| Author |
Message |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 83
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 03:10 pm: |    |
Other than AD FireFilm II - anyone have used any other intumescent coating for steel columns - war stories accepted. |
Ralph Liebing
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 137
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 03:33 pm: | |
Might take a look at an article in Journal of Architectural Coatings, January, 2005, page 51. Discusses less pricey installations
Doesn't Carboline have the product, and an otufit up in Niagara Falls, NY. |
Stephen H. Falk
Senior Member
Username: shfalk
Post Number: 15
Registered: 08-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 03:49 pm: | |
Cafco "Sprayfilm" and "Nullifire S605" by Carboline are superior to the AD Firefilm and cause less headaches and can be top coated with any approved coating. The outfit in Niagra Falls is really in Canada and does not respond to requests to keep specifiers (the necessary evil) current. |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 84
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 03:56 pm: | |
Thanks guys - we speced AD product once and got it VE'd out because of cost, so on a current job I needed some alternatives - thanks for the quick response on a Friday afternoon. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 73
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 04:17 pm: | |
I just used this on a convention center. Looks fine. Don't know if it works. I'll have to wait for a fire.
www.nu-chemusa.com tel. 1-800-788-69942.
Interior: Nu-Chem, Fire-Sorb 1001, water based intumescent fire-resistive coating.
Exterior/Interior: Nu-Chem Thermolag 3000, 95 percent solids, solvent based, two component epoxy intumescent fire-resistive coating. |
Brett M. Wilbur
Senior Member
Username: brett
Post Number: 19
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 05:30 pm: | |
We specify these:
1. A/D Fire Protection Systems, Mission Viejo, CA (888) 323-03473; “A/D FIREFILM®II”
2. Albi Manufacturing, East Berlin, CT (860) 828-0571; “ALBI CLAD TF.”
3. Carboline Co., St. Louis, MO (800) 848-4645; “Nullifire S607”.
We used the Albi in a Philadelphia school. So far we havn't needed it to work yet. Looks great, a little lumpy, but possibly an issue with applicator. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 74
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 06:00 pm: | |
Trained applicators are essential. The best of these products looks a little orange-peel like. Most of them can be covered with a skim coat of plaster if a really smooth coat is needed. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 114
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 05, 2005 - 12:30 pm: | |
Be sure to quiz the reps about finish. The samples they like to show look just like paint, but in practice they have at best the orange peel look as noted by Marc. The higher the level of protection the worse the appearance. Based on the samples we had seen we didn't realize how much texture the finish can have, and ended up with something that looked like oatmeal. Now we require mockups, but also realize it won't look like paint. |
Julie Root
Senior Member
Username: julie_root
Post Number: 8
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 06, 2005 - 04:31 am: | |
I worked on an intense intumesent project in the last couple of years and I agree with all that has been said. Carboline was the company and we used various products because we had interior, exterior and everything else in between. We worked hand in hand with Carboline's field reps and in the spec outlined exactly how much could go on in a single coat (very thin). We drove the GC a bit crazy because they had to plan for the drying times in between, but the drying times were important because otherwise the coating would remain soft and be in danger of damage. We ultimately got a really nice finish.
Also review your steel sizes. With our Structural Engineer we sized up the wall thickness on the tube steel with no additional cost and it reduced the number of coats of intumescent paint; hence bringing down the cost of the coating.
Somebody may have also commented, but be sure to work with the manufacture on how best to have the steel primed.
Now for a question to the group. Have you used intumesent on wood framing? I have a historical project that will need to be rated at some portion of the wood structure. I have heard that intumescent was originally developed for wood. I am not really in the phase to get into it deep yet, but I will be there soon. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 88
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 10:08 pm: | |
We need to clean up our language, folks!
We've used the terms "intumescent coating" and "intumescent fire-resistive coating" and "intumescent paint" in this thread, but I'm pretty sure we all mean what MasterFormat 2004 calls "Intumescent Mastic Fireproofing" and MASTERSPEC calls "Intumescent Mastic Fire-Resistive Coatings." The products we're discussing are fire-resistive and protect the construction to which they are applied.
By contrast, what MF95 calls "intumescent paints" are "fire-retardant" and are only tested for flame spread. I note that MF04 has renamed these "Fire-Retardant Coatings" which helps clarify their function and performance.
If you read the manufacturers' literature, you'll be baffled, as they are not consistent about the terminology used for the different products, which adds to the potential for mis-specifying them. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson
Post Number: 7
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 11:55 am: | |
Mr. Kabza the SpecGuy is very alert to subtle changes as usual. Indeed the terms "fire-resistive" and "fire-retardant" are used in MasterFormat 2004 to distingush between the two different types of products. A search of the two different terms in the keyword index will make this clear. Another illustration of why we need to come to a better use of concensus terminology in the design and construction industry. |
Richard L. Hird P.E. CCS
Senior Member
Username: dick_hird
Post Number: 21
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 10:02 am: | |
Robert:
Are you advocating the elimination the use of the word "Fireproofing"? |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson
Post Number: 10
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 12:56 pm: | |
Richard -
No - fireproofing is alive and well as a title at 07 81 00 and 07 82 00 in MasterFormat 2004 but in the explanations they are described as "fire-resistant" materials in contrast to "fire-retardant" materials to be found at 06 05 73 for wood treatment and 09 96 43 for fire-retardant coatings. The two adjectives are used consistently with the distinction as Phil describes above.
