From ASTM to ESR: Decoding the Alphabet Soup of Structural Hardware Standards

How ICC-ES ESRs fit

Many people refer to “ICC-ES ESR standards,” but that phrase is inaccurate.

An ESR (Evaluation Service Report) is not a standard – it’s third-party evidence showing that a product can be approved by an authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) under the model code’s alternative path.

That path, outlined in IBC (International Building Code) Section 104.11, allows officials to approve alternatives that demonstrate equivalent quality, strength, fire resistance, durability, and safety .

How do you build that case?

You test to consensus methods such as ASTM standards, design with recognized provisions like AISI S100 (American Iron and Steel Institute cold-formed steel design), and present the evidence in a coherent, review-ready format .

This guide shows how ASTM testing, AISI design, and ICC-ES evaluation work together to turn raw data into code-accepted use.

It also clarifies why their language differs and how aligning them early can speed approvals, simplify documentation, and eliminate costly confusion over “ICC-ES ESR standards”.

‍

Key Points

• An ESR (Evaluation Service Report) is not a standard but third-party evidence that helps authorities approve products under the International Building Code's alternative path (Section 104.11) by demonstrating equivalent safety and performance.
• The approval process involves three key organizations: ASTM provides consensus test methods, AISI supplies design standards (like S100 for cold-formed steel), and ICC-ES evaluates evidence and issues reports for code acceptance.
• Use ISO/IEC 17025-accredited labs under the ILAC MRA for testing, plan tests upfront against Acceptance Criteria requirements, and maintain clear manufacturing documentation to avoid costly re-testing and delays.
• Choose between an ESR for products that comply with existing consensus standards and an ESR with custom testing for innovative products requiring evaluation against Acceptance Criteria.
• Success requires treating compliance as a system: align testing standards, design evidence, and quality controls so approvals become predictable and scalable across markets.

ASTM, AISI, ICC-ES roles

ASTM develops consensus test methods and material specifications. Test data must come from properly equipped, ISO/IEC 17025–accredited labs operated by trained personnel .

AISI establishes design standards. For cold-formed steel, engineers rely on AISI S100 to calculate strength and stiffness .

ICC-ES (International Code Council Evaluation Service) acts as an independent product certification body accredited to ISO/IEC 17065. It reviews test results against code objectives and issues evaluation reports .

Together, these three organizations connect testing, design, and certification, turning raw lab data into code-acceptable use under the model code’s alternative path .

Evaluation Service Report basics

An Evaluation Service Report (ESR) is a technical document that compiles verified evidence showing a product can meet the model code objectives through the alternative path in the IBC and IRC .

It connects test data to recognized standards and design provisions so reviewers can easily see the product’s scope, limitations, and approved installation methods.

Independent evaluation and clear documentation give authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) the confidence to approve innovative products without requiring project-specific testing.

Acceptance criteria explained

When the code provides no prescriptive path, Acceptance Criteria (AC) outline how to test, what to measure, and how to evaluate performance for a given product type.

For example, AC470 for twisted steel micro reinforcement specifies test methods and performance thresholds to demonstrate compliance with code objectives such as strength, durability, and safety.

In practice, Acceptance Criteria serve as a roadmap for innovation—turning new materials and hardware into code-acceptable solutions under the model building codes.

Product evaluation workflow

A successful product evaluation follows a clear, structured workflow that connects testing, documentation, and quality verification.

Plan your evaluation in four practical phases:

1. Define the scope and evidence needs tied to the code’s alternative path .
2. Build a test plan using recognized standards and accredited laboratories ( ILAC facts).
3. Execute testing and document manufacturing controls in parallel to save time and ensure traceability .
4. Assemble a clean, complete report package that ties results to safe use and clear installation limits .

Independent oversight and proactive planning reduce costly re-runs and delays – turning compliance from a reactive task into a predictable system .

Testing and lab evidence

Testing forms the backbone of every evaluation program, so using the right labs and planning early are critical.

• Use ISO/IEC 17025–accredited laboratories recognized under the ILAC MRA (International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Mutual Recognition Arrangement) to ensure competence, impartiality, and consistent data .
• Follow the chosen standard’s method precisely – including specimen preparation, data collection, and reporting format – to maintain credibility and reproducibility .
• Plan tests in advance around the program’s reporting requirements (often defined in AC85) to avoid costly re-testing and project delays .

Strong test documentation supported by accredited, well-equipped labs builds the foundation for reliable evaluation – and keeps the approval process predictable from start to finish.

Factory quality and AC10

Factory quality is just as important as lab testing – it ensures the product built in production matches what was tested and approved.

• Documentation review: Evaluators check manufacturing records and labeling to confirm consistent processes and traceability from factory to field.
• Inspections and surveillance: A qualifying inspection verifies the quality system before approval, followed by ongoing audits to ensure continued compliance.
• Traceability practices: Maintain clear production records and labeling so auditors and authorities can follow the paper trail over time.

For manufacturers seeking ICC-ES evaluation, these quality controls are defined under the Acceptance Criteria for Quality Documentation (AC10), which formalizes how production, labeling, and record-keeping must be maintained.

‍

ESR vs ESL in practice

Choosing between an ESR and an ESL depends on how your product fits within existing standards.

• Evaluation Service Listing (ESL): Used when a product is already covered by a consensus standard. It documents compliance quickly without redundant testing 
• Evaluation Service Report (ESR): Needed when no prescriptive standard exists. It compiles testing, installation limits, and conditions of use around specific Acceptance Criteria.

