ASTM E651/E651M-01(2008)

NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E651/E651M − 01 (Reapproved 2008) An American National Standard
Standard Practice for
Evaluating Capabilities of Agencies Involved in System
Analysis and Compliance Assurance for Manufactured
Building
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E651/E651M; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year
of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval.
A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope and experience in other product categories and experience of
key personnel reflect a keen awareness of the problems and
1.1 This practice is intended as a companion standard to
processes involved in manufactured building evaluation and
Specification E541, Specification for Agencies Engaged in
thus warrant acceptance. In such instances the administrative
SystemAnalysis and ComplianceAssurance for Manufactured
agency may wish to consider extending provisional acceptance
Building. Specification E541 covers criteria by which the
over a definite period of time, during which it is expected that
technical resources of agencies may be evaluated for their
the agency will have opportunity to gain the requisite experi-
capability to perform the system analysis or compliance
enceanddemonstrateitscapabilitiesandcomplianceassurance
assurance function, or both, in the evaluation and inspection of
functions for manufactured building.
manufactured building. This standard includes questions that
should be asked of system analysis and compliance assurance 1.4 Failure of an agency to respond satisfactorily to one or
agenciesinorderfortheadministrativeagencytoevaluatetheir more criteria in the following should not be sole cause for
competency. Personnel matters are not highlighted in this rejection. Such failure should be brought to the agency’s
standard since they are covered in detail in Specification E541. attention and be subject to close scrutiny during subsequent
This is not meant to imply that they are not important. reevaluations.
1.2 The preferred method for utilizing this practice is for 1.5 This practice is intended to achieve uniformity in the
qualified personnel of the administrative agency to visit the regulation of manufactured building. It may be necessary to
system analysis and compliance assurance agencies’ headquar- make changes and modifications in order to adapt to legislative
ters to speak to qualified personnel and examine pertinent or other regulatory requirements of some jurisdictions.
records and documentation. Alternatively, the evaluation may
1.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
be done at any location provided the agency being evaluated is
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
fully informed as to the material and personnel they will need
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
to have on hand for the evaluation.
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
1.3 Some of the following will not be applicable in the
evaluation of an agency that has not had prior experience as a
2. Referenced Documents
building-evaluation organization. It is not the intent of this
2.1 ASTM Standards:
practice to preclude acceptance of such an agency provided it
E541 Specification for Agencies Engaged in System Analy-
can otherwise demonstrate that its organizational procedures
sis and ComplianceAssurance for Manufactured Building
3. System Analysis
This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E36 on Accredi-
tation & Certification and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E36.70 on
“6.2.1 Drawings, calculations, and specifications of manu-
Agencies Performing Construction Inspection, Testing and Special Inspection.
factured building shall be reviewed by agency’s engineering
Current edition approved May 1, 2008. Published October 2008. Originally
approved in 1978. Last previous edition approved in 2001 as E651 – 01. DOI:
staff and details compared with provisions of applicable
10.1520/E0651_E0651M-01R08.
In preparation of this practice, much assistance was gained by referring to
Building Science Series 87, “Model Documents for the Evaluation, Approval, and For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Inspection of Manufactured Buildings,” prepared by the Center for Building contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
Technology, Institute forApplied Technology, National Bureau of Standards, issued Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
July 1976. the ASTM website.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E651/E651M − 01 (2008)
requirements. The construction of assemblies or components or 3.1.5.5 Tabulation of numerical values associated with test,
both, including material identification, shall be compared with such as loadings, voltage, etc., and corresponding result
published descriptions of listed, approved, or recognized de- readings (for example, deflections), giving the time scale
signs where applicable.” involved.
3.1 Questions: 3.1.5.6 Listing or identification of any significant test con-
3.1.1 Does the system analysis agency have on hand copies
ditions not indicated above (such as ambient air temperature,
ofthestandard(s),codes(s),specification(s),etc.,againstwhich humidity, etc.).
the product is being evaluated?
