Thermal Barrier over foam | Ask Mason Knowles - SPF Consultant | Spray Foam Technical Questions and Answers | SprayFoam Magazine Q&A Forums

Q&A Forums

Author	Comments
Bryan Kwater Posted: Apr 09, 2009 05:10 PM	Thermal Barrier over foam I am quoting a job that calls for 4 1/2" thick BASF closed cell foam on a concrete deck. They want an alternate price to put on a thermal barrier. I am looking at the information about Flexible Fireshell from Thermal Product Research. In their information page, they say "Fire Resistance Testing According to Modified ASTM E119 Specifications." And it calls for 16 mils thick and it was tested on 4" Thick Polyurethane Insulation Foam. Would this be an acceptable product to use?
mason Posted: Apr 09, 2009 09:06 PM	The term "modified" may make a difference. The thermo couples should be next to the foam. I have seen some tests where the thermo couples are buried in the foam. Those tests would not be suitable for testing a thermal barrier. Get a copy of the test report. If the E 119 test was done with the right positioning of the thermo couples and they did not measure 250 degrees after 15 minutes of fire exposure, it should be sufficient.
Bryan Kwater Posted: Apr 10, 2009 08:43 AM	The test results say: "The unexposed surface temperature of the sample was monitored by six, 20-gauge type K, fiberglass sheathed thermocouples. An insulating pad was placed over each thermocouple on the unexposed side of the sample."
William Gibson Posted: Apr 10, 2009 12:22 PM	Was in your situation not to long ago. If codes enforcer is doing their job (some actually do) they may want to see an ICC report of that Thermal Product Research used on the foam you are spraying. Chances are if you can't provide one then the codes enforcer won't approve.
mason Posted: Apr 10, 2009 02:20 PM	Where are the thermocouples placed? They should be between the foam and the coating.
Bryan Kwater Posted: Apr 11, 2009 04:02 AM	I sent a copy of the file that Fireshell has available on their website to your email address: masonknowles@aol.com I appreciate the input on this. I am trying to do things the correct way, but all the codes and test results interpretation sure make things difficult.
mason Posted: Apr 14, 2009 07:55 AM	I got the test report and believe it will suffice for an exception to the thermal barrier rule. But, I would like a fire testing consultant to review it to make sure that the insulated thermocouple does not compromise the results..
Bryan Kwater Posted: Apr 14, 2009 08:56 AM	Thank you for all of your help on this.
jimcoler I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs. I've expanded my knowledge into t Posted: Apr 22, 2009 04:26 PM	Mason, I disagree with where you say the thermocouple should be placed. The way it reads is the thermo couple should be directly behind the surface material. If we were testing foam insulation this would be under the foam and not just under the surface skin of the foam. When they test drywall, where's the thermocouple? Is it behind the drywall or under the surface paper layer within the drywall? They place the thermocouple behind the drywall and not within the drywall so why are they straying from this practice and putting the thermocouple within the foam? This is like setting up a material to fail and I doubt any material would pass if you took this approach for everything. So, it gets back to what material is being tested. If we're testing only the intumescent coating then it should be under the coating. But if we were to run the same test on foam, then it should be behind the foam and the foam would likely pass without the coating. If it's the foam and coating system, then it would be behind the foam and again would likely pass. So, this an inconsistency within the testing procedures that yields results which are not factual. What can we do to change this as this is none omisunderstanding we all deal with on a daily basis? Thanks, Jim Coler
mason Posted: Apr 23, 2009 07:19 AM	I am not the one you should argue with. The tests are evaluated by engineers at ICC ES who are familiar with the test and where the thermo-couples should be placed. My information comes from Jesse Beitel of Hughes and Associates. He was recommended to me by Michael Beaton, Sr Engineer at ICC ES. So, it is not my opinion but the opinion of a fire code consultant who was recommended by ICC ES (the organization that develops the report.) Last year I sent a copy of a E 119 test report on a product to Jesse Beitel and he was the one who said the thermocouples were placed in the wrong place and they should be on the foam/thermal barrier interface.

