Q&A Forums
Thermal Barrier codes - clarifying the "perceptions" Post New Topic | Post Reply
| Author | Comments |
|---|---|
|
Posted: Aug 03, 2010 12:44 PM
|
Thermal Barrier codes - clarifying the "perceptions"
foamdude Q&A Forums Registered User Posted: 7/30/2010 7:28 AM EST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- mike,,, what construction materials are allowed as interior cladding for 15 thermal barrier performance,,,no foam in wall,,, what materials other than 1/2 gypsum board are allowed exposed in habitable space? dude Mike Kiser Moderator Posted: 7/30/2010 6:33 PM EST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dude, Thanks for being the first inquiry! And you picked a good one that will lead to a lot of "connected" issues. But first I need a little clarification before entering into a discussion about this. There is no code requirement (IRC, IBC, IFC) for a 15 minute Thermal Barrier if there is no plastic material involved in the wall. Is there any "other" flammable or combustible material in the wall? Better yet, to start building a very clear picture for the discussion, what is the construction of the wall you want to duscuss? Mike foamdude Q&A Forums Registered User Posted: 7/31/2010 6:49 PM EST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- uh,,, 2x6 stick framed osb exterior sheathing,, you know,,a sidewall in a house,,, lets consider,,no foam,,,no filterglass,, romex and boxes,,,maybe a plumbing run or two... you know mike,,a wall in a house,,, so... what materials other than 1/2" gypsum board will give the 15 thermal barrier cladding required here anyway??? Mason Q&A Forums Registered User Posted: 8/02/2010 9:55 AM EST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- foamdude, interior finishes according to 2009 IRC section 302.9 Flame spread index for wall and ceiling finishes: Wall and ceilings finishes shall have a flame spread index of not greater than 200 Smoke Developed index; Wall and ceiling finishes shall have a smoke-developed index or not greater than 450. (using ASTM E 84 or UL 723). If you install insulation (non foam plastic), in section 302.10 it states. Insulation materials including facings such as vapor retarders, and vaper permeable membranes installed within floor-ceiling assemblies, roof ceiling assemblies, crawl spaces and attics shall have a flame spread index not to exceed 25 with an accompanying smoke-developed index not to exceed 450 when tested in accordance with ASTM E -84 or UL 723. jimcoler Q&A Forums Registered User Posted: 8/02/2010 3:35 PM EST Related Link: www.coler.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Mason, Jus for your information, it's Jim Coler. That's one o and sounds like "Coal-er". I'm in uganda on a missions trip until next week and then I expect to be busy catching up on all of the missed work. So, I' not sure I have the time to spend spinning our wheels on this again. Besides, it sounds like Mike is starting with less knowledge than all or most of us with his latest comments on this site. Thanks, Jim ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Kiser Moderator Posted: 8/03/2010 12:56 AM EST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Foamdude, First of all, many thanks to Mason for his "on point" response. He has made my job a step easier here. It is true that, as I alluded to in my first response, there is no actual code requirement for a thermal barrier on a wood framed wall, unless there is a plastic material (or special consideration for some other combustible material) within the wall system. As Mason’s reply shows, there are only “Flame Spread” classifications that are required, depending on the class / type of building. Since I always try my best to keep things very clear (as much as possible), I asked for the "theoretical wall" design because I thought there was some specific job you had in mind that was behind the question. Once I saw the answer, I realized, of course, that you were not discussing a specific job, but an idea. I took time this weekend to look through all the strings in the Q&A forums that seemed likely to have related subjects, and I read “foamdude” entries (as many as I could find) that dealt with codes and thermal and/or ignition barriers. I found this “question” has been repeated by you on a number of occasions, seemingly without receiving the answer you seek. I am going to get to answering it, but, first I feel I need to put some of the background here (on THIS Q&A string) for those who might read this, but who have not read your past discussions on the subject. I also need to discuss some technical background issues that set the stage for a final answer to your “question”. I happen to agree with a lot of what you say in those past discussions regarding the codes. They are often too complicated and written with what seems like way too much “legaleze”, a lot like the IRS. (won’t say what I think of THEIR codes!) I also understand your frustration, seeing that in Canada the codes actually identify other materials that can be used as Thermal Barriers in place of ½” Gypsum, yet here in the U.S., our codes do not. Why? I can’t answer that. I didn’t write them. If I HAD, I personally would have “listed” them too, because it adds “clarity” to the subject by giving examples, and gives specific directions for contractors. I used to be a Construction Contractor (20 years in commercial roofing & remodeling), so I understand first-hand the frustration of dealing with codes, always wishing they would just “talk English”. As I said, I didn’t write the codes, nor can I change them, but what I CAN do is work with what we’ve got, and try to help make it as painless as possible to get a good handle on what we all need to know in order to go about our businesses with the confidence that we are doing