Selecting the right path early can save months of back-and-forth and ensure your certification aligns with both project needs and code requirements.

Tying in AISI design

For cold-formed steel hardware and framing, design capacity is determined by the AISI S100 standard, which provides equations engineers use to calculate strength and stiffness . (AISI S100-16).

Evaluation reports often reference these same provisions alongside laboratory test data and installation limits, ensuring that calculated values align with verified performance.

Research on fastener and connection behavior reinforces why this combination matters – testing validates the assumptions behind AISI design equations, and design rules turn test data into predictable, code-ready results .

Building code updates

Model building codes evolve regularly, and each state or city may adopt different editions or issue local amendments.

Under IBC Section 104.11, authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) can approve alternative materials that demonstrate equivalent safety, strength, and durability.

Coastal and high-wind regions such as Florida, apply the same provisions but often require additional documentation or testing for wind and detailing conditions, reinforcing the need for jurisdiction-specific alignment.

When a new edition is enforced, update your evaluation report, references, and evidence to match that version.

Staying aligned with the current code cycle not only speeds plan review but also prevents confusion during permitting and inspection.

Industry consistency and trust

Clear, published criteria and independent evaluation create a fair and consistent framework across the construction industry.

When all manufacturers are tested against the same acceptance criteria and quality procedures, competitors compete on performance, not interpretation, and buyers, engineers, and AHJs can make apples-to-apples comparisons based on verified data.

This shared benchmark improves confidence across the supply chain – from design through inspection – and reduces disputes about compliance during permitting or installation.

That consistency is also why ICC-ES Evaluation Reports are often written directly into project specifications. They serve as a trust signal, showing that a product’s performance and quality have been validated under the same rigorous standards that govern its peers.

Broader applications and code integration

Evaluation reports don’t exist in isolation.

They touch multiple disciplines and support broader goals across building safety, sustainability, and innovation.

The following examples show how ICC-ES reports and acceptance criteria integrate with different code areas and performance programs.

Public health initiatives

Building codes ultimately exist to protect life safety and public health.

Under IBC Section 104.11, any alternative material or system must demonstrate equivalent quality, strength, fire resistance, durability, and safety before it can be approved .

Evaluation reports make that possible by translating complex test results into clear, reviewable documentation.

They help officials verify that innovative materials and assemblies meet the same safety objectives as traditional products – without the need for redundant or project-specific testing .

By framing performance in measurable, code-based terms, evaluation reports allow innovation and safety to advance together.

Sustainable construction

Design teams often pursue energy efficiency and sustainability goals alongside code compliance.

A clear, verified compliance baseline allows reviewers and designers to focus on advanced performance targets – such as reduced embodied carbon, improved thermal efficiency, or material reuse – without questioning structural safety or durability .

Evaluation reports establish that baseline for innovative assemblies.

By proving that new materials meet essential code requirements under IBC Section 104.11, they free projects to push sustainability higher up the design stack while keeping safety and compliance intact.

Programs such as water-efficiency certifications complement, rather than replace, evaluation reports – addressing performance or conservation goals once code compliance is secured .

Fire and plumbing codes

Structural hardware often falls under multiple disciplines — for example, framing connectors can also influence fire-rated assemblies or plumbing penetrations.

Your evaluation package should demonstrate compliance across these interfaces, showing that the product meets both safety and installation limits in every relevant system.

Under IBC Section 104.11, any alternative material or assembly must prove equivalent performance in fire resistance, durability, and overall safety before it can be approved .

Addressing these crossover requirements early helps streamline multi-discipline plan reviews and prevents costly redesigns during permitting.

Innovative admixtures

Novel concrete and mortar admixtures highlight the importance of clear, product-specific Acceptance Criteria.

When no prescriptive test exists in the code, these criteria define the required ASTM methods, performance thresholds, and use limits that prove equivalent safety and durability .

Evaluation reports for admixtures typically cite the applicable ASTM standards, outline test data for compressive strength or bond performance, and specify installation guidance tied directly to those measured results.

Together, these details help AHJs and specifiers confirm that innovation still meets the core intent of the building code.

Application details

Before submitting for evaluation, preparation and sequencing make a major difference in approval speed and cost.

Follow these steps to stay ahead:

• Confirm Acceptance Criteria: Check whether a relevant AC already exists for your product type before starting testing.
• Reserve lab capacity early: Secure scheduling with an ISO/IEC 17025–accredited lab recognized under the ILAC MRA to ensure data credibility worldwide.
• Coordinate test plans with documentation: Align test protocols, drawings, and factory quality records so all evidence supports the same scope.
• Prepare for qualifying inspection: Expect a plant review to verify manufacturing controls and labeling consistency.
• Engage independent advisors when needed: Early technical input can reduce rework, clarify report expectations, and prevent common first-time applicant delays..

A well-organized submission built around these steps shortens review cycles and improves approval predictability.

‍

Conclusion

ASTM defines how to test and what to measure. AISI provides the design rules that turn those numbers into usable strengths.

ICC-ES converts credible evidence into code-accepted use under IBC Section 104.11 through independent evaluation and clearly defined criteria.

For hardware teams, the fast lane is clear scoping, AC-aligned test plans, qualified ISO/IEC 17025 labs, and factory controls that stand up to review.

Treat compliance as a system – align standards, evidence, and quality so approvals become predictable and trust scales with your market.