Solid Plastic Shower Doors

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

Author Message Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 576 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 05:00 pm:    I have a client that wants solid plastic (HDPE, etc.) shower doors for athletic locker room showers, but I can find a fabricated product that fits the bill. Does anybody know of a product without having to go custom? Ruppert Rangel, AIA CCS Senior Member Username: rangel Post Number: 13 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 05:04 pm:    We use solid plastic for shower enclosures often. Santana, Columbia Partitions are examples. The fittings/accessories are stainless or aluminum. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 577 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 06:03 pm:    Do they provide doors, too? When I checked Comtec (which is the same as Santana) they only show enclosures with no doors; just curtains. I just checked Partition Systems (Columbia Partitions) and they only indicate toilet partitions. You've used them for shower enclosures, too? Ruppert Rangel, AIA CCS Senior Member Username: rangel Post Number: 14 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 06:11 pm:    Yes, doors, similar to toilet stall doors. They may not show this application on their website, but we've had good luck with this installtion. The standard aluminum hang-resistant headrail has a slot on the bottom that allows curtain hooks if you were inclined to also use curtains. Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 98 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 07:30 pm:    Don't get caught by the 2006 IBC requirement that toilet (and presumably shower) compartments meet the same flame spread and smoke developed requirements as wall finishes. HDPE can't comply with the smoke developed criterion. There are other solid plastics that can, if you don't mind earth tones. Of course, if someone's cracked the HDPE problem, do let us know. I have a white-loving designer who'd just love to be freed from earth tones. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 578 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 08:20 pm:    Where have you heard that HDPE doesn't meet the Smoke Developed criteria per ASTM E 84...Bobrick? See the decision from the US Court of Appeals (Santana Opinion) regarding Santana vs. Bobrick et. al. Vivian Volz, RA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: vivianvolz Post Number: 100 Registered: 06-2004 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 08:39 pm:    Why, yes, I did hear it from Bobrick. Thank you for showing me that this is not a new issue between Bobrick and its competitors. I wasn't aware of that, and will be careful of Bobrick's marketing. They, of course, are the ones with the Class B solid-plastic earth-tone compartments. However, that case was argued in 2004, and the IBC was clarified or updated in 2006-ish and is about to take effect even in California. So it appears that Bobrick "won" by getting Chapter 8 of the code changed, to clearly state that toilet compartments must comply with the same finish requirements as wall finishes. I went hunting for an HDPE partition that claimed even Class C, and was unsuccessful. I have a colleague who also tried, and was told the HDPE manufacturers were scrambling to solve the problem. I'd like to know if anyone has figured out how to keep HDPE from smoking. I don't like the stuff anyway, so I don't personally mind telling designers they can't have it. But sooner or later I'm going to be asked again, and I don't want to be out of date. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 579 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 - 09:00 pm:    Santana states they have "highly fire resistant grades" of HDPE, and list Class A and Class B requirements, but don't state what the results were of their product tests. But, the 2006 IBC states in Section 806.1 that "[f]ixed or movable walls and partitions...shall be considered interior finish if they cover 10 percent or more of the wall or of the ceiling area..." The key word is "cover". Toilet partitions don't "cover" wall or ceiling area, in my opinion. But the idea that it might be interpreted differently intrigues me. I'll request an informal interpretation from ICC and post the results when I receive it. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 583 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Saturday, December 08, 2007 - 02:50 pm:    Okay, I received a response from ICC to my question, and boy do I feel stupid. One thing I stress to everyone I teach or talk to about building codes is to be familiar with terms as defined by the code. Well, I didn't follow my own advice... As the ICC representative pointed out: "Based on the definition of Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish, toilet partitions fall under the requirements of interior wall and ceiling finish." And, sure enough, the 2006 IBC defines Interior Wall and Ceiling Finish as "[t]he interior surfaces of buildings, including but not limited to: fixed or movable walls and partitions; toilet room privacy partitions..." etc. etc. This was added in the 2006 IBC--earlier editions didn't have this specific reference to toilet partitions. So, as Vivian pointed out, toilet partitions are considered finishes and must meet the requirements