the right thing. What I have done over the years is study the codes, argue them, and work to change them if they can be made "clearer". I also try to find out WHY they are as they are. What I learned about the Thermal Barrier issues is very interesting, and I see how and why there is so much confusion on the subject. It is partly because, out of necessity, the codes organizations are so involved administrating the flow of information in the process of writing, modifying, and re-writing the codes, there is little time for explaining what exactly led us to this point with any given code document. I know, long winded, but my point is… the answers that can remove the confusion lie in a couple of “core” issues that have become hugely misunderstood, misinterpreted, and ultimately, misrepresented by many in the FR industry (my Industry I’m afraid), which is now heavily interfacing with the SPUF industry, pretty much for the first time in a very big way. Why? I think we all know the answer to that… because Thermal Barriers and Ignition Barriers presented a huge potential for growth for Fire Retardant companies. First came emphasis on the codes, then came the FR Industry. Hello. Yea, our Company is one of them. I state it clearly, and make no bones about it. BUT, I don’t think it helps anyone in either Industry, FR or SPUF, if we don’t get this absolutely right. This is life-safety issues on the one hand, and it is enforceable regulations on the other. For the sake of all concerned, and for prolonged growth in BOTH industries, this needs to be correct early, rather than late. I’ve seen “late” in FR, and it is a very bad thing. So, enough doom and gloom. How about some answers? I did say in my opening response to you, Dude, that your question would lead to a lot of “connected issues”, but once I read all your previous discussions, I realized it was even more true than I at first thought. What you are asking may “seem” to some to be a confusing question, but, in my view, it cuts right to the HEART of the matter. I will have to do this in a couple of installments so please bear with me, because I am going to have to take a little trip around the proverbial block on this subject, but it will be worth it, and I think the discussion will help all who read this to understand the issues surrounding Thermal Barriers and Ignition Barriers much more clearly. Everyone should be able to address the issues with confidence. It is my goal for every Contractor to know for certain how to identify Thermal Barriers, qualified equivalents, as well as Thermal Barrier “alternatives” for themselves. (After all, Foamdude, as you so astutely pointed out, OUR codes don’t identify them for us, so we NEED to be able to do this on our own... and to KNOW what is correct.) I will leave this letter with a “teaser” as to where I am going in part two… The subject that gets many people going in circles, including fire officials, is the subject of ASTM E119 (firewall testing), yet it is essentially the FOUNDATION upon which the Thermal Barrier codes were built. Just like in any building, if the foundation is off, everything that is built on it will be too. That is what has happened to the public impression of Thermal Barriers. The “impressions” of E119 as it relates to Thermal Barriers is a bit off, so the “impressions” of Thermal Barriers are off too. More in Part Two... Mike Kiser Mason Q&A Forums Registered User Posted: 8/03/2010 7:58 AM EST -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry Jim, it looked funny to me when I wrote it, but I should have double checked the spelling before posting. Blame it on brain damage from too many posts. Mike, I like your start, looking forward to installment 2. |
|
Posted: Aug 03, 2010 01:01 PM
|
Welcome to the new thread. (transferred from "Welcom to the Fun") I'll have part TWO up shortly. Mike Kiser |
|
Posted: Aug 05, 2010 11:41 AM
|
Foamdude, Sorry for the delay, but I have had to put out some fires (pun absolutely intended). ...OK, I have thought about how to do this as efficiently as I can, but if I am to do a good job, this needs to be thorough, so grab a cup of coffee, a good cigar if you’ve got one: here goes... When I said E119 has many people going in circles, I mean “ASTM-E119” as it relates to Thermal Barriers. To clear it up, we need to review some of the history of how and why E119 was chosen as “the” test. The reason we need to discuss this is to clarify exactly what that test is suppose to accomplish. It is ACTUALLY a very sound, logical choice. And the concept is pretty straight forward. However, because some people (and companies) in my industry (FR) have used E119 incorrectly, or interpreted it incorrectly, whether intentional or not, it has misled many down a road of utter confusion. AND, it is unnecessary. If none had done this, I believe most would easily understand Thermal Barriers. The conversations, blogs or debates often go down similar paths, which many of us have witnessed... “Why is only gypsum named?” “Why don’t they measure the 250 degree temperature rise BEHIND the entire wall assembly?... after all it IS a firewall test, isn’t it?” “I think the thermocouples SHOULD be placed (any number of locations are mentioned here)... why don’t they do that?” ...and the clincher: “If they DON’T measure the temperature behind the wall assembly, why use E119, which is a Fire WALL test!?” “Why 250 degrees? Who decided that, and why?” “Why pick on SPUF. Wood is just as flammable, isn’t it?” “Why does Canada actually name Thermal Barrier materials (other than gypsum), while our codes don’t?” (This one upsets a lot of folks. As I said before, I tend to agree.) ...the questions go on. (As many know, there are more questions, and many variations on these themes.) And THAT is just about ASTM-E119! (I am not mentioning