3.1.5.7 Date of test.
3.1.2 Does the system analysis agency have on hand “how
3.1.5.8 Name and address of testing organization or labora-
to” manuals such as UPC Plumbing Code Interpretations
tory.
Manual, NFPAHandbook of the National Electrical Code, etc.,
3.1.5.9 Signature of the laboratory’s officer or authorized
and similar manuals which provide the agency with useful
representative (generally a test engineer in charge who is a
background information? Does the agency maintain copies of
professional engineer), and date of signature.
current product directories, lists, certification directories, etc.,
3.1.6 Does product bear the seal, label, or mark of product
published or issued by independent organizations, trade
certifying agency or organization? If “no” for some or all
associations, and other groups?
products, ask agency to explain basis of acceptance. If “yes”:
3.1.3 Ask to see checklists and other evaluation aids devel-
3.1.6.1 Is seal, label, or mark of product certifying agency
oped by the system analysis agency, or developed by others
registered?
and used by the agency, in their evaluation process. Does the
3.1.6.2 Does the product certifying agency have strict pro-
agency have: (a) a data collection checklist for determining the
cedures for controlling the use of its seal, label, or mark?
adequacy of data submitted by the manufacturer for review
3.1.6.3 Does product certifying agency or organization con-
(that is, how does the agency know when it has sufficient data
duct routine factory audit of products bearing its seal, label or
to start a review?); (b) a comprehensive review checklist for
mark?
determining compliance with applicable standards and proce-
“6.2.2 Where production has been instituted, and subse-
dures that cover the full range of architectural, structural,
quent to the review of drawings and specifications, qualified
mechanical, etc., features to be reviewed? Does the review
personnel from the system analysis agency (or compliance
checklist include provisions for convenient notation of those
assurance agency) shall visit the factory of the producer of
itemsfoundtobeandnottobeincompliancewiththecode(s)?
manufactured building to:
3.1.4 Ask the system analysis agency to explain the criteria
6.2.2.1 Compare the actual construction with the drawings
upon which they base their acceptance or rejection of a
and specifications.
component, material, device, etc., used in the building system.
6.2.2.2 Examine and record all features required by the
3.1.4.1 Is the product specifically identified as to make,
codes and standards if not included in the drawings and
model, type designation, etc.?
specifications.
3.1.4.2 Is the code or standard that forms the technical basis
6.2.2.3 Evaluate all required production tests to ascertain
for certification of a product known, such as by being marked
that the correct equipment, instruments, and procedures are
ontheproduct,orincludedinthecertifier’sseal,label,ormark,
followed and to determine that the building, assembly, or
or referenced in the certifier’s test report or other available
subassembly is capable of meeting the test requirements.
documents?
6.2.2.4 Discuss items of noncompliance with the manufac-
3.1.5 Ask the system analysis agency to explain the criteria
turer’s representative, identify the source of the requirement,
upon which they base their acceptance or rejection of tests on
and explain the requirement.”
individual products used in the building system. Does the
criteria include at least the following elements:
3.2 Questions:
3.1.5.1 Identification of the specimen tested (manufacturer,
3.2.1 Confirm that building evaluation agency (system
type, model number, source of supply, etc.).
analysis agency or compliance assurance agency) arranges for
3.1.5.2 A detailed description or drawing of the physical
its personnel to visit a manufacturer’s factory after review of
characteristics of the specimen, including condition (age,
drawings and specifications to perform the steps enumerated in
repair, etc.).
the evaluation process outlined in 6.2.2.1 through 6.2.2.4
3.1.5.3 Number of tests and sampling technique used in
above.
selection of specimens.
3.2.2 Ask to see representative reports prepared by the
3.1.5.4 Identification of test method used (if a standard test
building evaluation agency subsequent to such factory visits as
method) or a detailed description of the test procedure,
evidence of documenting the replies to the following, as
equipment, and instrumentation used.
appropriate:
3.2.2.1 Does the agency examine manufactured buildings in
various phases of construction to ascertain that they are being
Criteria in italics are extracted without change from ASTM Standard E541,
constructed in accordance with the drawings and specifications
Specification forAgencies Engaged in SystemAnalysis and ComplianceAssurance
submitted by the manufacturer?
for Manufactured Building.
