Sprayed insulation in a return air pl...

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

Author Message Di Ann Hassloch, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: dhassloch Post Number: 18 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 11:20 am:    Does anyone know of an insulation product to be spray applied to the underside of a metal deck, in a return air plenum? This is a LEED project. Thanks! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1103 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 11:34 am:    You can use spray urethane, but you have to coat it with a thermal barrier. Isolotek makes a product intended for use where foam insulation is in an occupied space. Don't mix it up with a "thermal barrier" (which they also make) which is used when the insulation is in an unoccupied attic-type space. I don't know if Isoltek's product is acceptable for use in plenum spaces--not sure what the code says about plenum vs. occupied. (I bet Ron G. knows this off the top of his head!) Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 793 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 12:01 pm:    Thanks for the vote of confidence, John, but I still had to look it up. 2006 IBC, Section 2603.7, prohibits the use of foam plastic insulation in plenums except under two conditions: 1. Foam plastic that complies with Section 2604 for interior trim, which requires the foam plastic to have a minimum density of 2.0 pcf; maximum thickness of 1/2 inch and a maximum width of 8 inches (this already disqualifies your situation under this section); cannot constitute more than 10% of the wall or ceiling area in any room or space; and, a flame spread not to exceed 75. 2. Foam plastic that is protected by a thermal barrier in accordance with Section 2603.4. The prescriptive material is 1/2-inch gypsum board, but the code does allow "equivalent" materials, which some manufacturers make as a coating; however, these materials will likely need to be approved by the building official--an Evaluation Service Report (ESR) from ICC-ES or another approved evaluation source that evaluates the product for that purpose is desirable. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 249 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 12:02 pm:    Whatever product you select it must be plenum rated with a flame spread of 25 or less. Mechanically fastened rigid insulation with an All Service Jaket (ASJ) facing will work. Alternatively, semi-rigid mineral wool (from rock or slag) can be left unfaced because it's flame spreads of 0 - 25 and smoke developed of 0. This is true in my local jurisdictions, but may not in others (NYC comes to mind). Spray-applied insulation will most likely require a thermal barrier. Di Ann Hassloch, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: dhassloch Post Number: 19 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 12:02 pm:    CAFCO has a Bond Seal that can be used over closed cell 2# density polyurethane foam. That is sprayed with CAFCO Blaze Shield II or HP which are plenum rated. Thanks, John. Di Ann Hassloch, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: dhassloch Post Number: 20 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 12:08 pm:    I did not want to confuse the issue with too much information, but we need a spray applied insulation as we are coating the metal deck to avoid condensation due to an upper side temperature of 50 degrees and an underside of 90 degrees. Thanks to all! Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 794 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 12:11 pm:    If this is metal roof deck, is there any insulation on the top side of the deck? Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Di Ann Hassloch, CSI, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: dhassloch Post Number: 21 Registered: 07-2005 Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 02:49 pm:    The deck is existing and filled with concrete. We added an access flooring system above in a data center, with underfloor air around 50 degrees. George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding Post Number: 481 Registered: 11-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 - 05:17 pm:    Besides flame spread, consider the erosion of the insulation caused by moving air. Fireproofing materials have a test for air erosion, perhaps appropriate here? George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1104 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 08:57 am:    In my first post, I meant to say "ignition barrier" when used in attic-type spaces--that can be various sprayed products, or simply sheet metal. Very different animals than the thermal barrier materials. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1105 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 09:24 am:    Ron noted the potential need for evaluation reports. See ESS Acceptance Criteria 377 which lays out what needs to be done to get an ER: http://www.icc-es.org/criteria/pdf_files/AC377.pdf. The Isolotek product I was referring to (I just double checked) is Cafco TB-415. Another product I had found is Thermal Product Research; Fireshell F1E. I haven't yet spec'd them, so haven't done my due diligence. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 200 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 11:58 am:    Strictly speaking to get approval of an alternate you need a research report and or test data (2006 IBC Section 104.11). Many building officials especially on the west coast are in the habit of automatically accepting evaluation reports from one of the organizations issuing them. In other parts of the country building officials appear less dependent on evaluation reports. The existance of an evaluation report does not eliminate the need for the design professional to determine that the alternate is appropriate and does not guarantee approval. If the product does not have an existing evaluation report it is unlikely that one can be obtained in time to meet the needs of a current project. If this product is being proposed as an alternate suggest that you ask the manufacturer what type of support they can provide and then meet with the building official for prelimninary approval. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 181 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 11:59 am:    Di Ann, how about a closed cell sprayed polyurethane like BASF Spraytite? http://www.basf-pfe.com/index.php?location=CPR&section=spraytite Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 253 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 12:17 pm:    John, Hold my hand for minute. Please explain the difference between a thermal barrier and an ignition barrier and where the ignition barrier is discussed in Chapter 26 of the IBC (or other chapter). Thanks, Wayne John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1106 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 03:40 pm:    Both fall under IBC (2003) 2603. Thermal barrier is required by 2603.4, and must be 1/2 inch gyp or equivalent giving temp rise of 250 deg max in 15 minutes per ASTM E119. This is the default condition. Ignition barrier is per 2603.4.1.6 when the foam plastic is in an "attic or crawl space where entry is made only for service of utilities." Here you only need an ignition barrier; 1.5 inch mineral fiber, 1/4 inch wood panel, 0.016 inch sheet metal, or "other approved material" so that the insulation is "not exposed." Note that there is no test cited for ignition barrier, but AC377 will suffice if not using one of the prescribed materials. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 201 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 03:53 pm:    Regarding the use of acceptance criteria such as ICC-ES AC377: Acceptance criteria are not standards and are developed in a relatively closed process, and is often drafted by the manufacturer that will use it to obtain an evaluation report. In the absence of alternatives there may be little choice. ICC-ES has taken the position that their acceptance criteria are copywrited and cannot be used other than to produce evaluation reports to be published by ICC-ES. You can verify this on the ICC-ES web site. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 254 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, August 27, 2009 - 04:13 pm:    John, Thanks. I was looking for the term "ignition barrier" in 2604.1.6 but it does not exist. 2006 IBC only says "shall be protected against ignition by..." The paragraph concludes with "The protective covering..." at the beginning of the last sentence. Another case of self-inflicted confusion or you created a new term. Sometimes I am too literal. Wayne Curt Norton, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: curtn Post Number: 156 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, August 28, 2009 - 07:57 am:    What about a spray applied cellulose? www.internationalcellulose.com Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED AP Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 67 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Friday, August 28, 2009 - 08:40 am:    I worked on a historical restoration project with similar conditions. We added a raised floor and returned through the ceiling. The mechanical engineer (having recentedly done several raised floors) recommended a thermal coating on top of the concrete floor to help reduce the temperature difference between the two. We used a speciality coating typcially used for storage tanks that have to deal with extreme temperature differences. Unfortunately I am not at that office any more and don't remember exactly the name of the product. It started out as a ceramic coating and evolved into something the manufacture recommended. I will do some checking to see if they think it helped. I will say however, that the temperature differences in your case are greater. I believe we were delivering 63 degree air under the floor. Russ Hinkle