This is another case where the loose use of the language can get us in trouble - very similar words but with related but still very different performance results - sort of like the often used comparison of "dampproofing" versus "waterproofing" - similar words and often have a similar appearance, but their performance characteristics are quite different. We don't want to use the wrong word to communicate what we are looking for. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson
Post Number: 11
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 01:54 pm: | |
It is my understanding the CSI is ready to appoint a task team to deal with trying to help establish a more consistent terminology. I firmly believe that this is one of the most important steps we need to take to improve communications in our industry. More and more of our communication methods and links are dependent upon the words we use - it is vital that we move forward to establish a more consistent industry-wide terminology. MasterFormat 2004 has taken one small step in this direction with more clarity about preferred terminology and methdos to find preferred terminology by means of alternate terms, but MasterFormat is very limited in the depth of detail of subject matter and can go only so far. We need to go much greater depths of detail to establish consistent terminology.
This of course can be overwhelming if you try to cover all the terminology in one step. I have long advocated taking it one step at a time. To me the next logical step in the process is to attack this subject to the depth of terms that are used on both drawings and specifications - the communication link between the two. There are many threads on this discussion forum that refer to the problems of not using common terminology between the drawings and the specs. This is a manageable step in the right direction that could have some relatively immediate benefits.
The national specification systems should be made a part of this effort - in the past I have personnally gotten agreement from most of them to participate in such an effort and to use the agreed upon terminology in their systems. Their use of the agreed upon terminology would quickly demonstrate the credability of agreed upon terminology. To be sucessful though, people who concentrate on the production of drawings need to have a strong voice in the process so that the agreed upon terms work well for both drawings and specifications - the decision pocess has to include good representation from both sides of the fence.
I hope CSI is able to put the right team together to achieve the goal. We need it desperately. |
Marc C Chavez
Senior Member
Username: mchavez
Post Number: 80
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 07:06 pm: | |
See my post under lexicon AND
What are you doing working on the weekend Bob?
or is this entertainment?!
Me? I was working and as of now have quit for the weekend. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 347
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 08:38 pm: | |
Interesting, Bob. Terminology is hard enough to bridge regional usage in just this country, or within a single state, or one part of a city to another, let alone internationally.
But I love working with language, would be interested in participating in something like this.
William |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: bob_johnson
Post Number: 12
Registered: 08-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 02:34 pm: | |
Marc
No rest for the wicked I guess. There are a lot of advantages to running a one-person consulting business out of your house up in the mountains of New Mexico, but it doesn't necessarily make it easy not to step into the office all the time.
I can tell you that moving your office 1900 miles across the country does not seem to make any difference to your clients in today's world - if you have a telephone, fax, good internet connection, and FedEx can find your door, they could care less. I have been working too many hours since moving here last fall and am hoping for a break in the action in the near future.
I did go watch the Lobos beat BYU last night at "The Pit" with my son and my granddaughter comes to stay overnight tonight, so it is not all work and no play.
William
You are right that there certainly are regional differences, but in my history of having worked in the midwest, mountain west, west coast, and middle atlantic areas, I have not found it to be that great a problem. My expericences would say that it a much bigger problem on an international basis because of different methods of construction as well as long term entrenched terminology used in different countries. Any effort of this kind does need to include non-preferred terms as well as preferred terms to provide for finding the term that you want.
Anyone who is interested in participating in this type of effort should indicate their interest to Gary Beimers (gbeimers@comcast.net) - I believe he will be the coordinator of the effort from the CSI Technical Committee. |
Nathan Woods, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 36
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:26 pm: | |
Julie, no one responded to your actual questions. I hope you found what you are looking for by now. But if not, take a look at FireFree 88. It can be sprayed over everything, including existing non rated 1/2 inch gypboard and will result in true 1 hour rating. Pretty amazing. This product is going into my toolbag of solutions, right next to duct tape and my Simpson catelog :-)
http://www.firefree.com/index.htm |
Julie Root
Senior Member
Username: julie_root
Post Number: 30
Registered: 02-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:37 pm: | |
Wow.. What great timing. Thanks Nathan. I had forgotten about my post and was just going over a detail where I was wondering how I was goingto get fire rating where I needed it most.
Thanks |
David Cline
Senior Member
Username: dcline
Post Number: 34
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:44 pm: | |
I echoe Nathan's comments. I viewed a demonstration of FireFree88 painted on corrugated cardboard. Then a hand-held blow torch (the kind used for making sweat joint connections) was used on the sample piece. Direct contact for about a minute of steady flame. Charred, but didn't burn through the thin piece of cardboard. Not a true fire certification, but impressive none-the-less. |
David Cline
Senior Member
Username: dcline
Post Number: 35
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 02:48 pm: | |
Another product that may be researched is StahrCoat SS fire resistant coatings from Barrier Dynamics. See: http://www.barrierdynamics.com/stahrcoat.php |
4specs.com Home Page