of ASTM E 84 as either Class A, B, or C per Table 803.5 (either B or C for restrooms). So, unless this section is modified by local amendment, anyone specifying HDPE toilet partitions will have to look closely at the product's test data to see if it meets the smoke developed criteria (which is the same for all Classes) and the flame spread criteria for the applicable Class. I researched some of the solid plastic toilet partition manufacturers on the internet, and few have any details about the performance of their products under ASTM E 84. I found only one manufacturer guide spec that listed minimum requirements for flame spread and smoke developed per ASTM E 84; Accurate Partitions stated that a flame spread of 50 and a smoke developed of 665 (obviously for their products) is required. But these don't meet the requirements for even a Class C rating (smoke developed exceeds 450). Metpar states they have Class A and B partitions, but they are also limited in color selection. Additionally, they erroneously state "codes are now requiring HDPE Solid Plastic toilet partitions to carry an A or B fire rating..." Under the 2006 IBC, Class A is only required in exit enclosures, exit passageways, and corridors of certain occupancies (either sprinklered or unsprinklered); unlikely places for toilet partitions. And, the learning continues... Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 394 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 10:44 am:    This is really GOOD stuff. Thanks Ron, Vivian, and Ruppert. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 395 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Monday, December 10, 2007 - 12:21 pm:    Ron, Question: If a washroom in a school or airport setting is proped open door or does not have a door, does the FS/SD of the HPDE SOLID PLASTIC toilet partition get bumped up to Class A if the washroom is off the exit corridor or off the means of egress? Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 587 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, December 12, 2007 - 11:00 am:    Wayne: Sorry it took so long to return your post--I had to research this a little bit. I'm not that familiar with airport design other than as one of the thousands of passengers racing through the terminal to catch a flight. But to answer your question, airports are classified as A-3 occupancies. The waiting areas at gates would not be classified as an egress component, but the walking areas would definitely be considered a corridor. Footnote "c" of Table 803.5 (2006 IBC) states that the occupancy applied to the specific room or enclosed space shall be utilized and not the group classification of the building. Therefore, the A-3 classification would only be applicable to the waiting areas of the terminal. The restrooms could be considered B occupancies. But if the AHJ classifies it as part of the A-3, then the A-3 fire area will likely need to be sprinklered per Section 903.2.1.3, which most all airports seem to have anyway, then the required finish classification need only be Class B. However, if the building is not required to be sprinklered, then the restroom would be considered a part of the adjacent space (corridor in this case) per footnote "c" and require a Class A rating for the finishes. The same would apply to the waiting areas at the gates if not separated by full-height partitions. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 762 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 11:38 am:    Ron, for this old, slow person could you clarify-- "Metpar states they have Class A and B partitions, but they are also limited in color selection. Additionally, they erroneously state "codes are now requiring HDPE Solid Plastic toilet partitions to carry an A or B fire rating..." Under the 2006 IBC, Class A is only required in exit enclosures, exit passageways, and corridors of certain occupancies (either sprinklered or unsprinklered); unlikely places for toilet partitions". Now is this trying to tell me that IF the compartments are in toilet/locker rooms, they require only Class B ratings? But if I use this material for lockers, lining corridors, then the Class A rating is necesary? Hence one might draw the conclusion that few [if any] toilet compartments need be or will be Class A. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 594 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, December 17, 2007 - 12:17 pm:    Metpar's statement makes it appear that either a Class A or Class B toilet partition is required by the building code (IBC). This is incorrect. Since toilet partitions are rarely used in an egress component, the Class B rating is the most that would be required, except that a Class A may be required in nonsprinklered buildings that have restrooms opening directly to corridors (no doors), such as those in airports. As for your example regarding lockers lining corrdiors: if the lockers are constructed of HDPE, then there might be an issue regarding the material's use. The code doesn't identify lockers as an "interior wall and ceiling finish" in its definition, but the definition does state that the list is "not limited to" those listed. Therefore, the building official may take the position that the lockers need to comply with the interior finish requirements. However, if the building is sprinklered, then a Class B is still all you need, unless it's an I-3 occupancy.