Firefree 88

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

Author Message Steven T. Lawrey, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: lawrey Post Number: 92 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 - 06:18 pm:    Has anyone ever heard of, specified, or allowed use of Firefree 88 by Firefree Corp., San Rafael, CA? Specific application under question is fire-resistant coating for 12-inch wood 'I' joists. I'm somewhat skeptical of a water-based paint-like product. Data sheet includes an FM approval but no mention of UL Designs. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 - 06:24 pm:    We accomplished approval in the City of Irvine under a bit of hardship application. Mixed use, wood frame construction, applied at rated separation between rental offices and commerical space. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 355 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 - 07:03 pm:    The issue should not be whether there is a UL Design but rather the focus should be on code compliance. I believe that you will find that where the code references a UL standard it also references another alternate standard. The point is that UL is a private company that issues ratings and certifications for products. They are in business to make a profit. There are other reputable companies that issue similar ratings. By insisting on a UL rating you are promoting a monopoly with the net result being added cost to your projects and excluding code compliant products. One game that UL plays is that when writing up the design they list products by other manufactures who have paid them for a report when they could have listed a generic product. For example ratings of fire caulking installed in masonry walls constructed of CMU. The UL listing requires that the masonry units have an UL listing. These proprriatary masonry units are no different from masonry units without a UL stamp and the fire rating of the masonry unit by itself is already addressed in the IBC. Think twice before you specify or insist on a UL listing. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 916 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 - 07:15 pm:    Mark is correct. They state the product has been tested IAW ASTM E 119. If that is the case, then it should be fine. However, the building official, before approving the product, will likely want to see those test reports. I would request copies of the report from the manufacturer now and look at them closely before specifying the product. I had a client who wanted to use a similar product by another manufacturer. I wasn't specifying the project, but I was their code consultant. The manufacturer's product data inidcated that they had tested it IAW ASTM E 119. I asked for the test reports, but they would not give them to me ("It was so long ago that they are now in storage and it would take forever to find them."--Right). I recommended that they avoid the product...I don't know if they followed my advice, but, due to financing issues, the project was not built (yet). Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 356 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Monday, January 10, 2011 - 10:48 pm:    If you provide the test reports showing code compliance the building official essentially cannot refuse to allow the use of the product. If the manufacturer will not provide the test reports you have to assume that the product does not comply. The building code states that the building official has a right to the test reports. Thus if there was a question the manufacturer would have to provide the test results even if UL certified. Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tim_werbstein Post Number: 32 Registered: 09-2006 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 07:45 am:    Not to digress, but what does "IAW" mean? I've seen it in a number of posts and feel that I'm missing something. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 917 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 08:05 am:    "in accordance with" Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Tim Werbstein, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: tim_werbstein Post Number: 33 Registered: 09-2006 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 08:12 am:    Thanks, Ron. An acronym dictionary gave several possible meanings. (I typically use "per" unless I'm using specifier jargon.) Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 918 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 08:33 am:    The IBC uses "in accordance with" frequently, so it's what I'm familiar with. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 405 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 - 10:01 am:    Tim, One more for your bag of acronyms that I use frequently during QA reviews of drawings AVW = "AT VARIANCE WITH" I provide the meaning with the first occurence of the note. Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 17 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2011 - 12:02 am:    I did not have direct experience with Firefree 88 but in my contracting days we proposed it for use on a couple of civic building rehabs in SoCal. Didn't get the work but the product passed the approval processes. I'm afraid I don't have any specifics - just going from memory, but there did not seem to be any issues raised.