Room Corner tests / alternative testing methods yet... because that would take us to the “never-never” land of confusion, and circular arguments, where many of you have been before. We must clear up the above questions first. The “foundation”, as I mentioned in part one. THEN, the Room Corner test will make more sense. Let’s deal with the above questions... Why Gypsum? As most of us instinctively realize, it was an obvious choice. It was (and still is) in place almost literally everywhere. It was/is the most common covering for insulation materials. So logically it was the first thing to look at. The code organizations had the difficult task of making sure inhabitants were safe in structures that used PLASTIC insulation materials, especially back then when they were not only very combustible, but very flammable as well. (more on the difference between flammable and combustible shortly… very important!)… It was quickly understood that 1/2” of ordinary gypsum actually did a pretty good job of protecting even very flammable foam for 15+ minutes, buying people plenty of time to escape a fire. Someone, at some point decided to call the “effect” that this protection represented “THERMAL BARRIER”. Again, the choice was obvious since sheetrock was already the most common covering in use, AND it was inexpensive, AND it did a very good job. Thus, the choice was also and EASY one. Then came writing the code for it. They had to quantify exactly HOW it did the job as a THERMAL BARRIER. It was soon determined that the REASON it bought 15+ minutes was because it prevented the plastic foam from getting hot enough to release its flammable gasses. The approximate temperature at which foams release these dangerous gases varies, but most are around 400+ degrees Fahrenheit. The BEST test to PROVE this was... you guessed it! The ASTM-E119. E119 exposes the sheetrock to heat similar to a house fire, and measures the temperature on the BACKSIDE of the sheetrock itself. WHY MEASURE IT THERE? Because THAT is the temperature that the FOAM is exposed to behind that sheetrock. It was found that when 1/2" sheetrock is tested via E119, the temperature rises to a maximum of about 250 degrees F. above ambient (the starting air temperature). If ambient is 80 degrees F., the temperature on the other side of the sheetrock after 15 minutes is about 330 degrees F. (80 + 250). That is well below the 400 degree temperature when gases start coming out of the foam. THAT is why it works. Further, to give a safety margin, in case of higher “ambient” temperatures, let’s say 110 degrees F. in a hot region in a non-AC space, that would still mean the temperature on the backside of sheetrock would be about 360 degrees F… still well below the 400 degree “danger” zone. So, ASTM E119 was logically chosen as a way to show HOW and WHY sheetrock (gypsum) works as a THERMAL BARRIER, and thus this new term was officially defined, proven with a TEST METHOD, and a THERMAL BARRIER was associated with a specific set of DATA. This bit of history also explains why the thermocouples are placed on the side of the sheetrock “away from the fire”, or the “cold side”. It is to show that the foam will not reach temperatures that will cause gases to come out and ignite. (Explode actually, but more on that later too.) So, we come to the first PRINCIPLE that will begin clarifying everything: By definition, a THERMAL BARRIER is a material that will limit the temperature that the FOAM ITSELF will be exposed to, so that it will not release flammable gases. The code folks decided that a very safe number for that would be 250 degrees F. above ambient (starting air temperature). As I mentioned earlier, this is NOT arbitrary, but logical and well thought out. It is also necessary, because foamed plastics become very, very dangerous when air temperatures get too close to 400 degrees F. Even with fire retardant within the foam, achieving Class A flame spread ratings, that does not change these gasses. When the air temperature gets that hot, they simply come out. The fire retardants cannot stop it. At this time, there is not an additive known that can stop it. At those temperatures, the flammable, sometimes explosive gases come out. So, you see, it is truly logical that a THERMAL BARRIER must prevent the foam from getting anywhere near 400 degrees F. during the time allotted for escape. So far, we have answered all questions above, except the one about foam and wood. I have “partially” answered that, but will get into more detail in the next segment, because it gets a little involved on its own. For instance, it takes time to explain why the idea that foam is as safe, or safer than wood is both TRUE as well as FALSE! There are some concepts that we have to get our arms around to make this clear. Let me just say for now that, it is NOT unfair to require Thermal Barriers over foam, but not over wood. There is still a vast difference in life-safety issues. There is a principle behind that comment that can be easily demonstrated, but the explanation is more involved. I promise to take care of it in part three... So, from all the above, we now understand WHY sheetrock is the gold standard material, and we know WHY E119 is the standard test. We also know that the temperature must be measured on the cold side of the Sheetrock itself, and we know WHY that is. Further, we know why the requirement is to keep temperatures at or below 250 degrees above the ambient temperature. We understand why the final result must be well below 400 degrees F. If we consider logic, we now also realize WHY you cannot measure the temperature on the other side of the wall, on the back side of the foam, inside of the foam, or anywhere else. It MUST be measured on the back side (cold side) of whatever material is serving as a THERMAL BARRIER. THAT