Bituminous Coating at Hollow Metal Fr...

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

Author Message Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 52 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 10:08 am:    We are getting a number of requests from Architects to remove the requirement for bituminous coatings at hollow metal door frames. I'm not sure they know what it is for. It seems to me, that it's the right thing to do, and we should require it as our default position. Are you all still requiring this? Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 28 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 10:27 am:    I still require bituminous coating in HM frames, but only for those filled w/ grout containing antifreeze agents (per MasterSpec). Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 989 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 10:39 am:    Same as Jeffrey with the addition of installation in concrete or block walls. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 362 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 10:53 am:    I agree with Lynn. I still require it for frames in conc or masonry Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 184 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 11:55 am:    I agree with you Lisa, especially at masonry openings. at interior partition (wood or metal frame) it's not as necessary but helps with sound transfer where needed. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 298 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, January 13, 2010 - 12:03 pm:    Read SDI 127J-04 in their Technical Data Series Industry Alert. Tracy Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 294 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 10:35 am:    We require a coating in the same locations as noted by everyone else so far on this thread ... however we have changed the type of coating. We found that the product we previously specified did not meet the low VOC threshold required in order to achieve the low VOC LEED credit. Tracy L. Van Niel, FCSI, CCS Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 993 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 10:38 am:    So what did you change to? (cute picture!) Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 300 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 10:45 am:    SDI 127J-04 states the modern replacement material for bituminous back-coating is automotive undercoating. It also says back-coating shall not be installed at the factory or any other location other than the jobsite. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEEDŽ AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 994 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 10:48 am:    Yeah, that's what I've changed to, but I wondered if Tracy had something different... Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1127 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 10:57 am:    From an undercoating ad; Valid? There are several kinds of undercoating compounds available for use in the automotive industry such as a water based, paraffin based, petroleum based, rubber based or asphalt based material. An asphalt based compound, however, provides superior coverage and protection and is made with special fibers and fillers that not only make it more abrasion resistant than other undercoating materials, but also provides excellent insulating qualities, road noise reduction and durability. A clean, dry surface is necessary to achieve a through bonding of the asphalt compound to the undercarriage. Applied with a high pressure, airless pump the asphalt undercoating material is then sprayed to all areas. The asphalt material that is used exceeds Federal Specification TT-C-520b for 1,000 hours salt spray, and acts as an excellent rust inhibitor for the undercarriage components. Second, the density of the compound not only reduces the amount of noise, but also acts as an insulator to help maintain the interior climate. Finally, the outstanding durability of the asphalt based undercoating is long lasting. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 53 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 11:23 am:    Thank you all for your (as always) insightful responses. Does anyone, perhaps from construction administration, have an actual product name for this automotive undercoating, which meets LEED VOC standards? I'm assuming this is just typically done, but no product data is submitted for LEED. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED AP Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 71 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 11:34 am:    Remember the purpose of the LEED credit you are referring to is "Indoor air Quality". If the coating is applied in the shop where the VOC off gasing is controlled, then this coating is not even looked at. This credit only applies to field installed coatings. Specifying it to be shop applied meets the intent of the credit (which is to protect people from the off gasing). Russ Hinkle Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 301 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 11:39 am:    Russ, SDI 127J-04 states "back-coating shall not be installed at the factory or any other location other than the jobsite." Bingo! VOCs are now in play. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED AP Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 72 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 11:42 am:    Just curious, but why would that be? Russ Hinkle John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1165 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 01:46 pm:    SDI says this so they and their distributors can weasel out of having to do it--it's awfully inconvenient, no? Now it's some jobsite worker, and the manufacturer and distributor can go home fat and happy. Thank goodness contract documents take precedence over self-serving standards. I once asked a manufacturer about putting a sound-damping material--like used on automobile sheetmetal or the bottom of a sink--to reduce the 'tinniness' of wide-throat frames. You'd have thought I asked them to make the frames out of hammered copper--simply impossible. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, January 22, 2010 - 12:27 pm:    LEED does not address this type of "coating." And if it did, the VOC content would be much lower than what SCAQMD allows (which is what LEED relies on in establishing the VOC limits for paints and coatings). AND... Even if for some reason the VOC content was outside the limit, and LEED did address it, applying coatings in the "shop" would satisfy the requirement. As long as the coating is not applied within the project interior space, there is no issue. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 55 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Wednesday, January 27, 2010 - 10:46 am:    Thank you all for your help with this. We will continue to require this field-applied coating for metal frames at concrete and masonry partitions. I agree that this type of coating is not addressed by LEED credits and requirements. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, February 02, 2010 - 02:55 pm:    I work for door/frame/hardware supplier. We use an auto undercoating material from 3M. We use 3M Undercoating Black 08881 to "back coat" our frames. 3M claims it provides corrision protection and sound deadening. The material comes in an aerosol can. Most of the time, the specs I see, don't specifically tell you what the "back coating" material is. Just that it is to be applied. If we see "back coating" in the spec, we put it in our price apply the material in our shop even if the specs say field apply. The contractors don't want to apply it in the field. They expect it to be done in the shop. Don't worry about the "back coating" being compromised during shipping. Once it is applied, it is almost impossible to remove without sanding, scrapping, or applying chemicals. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1166 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, February 03, 2010 - 08:47 am:    I'm glad to read about this undercoating product, and that there is at least one supplier (somewhere) willing to do it. That gives me some assurance that this is feasible. I'm going to update our office master to include this product for use in particular conditions: grouted frames and wide throat frames. Of course there's a cost to it, but it's worth it. If you know of other equal products, can you post them? Thanks. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1137 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 11:15 am:    Guest-- Thanks, first for the very good, insightful and helpful information. One question-- can you give us any idea of a cost per frame for the coating? Would you say [if you cannot give a firm amount] that it is less or more than $20 per frame? Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 162 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 11:21 am:    To expand on Ralph's question, how does that compare to the cost of going to galvanized frames? (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 12:41 pm:    If the project had 50 or more openings, a galvznized frame would cost about $15 more per frame. If we back coat the frame, we would charge about $15 per frame also. Richard L. Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 09:49 pm:    Just curious regarding costs of 50 or more frames: I thought we just used galvanized sheets for frames; we did not hot dip them. If that is so why does it make any difference how many frames are involved? Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1138 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 - 11:14 am:    What are we missing? Discussion in our shop "falls off the edge of the table"-- no indication we need to include this coating, yet we obviously have exterior frames, grouted frames, frames in heavy and nasty wash-down areas, coastal construction, hot climates, cold climates, industrial uses, concrete and CMU walls, etc.--- why don't we get any info from any of our Associates including CA that see a need for the coating? Is it that the antifreeze issue [per MasterSpec] is the sole driver? Just curious. Don't post comment here, give me an e-mail if you would. Just don't want to use too much space here. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, February 08, 2010 - 11:42 am:    <<Just curious regarding costs of 50 or more frames: I thought we just used galvanized sheets for frames; we did not hot dip them. If that is so why does it make any difference how many frames are involved?>> Yes they use galvanized sheets. I was just giving you our approximate price using a discount for 50 frames. The more frames, the larger the discount, the lower the cost.