant, as mentioned, architects don't have the benefit of a “cheat sheet” at this time and are really being forced to do their homework. At the same time, some manufacturers are more progressive than others in providing specifiers with such a chart instructing how to build a NFPA 285 compliant wall assembly based upon their testing data.

Case in point, Beitel was recently called in on a project where half of a 22-story high rise was already erected and the team discovered that the wall assembly hadn't been tested and there was some question as to whether it would pass. Consequently, the wall had to be tested on site, and failed, so it had to be taken down, re-designed, and reconstructed.

“You have to think about what you're doing beforehand and have your ducks in a row to make sure you have a compliant wall system,” emphasizes Beitel.

This involves going back to the manufacturers and asking for information about specific products. Granted, some companies may be more forthcoming with information then others, so it may be in the best interest of architects to work with manufacturers who are willing to help them navigate the NFPA 285 situation.

“Architects need to talk to the manufacturers; that's the best advice I can give,” states Beitel. “If they can't provide information or don't want to provide it, it may be necessary to use other products.”
Offering a few general guidelines with regards to different cladding and insulation types, Keleher has observed that MCMs are having the most difficultly passing NFPA 285, and so far, asphalt-based WRBs haven't been able to pass, although some interpretations are allowing asphalt-based flashings.