is why the code states that a THERMAL BARRIER is either GYPSUM, or an equivalent material that will limit the temperature rise on the “unexposed surface” to 250 degrees F. or less. I emphasized “unexposed surface” because it is the last item of confusion about this part of the code. I think the code should have defined that term better. (just my opinion) ...because it is a “fire test” term, well understood by fire test folks, and fairly well understood by most codes people (but not ALL), yet to the everyday Contractor, it can mean a number of things. I have to admit that when I first got into fire work years ago, I had trouble with a lot of these “terms”, and I realized quickly that they are not explained or defined often enough. (Too much assuming.) Anyway, this is one of the sources of confusion. BUT, now that we have gone in detail describing E119 as it relates to THERMAL BARRIERS, you now know that “unexposed surface” actually means only one thing, and it is something very precise. It is the BACK SIDE, or COLD SIDE of the THERMAL BARRIER material itself, and it is NOT THE BACKSIDE OF THE WALL ASSEMBLY NOR ANY PART OF IT. To state this one last “way”, (I know I am getting redundant, but it is worth it to make absolutely sure everyone is 100% solid on this one concept), it is imperative that we all KNOW that we are talking about the side of the THERMAL BARRIER that will be “FACING THE FOAM”. Here’s what you gain from this knowledge: You won’t let anyone mislead you again by suggesting that a THERMAL BARRIER was somehow proven by E119, with a temperature rise of 250 degrees F., when the thermocouples were placed behind all or part of the wall “system”. You’ll be able to tell them with certainty: “That’s not the way that test is supposed to be done.” Case closed. I realize that for many of you, much of this is known, but I have to cover all the basics in order to get to the most difficult concepts, coming up. In the next AND FINAL installment, PART THREE, I will discuss (a) Foam vs Wood, (b) why the tests are run the way they are, and (c) “alternative testing”, such as the often very misunderstood ROOM CORNER FIRE TESTS. I hope the picture is starting to get clearer. I promise, after the next part, everyone will be able to do exactly as I promised. You will be able to identify and understand whether any given material qualifies as a Thermal Barrier, or as an alternative to a Thermal Barrier. More important, you will know for certain… why. Foamdude, thank you for your patience, as I realize I have taken to addressing everyone who might read this, but your inquiries opened a big door that a lot of folks want opened all the way. I'll try to make the third and last segment on of this shorter! Mike Kiser |
|
Posted: Aug 05, 2010 04:54 PM
|
(mike,,little "f" little "d"...foamdude,,,lol) |
|
Posted: Aug 05, 2010 05:02 PM
|
Sorry dude... er, foamdude! I won't capitalize again, didn't think about it, but YOU got probably the best name for this site. If I had it, I'd want it to be right too! Come to think of it... I've got to come up with a "name" for me. Hadn't thought about it, but I will now. (After my L-O-N-G answers, someone might give me a "name" first!) mike kiser |
|
Posted: Aug 05, 2010 05:16 PM
|
flame dude or thermal dude? |
|
Posted: Aug 05, 2010 05:35 PM
|
...kinda like flame dude. But, it's probably too much like foamdude, who might take offense, and make like "angry George" on Seinfeld. I might oughta wait and see what my reputation will be. Hmmmm "flame dude". ? |
|
Posted: Aug 06, 2010 03:14 PM
|
me angry???.... heck no,,,thats what they give me medys for.. flamedude goes good for your handle.. i would suggest cap the "Flame" part,,position of authority,,,me its little dude in big world,,,and i am a hillbilly foamer,,hence the small "f",,,see?? but noone says you need to use a handle on this forum,,,mason dont,,,jimster dont,,,georgeous george,,mad maxx dont,,to name a few... thanx for being here,,hopefully you will help us hillbillies understand your industry better... |
|
Posted: Aug 10, 2010 12:14 AM
|
Before I start... I realize I have written a BOOK on this, but I will work on a SHORT SUMMARY that outlines the key points and facts for easy reference. I will post this later. It might take some time to get this down to a couple pages! All right, let’s get to the conclusions. Apologies for NOT making this shorter than the two previous parts, but I had to include the details so you could be fully informed, and, so I can provide the final answer I promised in the beginning. SO, get TWO cigars and a POT of coffee, and let’s dig in. (Or, copy and read at your leisure!) As mentioned previously, let’s take the subjects on order. (a) FOAM VS WOOD... Many are confused by the fact that the codes require Thermal Barriers over SPUF, but not over “untreated” wood, even though most foams are Class A (flame spread), while untreated wood is Class B or worse. The answer lies in the difference between FLAME SPREAD and FLASH OVER. FLAME SPREAD is a measurement of how fast flames will travel across the surface of a material when that material is exposed to a fire at one location on its surface. (this is an oversimplification, but you get the idea). FLASH OVER is the point at which conditions in a ROOM cause flammable gasses to come out of a material so fast that it overwhelms the room, filling it with these burning gases in an instant, literally exploding out through doors and other openings. It is the point at which survivability is completely lost. You can see that FLASH OVER is essentially the worst case for any material. Everyone can easily understand that. BUT, what is harder to understand is that a good Flame Spread rating does not necessarily protect against FLASH OVER. Why? The best way I can explain that is to give you a side-by-side