3.2.2.2 Does the agency examine the manufactured build-
Questions to be asked of the building evaluation agencies (system analysis
agency or compliance assurance agency) by the administrative agency. ings for the purpose of disclosing and recording features of
E651/E651M − 01 (2008)
construction, workmanship, etc., not shown in the drawings or numerous, or (2) may relate to workmanship, or (3) corrections
specifications that may be at variance with the codes and are comparatively complicated and corrections cannot be
standards? readily verified by review of corrected drawings or specifica-
3.2.2.3 Does the agency have a written procedure or check- tions?
list for review of manufacturers’ test methods and frequency?
“6.2.5 The system analysis agency shall prepare a final
3.2.2.4 Does the agency procedure or report contain ad- report describing the manufactured building, confirming the
equate documentation of the applicable standards that are to be
tests performed, stating the basis for judgement of acceptibility
used in each manufacturer’s test? of assemblies and components, and itemizing the edition of the
3.2.2.5 Are all manufacturers’ test methods reviewed by
codes and standards against which the building was evalu-
qualified agency technical staff? ated.”
3.2.2.6 Does the agency require the manufacturer to main-
3.5 Questions:
tain a record of all tests?
3.5.1 Ask the system analysis agency to provide copies of
3.2.2.7 Does the agency require the manufacturer to main-
reports it has prepared that cover manufactured buildings the
tain a record documenting periodic calibration of inplant test
agency has evaluated.
equipment?
3.5.2 Is the report signed and dated by responsible system
3.2.2.8 Does the agency discuss with the manufacturer’s
analysis agency personnel?
representative how the material or component used, the assem-
3.5.3 Does the report contain a clear statement of the
bly or installation procedure followed, or the workmanship
applicable standards to which the evaluation has been made
accepted can or does result in a failure to conform to the
and the approval is issued?
code(s), standard(s), or specification(s)?
3.5.4 Doesthereportaccuratelyandclearlystatethevarious
3.2.2.9 Does the agency determine through discussion with
zones for which the units are approved (that is, wind, snow,
the manufacturer’s representative how the failure to conform
heating, etc.)?
will be corrected on the deficient unit or units and avoided in
3.5.5 Does the report contain a complete index?
subsequent production?
3.5.6 Does the report clearly identify the manufacturer and
3.2.2.10 Does the agency require that the nature of the
which manufacturing facility locations are covered by the
deficiency and the corrective action taken be so documented
report?
that the compliance assurance agency can readily anticipate
3.5.7 Does the report contain system analysis agency pro-
and detect future deficiencies of like nature?
ceduresforcoordinatedcontinuingrevisionandupdatingofthe
“6.2.3 The system analysis agency shall issue a written
document?
report to the manufacturer confirming all items of noncompli-
ance from the applicable requirements and summarizing the 3.5.8 Does the report contain appropriate manufacturer
certification statements, labeling and data plate instructions?
steps needed to proceed with the system analysis.”
5 3.5.9 Does the report contain the manufacturer’s authoriza-
3.3 Questions:
tion for the agency to conduct inspection, if applicable?
3.3.1 Ask the system analysis agency to provide examples
3.5.10 Does the report contain the manufacturer’s serial
of written reports they have prepared on manufactured build-
numbering system?
ings. Do the reports:
3.5.11 Does the report contain adequate detail to show
3.3.1.1 Clearly state the features found to be in
compliance with planning consideration requirements?
noncompliance, with reference to the specific source of the
3.5.12 Does the report contain adequate list of typical
requirement?
appliances, equipment, fixtures, and structural materials to be
3.3.1.2 Summarize the steps needed to proceed with the
used?
system analysis (that is, provide corrected drawings and
3.5.13 Does the repor
...