Author

Comments

Bryan Kwater

Posted: Apr 09, 2009 05:10 PM

Thermal Barrier over foam

I am quoting a job that calls for 4 1/2" thick BASF closed cell foam on a concrete deck. They want an alternate price to put on a thermal barrier. I am looking at the information about Flexible Fireshell from Thermal Product Research. In their information page, they say "Fire Resistance Testing According to Modified ASTM E119 Specifications." And it calls for 16 mils thick and it was tested on 4" Thick Polyurethane Insulation Foam. Would this be an acceptable product to use?

mason

Posted: Apr 09, 2009 09:06 PM

The term "modified" may make a difference. The thermo couples should be next to the foam. I have seen some tests where the thermo couples are buried in the foam. Those tests would not be suitable for testing a thermal barrier. Get a copy of the test report. If the E 119 test was done with the right positioning of the thermo couples and they did not measure 250 degrees after 15 minutes of fire exposure, it should be sufficient.

Bryan Kwater

Posted: Apr 10, 2009 08:43 AM

The test results say:
"The unexposed surface temperature of the sample was monitored by six, 20-gauge type K, fiberglass sheathed thermocouples. An insulating pad was placed over each thermocouple on the unexposed side of the sample."

William Gibson

Posted: Apr 10, 2009 12:22 PM

Was in your situation not to long ago. If codes enforcer is doing their job (some actually do) they may want to see an ICC report of that Thermal Product Research used on the foam you are spraying.

Chances are if you can't provide one then the codes enforcer won't approve.

mason

Posted: Apr 10, 2009 02:20 PM

Where are the thermocouples placed? They should be between the foam and the coating.

Bryan Kwater

Posted: Apr 11, 2009 04:02 AM

I sent a copy of the file that Fireshell has available on their website to your email address: masonknowles@aol.com

I appreciate the input on this. I am trying to do things the correct way, but all the codes and test results interpretation sure make things difficult.

mason

Posted: Apr 14, 2009 07:55 AM

I got the test report and believe it will suffice for an exception to the thermal barrier rule. But, I would like a fire testing consultant to review it to make sure that the insulated thermocouple does not compromise the results..

Bryan Kwater

Posted: Apr 14, 2009 08:56 AM

Thank you for all of your help on this.

jimcoler

I have over 10 years of experience specifying and installing open and closed cell spray foam. I've sold my business but I'm still selling for the new owners and consulting on large and custom specific jobs.

I've expanded my knowledge into t

Posted: Apr 22, 2009 04:26 PM

Mason,
I disagree with where you say the thermocouple should be placed. The way it reads is the thermo couple should be directly behind the surface material. If we were testing foam insulation this would be under the foam and not just under the surface skin of the foam.

When they test drywall, where's the thermocouple? Is it behind the drywall or under the surface paper layer within the drywall? They place the thermocouple behind the drywall and not within the drywall so why are they straying from this practice and putting the thermocouple within the foam? This is like setting up a material to fail and I doubt any material would pass if you took this approach for everything.

So, it gets back to what material is being tested. If we're testing only the intumescent coating then it should be under the coating. But if we were to run the same test on foam, then it should be behind the foam and the foam would likely pass without the coating. If it's the foam and coating system, then it would be behind the foam and again would likely pass. So, this an inconsistency within the testing procedures that yields results which are not factual.

What can we do to change this as this is none omisunderstanding we all deal with on a daily basis?
Thanks,
Jim Coler

mason

Posted: Apr 23, 2009 07:19 AM

I am not the one you should argue with. The tests are evaluated by engineers at ICC ES who are familiar with the test and where the thermo-couples should be placed. My information comes from Jesse Beitel of Hughes and Associates. He was recommended to me by Michael Beaton, Sr Engineer at ICC ES. So, it is not my opinion but the opinion of a fire code consultant who was recommended by ICC ES (the organization that develops the report.)

Last year I sent a copy of a E 119 test report on a product to Jesse Beitel and he was the one who said the thermocouples were placed in the wrong place and they should be on the foam/thermal barrier interface.

You need to login to reply to this topic. Please click here to login.