comparison. By the way, instead of explaining all the details of ASTM E84 flame spread testing (which would take a while) I think a simpler example works better, and it’s easier AND quicker to explain. (cheers from the crowd!) If you hold a 4ft. long 2x4 board vertically, and hold a 1500°F torch at the bottom for several minutes, and do the same with a piece of 2# SPUF the exact same size, you will get similar or even superior results with the foam. However, if you put both into a 1500°F oven, the foam will start releasing more and more flammable gases as the foam reaches temperatures above 400°F. As I mentioned in Part Two, no additive known can STOP these gases from coming out. Imagine heating up a section of foam like this for 10 minutes, then opening the oven door a crack and sticking a lit cigarette lighter in there. I assure you, you would have an explosion on your hands! (In fact, the gases probably would come out into the room and ignited before that.) Deep down, I think most of us realize that is what will probably happen. BUT, will it happen the same way with wood? The answer is no. That is because plastic materials contain a lot more heat potential (energy) per pound than wood does. Also, wood contains a lot of water within its cells (6-10% or more). This water will cool the wood down when exposed to fire until it is all heated enough to literally boil it out. Only after all water is gone from the outer layer will the wood’s flammable gases be completely released FROM THAT OUTER LAYER. This water delays the release of flammable gasses from each “layer” below, as the heat penetrates deeper into the board over time. The water is one reason why wood does not pose the same level of threat in this situation. Again, plastic insulation contains much more heat energy within the plastic, while the wood contains a lot of water that slows down the heating process, and therefore slows down the release of flammable gases. Bottom line, the plastic insulation poses a much higher threat for flashover than wood, and flashover is the most deadly fire event. THEREFORE, it IS logical to require more protection AGAINST FLASH OVER when foamed plastic insulation is involved. (If anyone has more questions about this, or is unclear at this point, I will be happy to discuss this issue further on a separate thread under another “subject title”, because it can get very involved, especially discussing details about how gases evolve out of materials, and details about Flame Spread testing.) (b) WHY THE TESTS ARE RUN THE WAY THEY ARE... Most answers to this have already been covered in my responses up to here. However, a summary and clarification might help keep this clear. ASTM-E119 (Firewall) - We know why E119 tests are run the way they are: (1) Thermocouples that measure temperatures belong on the “backside” of the sheetrock, or equivalent Thermal Barrier material. (2) Temperatures cannot rise more than 250°F because they must not get near 400°F (foam off-gases = flashover!). (3) Finally, we know why it must last 15 minutes, because that buys similar time to escape as the “gold standard” which is sheetrock. ASTM-E84 (Flame Spread) – We know that E84 flame spread tests measure how fire spreads across the SURFACE of a material when exposed to a fire at ONE POINT on its surface. WE also know it does NOT equate to how a material will perform regarding FLASH OVER. (This is WHY these two tests are sometimes BOTH required, because they measure very different things. By the way, these tests are arguably the TWO most universal and important tests in construction!) (c)”Alternative Tests” (ROOM CORNER FIRE TESTS) – These are noted in ICC, IBC and IRC codes as being any one of three tests: UL1715, NFPA 286, UBC 26-3. (There is also a two-story version, but it is not the subject of this discussion, to keep this answer from getting too long.) They are tests conducted in a 8ft x 12ft room with 8ft ceilings. A very hot fire source in one corner burns for 15 minutes. The test fails if the flames spread all the way across any one wall or ceiling to it’s edge, or it fails if there is a FLASH OVER during the 15 minutes of the test. All three are in the same size room, with variations in how the tests are run. However, all accomplish the same things, testing the “system” for flames spreading and for the ultimate danger – FLASH OVER. Where did these tests come from? To try to keep it from getting out of hand with the length of my answer, I’ll say this: These tests are important for accounting for new high performance fire protective “coatings”, especially “intumescent” coatings (coatings which “swell up” many times in thickness when exposed to fire, creating a thick carbon “foam” layer that insulates and protects whatever is coated.) In this case the protected material is foam insulation. Coatings are IMPOSSIBLE to test using the standard ASTM E119 firewall test that has been discussed at length so far. Now that you know exactly how the E119 is supposed to be tested, you can see that if the material to be tested as a Thermal Barrier is a COATING, it would be quite a trick to run the test with heat on one side (hot side), and thermocouples measuring temperatures on the OTHER side (cold side) of “JUST THE COATING” (to see if it limits the temperature rise to less than 250°F on the COLD SIDE). You cannot SUSPEND a coating in mid air to do this! A small scale test method called UBC 26-2 WAS brought into the picture years ago, but it did not work to the satisfaction of many coatings manufacturers. I will spare you the details of the dispute because it really doesn’t change anything. (If you MUST know, I’ll be happy to discuss that on another subject thread as well.) Suffice it to say, many thought that test could not account for the performance of a “thin” fire barrier