Author |
Message |
Steve Pirozzi, CSI, CDT Junior Member Username: spirozzi
Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 10:27 am: | |
Good morning. I work for a large EA firm that serves industrial clients. I would like to know if the level of detail that we provide in our contract documents for through-penetration firestopping is in alignment with other offices. For drawings, we provide two full-size sheets of typical through-penetration details that the Contractor may encounter on the project. These sheets include notes that explain that the Contractor may find other conditions in the project which are not included in these details. In the spec, we require the Contractor to provide shop drawings for every penetration condition on the project. He is also required to coordinate with the other trades for sizing of sleeves, openings, core-drilled holes or cut openings to accommodate the firestop systems. Please let me know your approach for this topic. Thanks! |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding
Post Number: 287 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 11:23 am: | |
For the last several years I have been doing Penetration Firestopping as a performance specification. Since the various UL assemblies are proprietary, this allows the contractor to select which one manufacturer will be used on the entire project. Like you, we require the contractor to submit the details and UL sheets. We specify that one qualified installer be used for penetration firestopping and for fire-resistive joints. Recently, we have been using the DRI (Designated Responsible Individual) to qualify the firestopping installer. This is available through FMG according to FMG 4991, "Approval of Firestop Contractors", or through UL “Qualified Firestop Contractor Program”. The days of "he who cuts the hole fills it" and using "fire caulk" everywhere are over. Firestopping needs to be a coordinated effort by a qualified installer. |
Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2
Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 12:30 pm: | |
A great deal of our Work is for hospital projects located in California with plan review by OSHPD. They want (insist) to see clear reference to a UL listed assembly, with a (great) degree of arm twisting to get them to accept listings by other parties. So, per George's post, we lean towards a performance spec and include a collection of UL referenced details but also state the clear proviso that they cannot cover all actual conditions. The most common conditions not covered are often Contractor's means and methods issues, like mutiple items sharing a penetration rough-in. PS - I hope you meant full size drawing sheets and not full size (1:1 scale) drawings. If so, you are certainly ahead of the rest of us. |
Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey
Post Number: 330 Registered: 05-2005
| Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 05:35 pm: | |
I agree with George and Steven. I also use a performance spec for all the reasons posted above. Adding the level and scope of details drawings is admirable but perhaps a little redundant with a performance spec. That said, there will always be some poke through penetration details included when they are collateral with other details. I admire your thoroughness. I wish we had the time to match your accomplishments. |
Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 244 Registered: 12-2002
| Posted on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 09:12 pm: | |
I'm with George. His specifying method, combined with the FMG 4991 qualification, works. But you must be in a region with an adequate number of qualified installers. Double check before you publish a spec that can't be met. Our state agencies and some local permit authorities also require the boilerplate drawings of penetrations, even though the actual project conditions will be much more complex. The plan reviewers aren't the same people that inspect on site. There's endless potential for argument; the firestopping issues are fortunately often handled on site by reasonable people. |
|