SFRM	Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Anonymous   Posted on Thursday, May 26, 2005 - 06:26 pm:    Anyone wish to share any success/war stories with Mineral Fiber, Gypsum or Portland Cement SFRM's. Talking to the product rep's, they always seem to have war stories of the other guys product. Not sure who I believe anymore. Specifically, I'm talking about 15 pcf density. Mineral fiber supposedly flakes off easily when impacted, but I've heard gypsum based products popcorn and blister when wet or humid. Sprayed fiber is supposed to harden when wetted, and actually is instructed to do so at application to harden it's shell. Gypsum supposedly is more impact resistant as it's shell hardens. Mineral fiber can be applied prior to closing in of building. Then there is the issue of wet spray or dry spray. But, portland cement based SFRM's are more expensive, and no need to go with medium density for concealed applications. Except, impact and moisture problems during construction. I'm soooo confused! Anonymous   Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 08:29 am:    I cannot find SFRM in MasterFormat. Is "SF" for structrual fiber or split face? In amy case, 15 pcf is awfully light for reinforced masonry. Anonymous   Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 08:32 am:    Sprayed Fire-Resistive Materials David R. Combs, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: davidcombs Post Number: 59 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 09:14 am:    Ditto. But no longerr called that. See 07 81 00 - Applied Fireproofing. (Not sure why they changed the name) Marc C Chavez Senior Member Username: mchavez Post Number: 112 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 10:57 am:    Maybe because nobody knew what SFRM meant. That's easy for me to say now that I'm a MIA oops that's MAI or is that MAI-TAI I forget Lynn Javoroski Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 213 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 11:02 am:    Marc, Parts of you ARE MIA - but I think most of you is here most of the time. (grin) Anonymous   Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 11:21 am:    Okay, Anon No. 1 here again. Let me rephrase: SFRM = Spray-applied Fire Resistive Materials 07 81 16 Cementitious Fireproofing: two types fall into this category, gypsum based and portland cement based. 07 81 29 Mineral-fiber Cementitious Fireproofing: this is the rock wool fireproofing with a portland cement binder (about 20 percent). 15 pcf refers to the density, which is a commercial density, usually used in concealed interior conditions. Comes in a dry mix (mineral fiber) and wet mix (cementitious). Both are sprayed. The wet mix is mixed with water which is then sprayed, the dry mix is mixed with water during application. The dry mix then gets a second coating of water to “seal’ or densify the exterior. Medium density is usually used in non-concealed interior conditions and indirect weather conditions, like mechanical rooms and parking garages. Medium density is wet mixed. Can anyone help me understand the performance differences between mineral fiber and cementitious sprayed fireproofing? I'm not wanting to use any manufacturers names. I am currently in heated conversations with several, thus the anonymity. Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 173 Registered: 05-2000 Posted on Friday, May 27, 2005 - 11:21 am:    SFRM was a term developed by UL so they could group all the products (cementitous and fiber) in one category. Jo Drummond, FCSI Senior Member Username: jo_drummond Post Number: 13 Registered: 01-2005 Posted on Saturday, May 28, 2005 - 07:10 pm:    As a spec consultant, unless I am directed otherwise by the architect, I always specify cementitious sprayed fireproofing. I realize it costs more, but my 8 years in property management showed me what happens to things above the ceiing after the building is finished. Sure the mineral fiber stuff can be perfect on the day of final inspection. Two years later the owner, with maintenance crews of little understanding of the basics, go into the ceiling space to move some ducts around, or add a few new light fixtures. With the cementitious material, they have to scrape vigorously to get it off the beams or columns, so they don't remove more than they absolutely have to. With the fibrous material, a swipe with a trowel will take great quantities off. Needless to say they don't put it back in either case After 20 years doing this all over the building, substantial protection can be lost. As an aside, there are 2 high rise buildings in Los Angeles, where I live, that are standing today because the fires in them didn't damage the structure significantly because they were protected with cementitious fireproofing. No, I'm not an employee of WR Grace, but I think in this case, that their material is superior and I specify it every time. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 108 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 07:59 am:    Anon, All SFRM manufacturers offer wet mix (cementitious) 15 pcf installed density SFRM with comparable in-field characteristics. A single manufacturer also offers dry mix (mineral fiber) SFRM with published test characteristics that are comparable to the published characteristics of the available wet mix (cementitious) products. The specifiers' challenges are a result of the differing in-field work results achieved when using the different products, and from common specification enforcement issues. In our experience in the southeast, applicators sometimes take advantage of the pneumatic delivery method for the mineral fiber product, "fluffing" the product to achieve required thicknesses at lower densities, thereby failing to provide adequate protection while saving on materials. This practice, coupled with the failure to prime the substrates, compact the sprayed fibrous material in place, and overcoat the material, leads to inferior installations that A) fall off with the first re-roofing of the building or B) remain excessively friable and subject to damage by slight contact from workers during construction or occupancy. Installed properly, the fibrous material may be suitable for certain applications. But a rigorous field QC effort is called for, as well as a conscientious subcontractor, and we've had difficulty obtaining both on projects. The other problem is a contracting environment problem: there is a pattern of applicators bringing strong pressure directly on general contractors and owners to approve substitution of mineral fiber application, often on projects where as design professionals we have strongly advised against its use. This has happened consistently on projects in our region, to the point that the request sometimes arrives a day after the substituted application has proceeded in the field. There are significant application and cleanup labor savings involved in using mineral fiber over cementitious material (in addition to the potential material savings noted above), and the pressure applied to GCs and owners is proportionate. A specifier needs high fluency in these materials and their properties in order to be successful in enforcing the specification. The installing subcontractors are skilled in substitution tactics, and some appear to obtain substantial support in their efforts from the supply network. A third issue: study the UL designs carefully. There are some SFRM assemblies in the Manual that are tested at reduced structural member loadings; don't assume that your structural engineer is aware of this issue. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Intermediate Member Username: markgilligan Post Number: 4 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Sunday, May 29, 2005 - 11:51 am:    From the point of view of a structureal engineer, the architect traditionally specifies the fire protection system. We design the beams with an allowance for the weight of the the fireproofing. At the time we are designing the steel members we are not aware of the specific UL system that will be selected. My recommendation is to specify only systems that allow the steel members to be designed for the full allowables allowed by code. If this is not possible let your engineer know early in the schematic design process, since the steel tonage will be higher and your construction budget will need to be higher. If the engineer is told late in the process he will have to re-design many members and will not be happy unless you pay for the redesign. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 98 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 11:06 am:    Most of the 15 pcf fireproofing is gypsum based and should only be used in concealed spaces. If it will be subject to impact, a top coat should be applied or higher density product used. I generally prefer the portland cement based products for anything over 15 pcf. Both W.R. Grace and Carboline make portland cement based products at the higher densities. Isolatek/Cafco has a Cafco 300 15 pcf product, but as far as I know, their 400 & 800 products are still gypsum based. As for mineral fiber products such as Cafco Blaze-Shield II - I was told by one of the principals of the firm I worked for in Connecticut that he never wanted to see it on any of our buildings ever again! I haven't specified it in any firm I've worked for since & will not.