type coating. ALSO, just like ASTM-E119, everyone should watch out for claims of passing this with Thermocouples placed behind a coating on some sheet material. Just like E119, if the Thermocouples read temperatures behind anything more than the coating, then that sheet of material PLUS the coating is the Thermal Barrier, NOT just the coating. Many such tests are out there, and many get confused by them. To avoid this confusion, just remember to scrutinize those tests the same way you now know to do with E119. Wherever the thermocouples are located… everything between these thermocouples and the fire are the Thermal Barrier. NOT some coating that happens to be on top. At this time, the only test procedures that are available to COATINGS are these Room Corner tests, which the codes allow as an “alternative” to a Thermal Barrier. As I said, these full scale room corner tests are conducted on the “system” (the particular brand and type of foam + coatings, if any), to see if the “system” can last 15 minutes in a small enclosed space (a room) without FLASH OVER occurring. Now that you have learned all we have discussed about ASTM E119 testing, you can now see that the ROOM CORNER TEST embodies all the elements of the E84 flame spread test AND the E119 firewall test, because it addresses exposing the corner to extreme heat in one spot, seeing if it SPREADS out of the corner, PLUS the enclosed room traps heat from a very big flame source in that corner, which causes the whole room to heat up to test for FLASH OVER as well. All rolled into one single test! This is a very difficult test, when run properly, and a very good method for qualifying a “system” as safe. As everyone saw in Part Two, it is vitally important to know the proper way to run an E119 test, so you can’t be misled, and to eliminate confusion. (Ex: The three “key” issues, such as WHERE the thermocouples MUST be placed on the cold side of the Thermal Barrier Material.) It is equally important to know the “key” elements of the Room Corner Tests, for the same reasons. With the Room Corner test, there are also three “key” issues that assure you are being presented with the proper test as it was meant in the CODES. They are probably all familiar is some fashion to most of you: (1) Test according to the “end use” configuration. This has been brought up a number of times in other discussions. It is pretty straight forward, but needs SOME clarification as it relates to SPUF insulation in walls and ceilings. Take this quite literally, because it is how it is meant in the codes. Common sense is the order of the day. It is commonly known that if you plan to use 8” thick foam, you have to TEST 8” or thicker to qualify. Whatever thickness you test, you can use any thickness UP TO THAT THICKNESS, no more. Lesser discussed (or known) is that logically, other parameters must receive similar treatment. Here is a list of issues that have been heavily discussed in various discussions and debates that I have been made aware of, and which have added to the “confusion” that I have promised to help clear up. THESE involve the requirement to “test according to …intended use configurations”: If you are going to use a coating over foam in studded walls, then test with studded walls. If the intended use is just ceilings, then test just ceilings. If just walls, you can test just walls. If BOTH walls and ceilings, you must test both IN THE SAME TEST. If the coating being tested is applied at a certain thickness, it MUST be applied at that thickness in the “end use”. (Probably by now, these are all obvious to you… if so, I have done my job!) (2) Provide a consistent, verifiable heat source. These Room Corner tests use a very hot fire in the corner to truly put the “system” to the test. The NFPA 286 has a very specific gas flow requirement into a tightly specified gas burner design. The UL1715 and UBC 26-3 use a wooden crib that has extremely exacting requirements as to size of sticks, placement, exact weight of the crib, and exact placement in the corner. FOAM causes a challenge for ONE ASPECT of this test, which should be watched carefully. The crib or NFPA burner are always precisely controlled… BUT, the placement of the crib has been a challenge to the labs because of the irregular shape of foam, and the irregular bottom edge that tends to “flare out” at the bottom. Some cribs are placed too far from the foam. THIS makes a HUGE difference in the temperatures in the corner. In some cases, it can reduce the temperatures that the foam is exposed to by up to 60%! This produces extremely misleading results. YET, there are such test reports that have cropped up here and there, which have been brought to the attention of many of us in the industry. The results, for those who notice, or who observe conflicting information about supposedly similar tests, have become confused by them. AGAIN, I have said from the beginning that my primary goal here is to address issues in the fire codes and fire tests that have caused or added to the confusion that is so common. All of the above issues add up to a tremendous amount of confusion over fire codes and tests that relate to one subject: THERMAL BARRIERS. (3) TESTING MUST BE CERTIFIED OR VERIFIED BY A THIRD PARTY: This is also known by most of you, but bears noting due to its critical nature. If a code is claimed to be met by a test. (You now have the knowledge to scrutinize the code AND the test, and know if both the code AND the test are correct.) BUT, if the manufacturing, delivery and application of products on the test was not “witnessed” and reported by engineers at the testing lab, there is no way of knowing that it was in fact the product as claimed. (Very important) As most know, the most certain way to assure this is to see if the test / product has ICC Certification (ICC-ES Report), which will only be given by ICC if every aspect of a test has been fully “witnessed” and documented by engineers. Otherwise, look for “witnessed” engineering reports from whatever organization issued the test Certification. WITHOUT THIS, YOU HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING THAT WHAT YOU BUY WILL BE THE SAME PRODUCT THAT PASSED THE TEST! One final note about these Room Corner Tests, as they relate to THERMAL BARRIERS, any one of the three Room Corner Test options are fully accepted by ICC, IBC and IRC. