Archive through October 31, 2006

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

Author Message Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 178 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 11:50 am:    Has anyone had any recent experience with Isolatek's Cafco Blaze-Shield II. I thought this material would have gone away with the introduction of their Cafco 300. It seems to have surfaced again where I am and they are touting it as better than Grace's Monokote MK-6 or Carboline's Pyrolite 15 - I'm not so sure. I once had a principal in a firm I worked for come back from a job site and tell the spec writer (not me at the time) that "..he never wanted to see that product on any of our projects ever again!!" I am looking for documented information as to why I should not accept Blaze-Shield II as a SFRM product. Nathan Woods, CCCA Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 132 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, October 26, 2006 - 12:16 pm:    I have experienced similar issues on projects in SoCal. Yes, there is a difference. My advice is to contact the Grace rep. Try Kimberly Shaw at (213) 400-0941 or kimberly.a.shaw@grace.com Regards, Nathan Anonymous   Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 11:29 am:    Who is "they" making that statement? I've generally encountered contractor's wanting to use fiber because of easier cleanup (e.g., not having to cover/protect other surfaces from cement type "fall-out")...or so that's the "excuse" I'm told. On the other hand, I too have been "told" by senior personnel at several firms that I've worked to never specify fiber for reasons that I recall weren't very specific, but only it was some type of negative experience. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 207 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Friday, October 27, 2006 - 12:06 pm:    Just speculation, "They" may have experienced that fiberous materials are too friable to withstand the rigors of the environment (before covering), construction activities (before covering), and lack the impact resistance (when left exposed to view) of cementitious materials. Higher densities than can be achieved with fiberous materials is required by one AHJ that I know for applications that are exposed to view in the final assembly (applications within 8' of the top of slab in below grade parking garages using steel frame). Negative experience(s) or lessons learned must count for something at the end of the day. Wayne John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 599 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 09:05 am:    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts built a new building in the Boston area with fibrous sprayed fire-resistive materials on the structural steel. I do not know if it was Cafco or some other product. However, my understandirng is that due to the problems described by Wayne Yancey, the building allegedly caused health problems, such as throat irritation and the like, to occupants. It was eventually abandoned by the agency that had moved in, and later renovated for other use. Phil Kabza Senior Member Username: phil_kabza Post Number: 219 Registered: 12-2002 Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 09:44 pm:    When properly applied to properly primed substrates, properly applied to required thicknesses, properly compacted and then properly top coated, BlazeShield II is sometimes acceptable on some types of projects. That said, it seldom meets those conditions, and is aggressively presented as a substitute product in our region, accompanied by laboratory test reports the conditions for which are unlikely to be duplicated in the field. I recommend not specifying the product. If the owner and contractor wish to accept it, I would recommend against it in writing, and keep copies of the correspondence. I say this having a bag of the stuff on my desk that I picked off the ceiling tile of a school I specified a few years ago. The manufacturer seems to be unaware of the pattern of substitution request activity that their installers engage in. There must be significant cost savings when using this product in lieu of the cementitious products such as Grace Monokote or Cafco's own Cafco 300, or there wouldn't be such concerted effort to get it onto projects due to all sorts of schedule or environmental or rated assembly issue flim flam that the installers engage in. In addition, there is a particularly scurrilous set of UL design assemblies that incorporate Blazeshield II in steel joist construction that depend upon limiting the load capacity ratings of the associated joists in conjunction with thin applications of the product. If you do get a substitution request of Blazeshield II involving application to steel joists, get a copy of the UL design and engage your structural engineer in the review. Shows how much UL likes to receive test fees - rather like the UL 1256 tests that another favorite manufacturer is fond of including in their substitution requests ... Tracy Van Niel Senior Member Username: tracy_van_niel Post Number: 191 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 02:31 pm:    The fibrous sprayed material was used on a hospital project that we did many years ago. This particular project had some kind of open cell grid over the nurse stations. We had flecks of the fireproofing material falling down onto the countertops in the nurse station and from what I recall, had a very difficult time trying to get the fireproofing contractor to come back in to help solve the problem. Almost right after we experienced the problems with that project, a television show was on PBS talking about sick building syndrome and the problems with at least one new building that had just been completed but was uninhabitable because of problems related to a fibrous fireproofing product. We have not specified this type of product since. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wyancey Post Number: 210 Registered: 05-2005 Posted on Tuesday, October 31, 2006 - 04:41 pm:    The freqency of above ceiling work that goes on after the fact for TI, or new technology is very hard on a fibrous product that is friable by it's own nature. Over the course of several TIs or technology upgrades by the same tenant it is conceiveable there may be large portions of the fibrous product no longer in place on the substrate. Think WTC.