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Some have “opinions” that some are superior, and that is actually true with regard to some “aspect” of each one… BUT, all are fully accredited and accepted by the entire fire codes community. NOW, to the bottom line. (Sorry this third section was also very detailed, but it just “grew” into this… even though I avoided several detailed items!) As I said in the beginning, you should be fully able, with the knowledge represented in these three segments, to be sure if any claimed material truly qualifies as an equivalent to Sheetrock for a Thermal Barrier application. In summary it is this: Any cladding material that has an ASTM E119 firewall test that shows the temperature on the back side (cold side) of JUST THAT material did not rise more than 250 degrees F. in 15 minutes. That's it. So, if 1" thick cedar has an E119 firewall rating of 30 minutes, it is qualified. (In fact, it is OVER qualified, but good to go) You will also be able to scrutinize all critical aspects of testing and code issues regarding “alternatives” to Thermal Barrier, which is Room Corner Testing and coatings. You can now separate materials that are truly qualified Thermal Barrier products from those that are not. Case Closed. Yes? OK... THIS subject will probably never be COMPLETELY closed, but it is my hope that, in spite of writing a BOOK on the subject (yes I am aware of it), I have added a lot of information and removed much of the confusion that has been so prevalent lately. In case anyone is thinking “Why did he go into so much detail about the “tests” and the “codes”? After all WE are not the experts in those fields!? The answer goes back to foamdude’s comments about Canada, where the CODE identifies a number Thermal Barriers... remember, just as foamdude pointed out, the U.S. does NOT identify a list of Thermal Barriers or “alternatives”, so it is UP TO THE CONTRACTOR to do it! Therefore, unfortunately, you the Contractor is who needs to know this stuff fore than practically anyone else in the business! Unfair – yes, but true nonetheless. I went into a whole lot of detail, in hopes that I have given everyone the tools they need to, as we say in Texas... gitt-er-done! Hopefully, with confidence! If anyone still has questions… ASK AWAY! By the way, as a follow-up “courtesy” I will be back in a few days (I have to leave on a Business trip for a week) with a couple of examples of equivalent (qualified) wall cladding materials that can be used as Thermal Barriers instead of Sheetrock. foamdude asks, I listen. Mike Kiser |
|
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: Aug 10, 2010 06:49 AM
|
OK, First of all we're not talking about a 4' 2x4 as a standard test. Second of all we can't state that wood is actually between 6%-10% when we know it is much higher in some cases and much lower in others. Third of all is the NFPA 286 alternative test is what was accepted but it was basedon false conditins, false test results and data analysis. These are the facts surrounding the situation (the book) just written and that is that! I am appauld that you woudl stil support the NFPA286 Alternative test when it's an 8'x12'x8'high room with one side open and a flame in the back equalling 3 very large gas grills. On top of that, you're supporting this test when their test results are very vague and manipulated to state what they want. They even through out "erroneous" numbers to make sure that their number came into their desired goals. Number are number and the more you play with them, you can get them to say anything you want. And that's waht they did without doing enough testing to verify their results are adequate or approriate! So your book is noce for a morning read with a cup of coffee, but the real issue has to do with fire spread and fire safety of an entire building - not just the attic! |
|
steven argus
Posted: Aug 10, 2010 01:10 PM
|
Mason, Why can't Jim have his own board to moderate? I can't believe you put the president of a fire proof paint company in charge of this board. The more stiffer the codes get, the more paint he sells. As I've said before, we need more "real world tests" This is getting out of hand. |
|
mason
Posted: Aug 10, 2010 02:13 PM
|
Quiness, I am not the one who decides anything on the forums. That would be Doug Commette, I am just another unpaid volunteer answering questions from interested folks that would like my opinion. Having said that. Mike has a lot of experience and knowledge about the subject and I haven't seen any indications yet of proprietary interests in his comments. |
|
Doug Commette
Posted: Aug 10, 2010 03:52 PM
|
Doug here. Whatever happened to free speech and public opinion? In MY opinion, Mike has done a great job helping to review and clarify the specific issues toward the path of understanding and adhering to the technology and codes as they are written/interpreted. Log on to this forum as a newcomer and there are years of experience and knowledge at your fingertips already. I think we are doing a good service. It sure has been a good refresher on the whole issue so far to me. Mike's role is moderator, not preacher. It's everyone's forum. Ask questions, get an opinion or two and maybe even a few facts along the way. Because Mike is president of a company in the business makes him "more of" a candidate, not less of one. Mason is also president of a company in the business. So am I for that matter. I think Jim is president of his company too. Mike is helping us through the issues and codes as they are written and tested for. I think that is important and why we asked Mike to help us here. SPF contractors have it hard enough already without always having to chase a moving target with codes related issues. If we could just get the officials all to buy into to the same requirements.. Jim's issue (I think he's right) is more so with "changing" the testing/codes to be more realistic toward the specific application. In MY opinion, Jim is right. I don't always agree with Jim's analogies or politics, but I personally think he has found flaws in the system that may compare apples to oranges. Just my opinion though... This is great content. The whole reason for these things. Who cares who the moderator is at that point? Isn't this what a forum is all about? I don't see anyone selling anything or brand bashing. Those are the major rules. Learning and educating without calling names are the next ones. I am glad to have Mike on board to steer us through questions and answers that are relevant to the technology and the codes. You all are welcome to moderate or BLOG too. Just contact us to discuss. Be nice to Mike. BTW, Jim is more than welcome to moderate a board. Thanks for using the site. -Doug |
|
Posted: Aug 11, 2010 01:40 AM
|
Hello Jim, Sorry about the misunderstanding, but I was only using the 2x4 as an example to put an image in the mind of any reader who does not know as much as you do about the "real" tests. It was just an analogy I used to get a general idea across, not to make anyone think it's the SUBJECT at hand. Secondly, the wood moisture content was similar. It was just a point I make that wood contains water and foam does not. That's all. No intent to claim any "number" on the moisture content as an "absolute". No way. You are correct... wood can hold a LOT of water in certain conditions! As for your reference to NFAP296... ah yes! Now THAT'S what I'm talking about! Even though I agree 100% with what you are implying, your comment gives a perfect example of why I volunteered to do this. You seem to be referring to the use of NSPA286 for the NEW Ignition Barrier test, but I was NOT discussing details of Ignition Barriers at all in my "book". Just Thermal Barriers. It is actually one of the most confusing things the codes folks have done, in my "one guy" opinion. I always thought that if they use the NFPA286 for IGNITION BARRIERS, it might get confused with the NFPA286 for THERMAL BARRIERS, and WORSE, people would start to confuse the WAY they run the Ignition Barrier "VERSION" of the test with the Thermal Barrier version. As things turned out, I was right. I now hear people say things like: "But it is BETTER to test with studs in the wall... because the NFAP286 "REQUIRES" it that way!!! So, some MISTAKENLY tested Thermal Barriers with studs for that reason, only to find that when you do that, as I mentioned in my three part book, you will be stuck with approvals on ONLY STUDDED WALLS! Big problem. Big misunderstanding. Further, many began to believe that those who tested Room Corner test for Thermal Barrier WITHOUT STUDS were somehow LESS qualified. Also wrong. Big misunderstanding. Big Problems again! This was something I ran into in almost EVERY group discussion about Thermal / Ignition barrier testing. I thank you for bringing this up, because this needed clearing up too, big time. My feeling all along has been, they should NOT have called it NFPA286 after they changed it so much. It created more confusion and ill will than I have seen in some time. I like the analogy for you golfers out there, about one of the old timers (I believe it was Ben Hogan) who was asked if the hole should be made a bit larger. The reply fit this situation as I see it... "Sure, make the hole bigger..." he said, "but if you do, DO NOT CALL IT GOLF!" ...perfect! When I get back into the office next week, I will work on clarifying the NFPA-286 test that was devised for Ignition Barriers, how it is different from the Thermal Barrier version, and why it was chosen for testing ignition barriers. Again, Jim, I happen to agree with you that the NFPA286 test being used for ignition barriers is a mistake, but for a different reason. It adds to confusion, and God knows, the codes don't need any more confusion. As for "reality" testing, like going with pure logic and testing an "attic" scenario, which many have suggested, we all wish things were made that simple, but there are too many people and organizations that have to agree to things like this, and that is why it gets complicated. Still, you are right, it COULD have been simpler and more representative, but you speak from a Contractor's view (I think?), and I speak from a product developer's view, and we actually will have similar views on this, but then there are so many other "views" that the codes guys have to consider, like Government, Military, Raw Material suppliers, Fire Marshals, Codes officials, Convalescence Homes operators, Hospitals, and the list goes on. Some of this may not make sense, but I have had interesting discussions, and learned a lot hearing views from many, many organizations and businesses. It's all about compromise, and at the end of the day, I am a realist. Not to say we should stop trying to make the codes better, we SHOULD, and I do! But, in our day to day, we have to play with the cards that are dealt to us. Sorry for again being long winded, but I too get frustrated when things seem too complex and even "illogical". I hope to do my part to help clear up at least SOME of it. Mike Kiser |
