Paint for Medium Density Fireproofing

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

Author Message W. Dean Walker, AIA, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: wdwalkerspecs Post Number: 40 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Thursday, March 10, 2011 - 06:18 pm:    Need three paints that meet LEED requirements for application to Exposed Medium Density Fireproofing above open laboratory areas. Standard Grey fireproofing needs to be "white" to better distribute light. Lynn Javoroski CSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1216 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 09:43 am:    Our basic spec is built around Benjamin Moore Eco-Spec, PPG Pure Performance, and Sherwin Williams Harmony; all have 0 g/L VOC. As to what products will be applicable to the fireproofing substrate, I don't know. I'd probably consult the fireproofing manufacturer's literature and then the paint manufacturer's. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1130 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 12:24 pm:    generally if its a latex paint, it will be approved by the manufacturer of the fireproofing but you need to check with them to make sure you're not voiding some warranty. I would get something with a teensy bit of gloss -- dust won't stick to it as much W. Dean Walker, AIA, CCS, SCIP Senior Member Username: wdwalkerspecs Post Number: 41 Registered: 08-2006 Posted on Friday, March 11, 2011 - 01:02 pm:    Thanks, Anne. My WR Grace fireproofing rep just confirmed that any latex type paint that is approved for drywall or plaster is OK. Dryfog type will work also. Apparently is has been used on the remodeled parts of McCormick Place. Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 34 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2011 - 01:09 am:    Aw darn, a paint question and I got in late. Everybody's right - any acrylic or vinyl-acrylic will both work and be compatible with the fireproofing. I second Anne's comment regarding gloss - where dust is a problem dead-flat paint looks grungy pretty quickly. I do suggest eliminating the archaic term "latex". That term has come to imply a water-based paint of a specified sheen, but as far as *what* type of water based paint - beats me. I've been in paints/coatings/waterproofing on all sides of the fences mostly sitting on the barbed wire) and tables for 35 years or so, put on technical training seminars - and when the inevitable question comes up "has latex paint improved or gotten worse with tighter VOC regulations my answer is "I have no idea, because I don't know what latex paint *is* out of context." It's the weakest generic term in the industry, with the widest range of interpretations (or misinterpretations). Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 46 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2011 - 09:16 am:    This is getting off subject, but... In MPI standards, "latex" is used exclusively to refer to water-based paint formulations. The term "acrylic" doesn't seem to be used at all. (In a search of MPI's full spec, I found one incidental reference in an editor's note.) I have been relying more & more on MPI designations in my specs, because of the complexity of keeping up with paint product changes. Although it took a while for me to get comfortable with MPI & I don't know the extent of its acceptance in the construction industry, it does seem to be the de facto standard. If "latex" is dominant in this standard, it might be tough to make the case that the term is archaic. I would be curious to know how many of you specify using MPI designations. That might be some measure of whether the system is on its way to becoming the predominant standard for specifying paint products, and whether its terms retain validity. There might be an argument that "latex" is too generic a term to have meaning. MPI seems to use it to establish a very broad category, then builds more specific groups within that by use of its numbering system. Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 36 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2011 - 06:33 pm:    Ironically, I work primarily with MPI's approved list of products (the exceptions are usually very unique systems or customized formulas from small manufacturers). As my area of specialty includes paints and heavy-duty coating systems I get involved in friendly (always!) debates regarding certain terms. MPI uses "latex" to cover a broad range of "water-based"paints; the reason I generally stay away from the term myself is that I often am specifying particular *types* of "latex" paint. The reason I'm more precise - especially when requested to put together a generic, no-brand specification - is that I may need to narrow the selections of a 100% acrylic gloss pigmented finish using criteria a bit tighter than even MPI's approval process. It's a practical issue - knowing how painting contractors perceive the word "latex" *and* being only too aware of exactly what happens on the job I know the pitfalls of certain terms and/or jobsite controls (or lack thereof). Example - if a specifier is looking for a water-based exterior finish in one of MPI's specific gloss range categories and simply picks 3 at random, they may be quite different types of products. They meet the performance requirements of the standard, but may differ in field application - and cost (both material and "as applied"). The standards provide a tested, performance-based group of products - but not a group that consists of products that can be "drawn from a hat" with the same cost (or more specifically, cost-per-year-of-service). In many cases it still takes some work to separate the Red Delicious apples from the Fujis. Having a set of standards is a Godsend to an industry where product specifications previously were based on relationships with reps or ASTM test results that appeared to be standards but were just a company's internal test results. But you still have to be selective within each group. It's FAR easier, but not "grab and go". Also, if there's no inspector on the job there's no guarantee what's specified will actually be applied. This happens far more often than most specifiers would want to believe. Even if there is an inspector it has to be one who knows how to monitor what is actually "in the bucket" - and often that takes involvement from the design phase, or during the specification preparation if specs are written late in the process. So while I use the MPI approved products list I also encourage inclusion of language that tightens controls during the bid process and on the job. I don't want to go into too much detail, as it's not the proper place for it. Those who know me understand why. But back to terminology, "latex" is a broad category - I avoid it as I am normally preparing tighter specs than most (primarily because of my background). Hope that helps - forgive me if I'm being a bit evasive! (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2011 - 06:30 pm:    Ever try specifying paint for federal gov't LEED project in So Calif and having to use the UFGS MPI spec? Between local VOCs, LEED req'ts, and MPI-listed products for MPI "systems", it just cannot be done. Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 38 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 - 03:08 pm:    Actually it can - it's just not easy for those outside the industry (and often for those *in* the industry who aren't based here). After dealing with no established standards for several decades I find it's easier now (with MPI's increased strength) to put together a paint Section that requires specific quality levels *and* can be field-verified. But as I alluded to earlier, don't assume the submitted systems will actually appear in the field unless you've specified field QC's that can be verified. Doug Frank FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: doug_frank_ccs Post Number: 280 Registered: 06-2002 Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 09:57 am:    I have to admit I’m confused by the reliance on MPI standards when specifying painting. There seems to be little or no consistency in quality of the products listed within each category. For example: MPI # 44 Latex Interior, (MPI Gloss Level 2), E Range E3; EPR 3; GPS-1 Check includes no less than Five different products of the same manufacturer, each with its own actual quality level. I do not understand how you can get the product quality you’re after when the MPI “Standard” seems to allow five different quality levels within the same standard. If you specify drywall to be painted with an MPI #4 etc., how do you know if you’re going to get $30 paint or $15 paint? Perhaps there’s something about these MPI Standards that I’m not understanding. MPI’s use of “Latex” may be rooted in the fact that their “Painting Manual Guide Specification” is still stuck in the old 16 Division MasterFormat, even though it shows a 2011 date. Doug Frank FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate FKP Architects, Inc. Houston, TX Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 42 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 01:40 pm:    Doug, as I mentioned the MPI Approved Products list for each component of a paint "system" (as noted in MPI's Guide Specifications) covers a fairly wide swath. The approved products in each list have been tested to meet certain performance standards for the application(s) in MPI's guide specs, but are not necessarily "apples=apples". As you noted a general group of products - I'll use "EXT 4.2A Latex [insert gloss level] finish (over block filler)." - may include 30 products from different manufacturers, and in some cases more than one from a single manufacturer. For example, there are 6 Benjamin-Moore products approved under MPI (Standard) #10, an exterior "latex" flat (plus one more listed for Canada) - very similar to your example. But would you normally specify all 6 products if the rep gave you a guide spec with all of them listed? No - you'd check the product data sheets or website and determine which is the best one for the *specific* project you're working on. Or you'd call your rep. Or you'd work with a consultant. But one way or another you'd pare those 6 down to one and either select similar products from other manufacturers or (cringe) add "or equal". And "equal" is NOT all the finish paints listed under #10 - it includes products of the same quality and type. Latex isn't a product type - it's a catch all and this is an example of why I do NOT use the term. Vinyl-acrylic is a type; so is 100% acrylic, and there would certainly be the price differences you noted (although price is often irrelevant in relationship to quality and should not be used as sole Specification criteria - except for strict budget reasons, and even then VERY carefully - IMO). For a tract of tilt-up office/warehouse buildings you'd probably select vinyl-acrylic finishes - so you'd specify MPI #44 AND select the appropriate products from the approved products list for MPI #44. Vinyl-acrylics are generally in the middle of the pack price and performance-wise in a category, and having approved ones to select from is VERY helpful IMO. Some are swill and those won't be on the approved list. OTOH if you were specifying paint for a manufacturing plant - or your lawyer's new office - you'd probably go with a 100% acrylic and select from those approved by MPI for #44. A higher-grade finish than vinyl acrylic...normally...and higher priced. And if one is made using resins rejected by another manufacturer and uses other components that are lousy IT won't be on the MPI list either. MPI's guide specs provide systems and related approved products to **help the Specifier make selections** appropriate to the application (type of structure, exposure, regional availability, budget, did the rep buy me lunch last month...errr, never mind that one...etc). ;-) I've been in the industry for a long time (some tell me TOO long - snicker) and I don't know every product from every manufacturer in every geographical area. The MPI Approved Products list, though, narrows the field down to where my time spent checking out products is 1/4 of what it used to be. MPI makes the selection process easier. They do NOT eliminate it. That's where I find the disconnect at times - some have the perception that they simply need to specify an MPI system and they're done. Nope. I hope that helps - Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 472 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011 - 02:23 pm:    When I first saw MPI, I was hoping for a guide that would tell which specific products were equivalent. That's what we really need, because, given the lack of performance standards, it is difficult at best to compare two coatings/paints. If I'm going to list the specific products, I see no reason to reference MPI at all. James M. Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 93 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, March 28, 2011 - 09:12 am:    What I understand from Doug's, Jim's and Sheldon's responses MPI gets one into a range of products which have acceptable performance for a particular group. Staying with Jim's, EXT 4.2A Latex example, it seems it would be most helpful in narrowing down the selections to have a knowledgeable and cooperative Benjamin-Moore [or insert name of another manufacturer here] representative to assist in this task. Of course budget would be one of the issues presented to this cooperative representative. What other information would I want to share with him or her to allow the representive to tell me the most appropriate selection among the six products? Climate? Expected degree of building maintenance? What else? Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 43 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Saturday, April 02, 2011 - 05:26 pm:    "Climate? Expected degree of building maintenance? What else?" Exposure to physical contact, ultraviolet light, water... "Climate" is too general for me - you could have a humidity-controlled area in a building in a rain forest or a south-exposure, bright-red painted, 45-degree angle, 1/2" wood panel as part of the structure in in a temperate "climate". In the first example "climate" is irrelevant - in the second climate *seems* OK but the exposure combines some of the worst conditions into a common failure situation (Constant UV exposure - i.e. "pink paint" in a year or so; non-rigid surface subject to expansion and contraction - cracking and peeling; a combination rain target and "sluice" - moisture damage and abrasion from dirt washing down the surface). The first question I ask when a client wants to know what type of product to use on a given surface (or if their preliminary choice is viable) is : "what's the application?". I've drummed that question into the head of every training vict....errrr, student I've had for years. ;-) If the answer is "exterior concrete" we have to start at paint 101, since that's not a clear application. That could mean almost anything "cementitious" is to be painted with...something. Not enough information. OTOH if the answer is "a school building in Fresno with exterior precast concrete vertical panels under a canopy adjacent to walkways - lots of foot traffic next to them, with doors into classrooms. We expect some maintenance - we'd like to keep it as low-maintenance as we can without having the surface repainted every year". Then I have a clear picture of 1)limited UV exposure, 2) limited wind-driven rain (although I'll ask a couple of qualifying questions to be sure) and 3) constant hand-rubbing, and footprints from students leaning on the wall with one foot raised. Add abrasion from zipper-covered backpacks. There's more to it that that, but hopefully those examples give you an idea of information I need to generate a paint Section, write in the necessary inspection requirements, and develop maintenance procedures that don't cost and arm and a leg. And Sheldon, what the MPI Approved Products List does is separate the wheat from chaff. I know the lousy paint has been culled out (and I don't want to work with manufacturers who don't feel they need to submit products for testing) - so all I have to do is go to the specific type in the MPI list and look for the high-grade products that can handle some abrasion and periodic washdowns. To find those, though, I'm looking at maybe 30 products - not 300 - and I'm not being "sold" by someone that their product "is the greatest". I know the products have been tested, and I just need to narrow them down to the top-end ones available in the market where the project is located. It's FAR easier than it used to be. Granted, it's easier for me having spent decades in the industry - and for those who are still unsure there are consultants who can assist. Think for a sec about an office master - it may include several different grades of widgets in the widget Section - and the "notes to the specifier" explain what each widget (or set of widgets) is appropriate for - some indicated by type of construction, some by the building's intended use, some by the budget (or lack thereof). It's really the same thing. (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 04, 2011 - 04:38 pm:    So, Jim, do you actually list the MPI reference as part of the performance spec, or is it simply an internal process for narrowing the scope of products -- where you ultimately have a proprietary spec of a select, chosen few? Jim Sliff Senior Member Username: jim_sliff Post Number: 46 Registered: 08-2010 Posted on Monday, April 04, 2011 - 09:04 pm:    Unregistered Guest - The answer is Yes. ;-) My situation is, I admit, different than most - and I end up with results that reflect both of your examples. But I do have a slight "head start" having been connected to paint or some sort of "stuff out of buckets" for many years (I resist saying "paint and industrial coatings", since I'm involved with most "fluid-applied" systems...and even some that aren't...and even the fluid materials are not always what one would normally classify as "paint"). Because of my background I see the MPI Approved Products List as a perfectly valid classification of generic types - keeping in mind that the "categories" of products, as noted earlier, may list 6 or 7 products from a single manufacturer. Assuming one of those manufacturers is to be included by name I will, if the client agrees, use a specific one of those as my "standard" for selection purposes and also specify approved products from other manufacturers that 1) are on the approved list in that category, and 2) are of the same narrowed-down type as the one I'm using as a standard. So, pulling all of the following out of thin air to avoid any specific MPI Approved Product Categories or proprietary references, I'd specify something for the finish coat on a particular surface as "MPI #997, Gloss Level 1, E3, GPS-2: Podunk Paint 100% Acrylic "B-105.26 Superstuff", Whiz-Bang Industries "LZ98.6 So Good it's Better than WE Think", or BillyBob's Paint and Tackle "#151 Use This and We Won't Let Jethro Date Your Daughter. Or Son". All of those would have been extracted from the MPI list, and in this case (again, all imaginary) I was looking for a 100% acrylic (application type/gloss irrelevant but included as examples), <50 G/L VOC (because the local regulations require it) and a GPS-2 "green" category because the client asked for it. That method's easy because MPI's made it easy. I only have to look through a limited number of products to find things that are relatively equal (and I need to repeat this - selling price, unless there is a specific tight budget, is something I ignore - it has nothing to do with quality.). If it has to be a TOTALLY generic spec everything will be the same - except instead of naming products I will list (staying with the same general example) "MPI #997, 100% Acrylic, Gloss Level 1, E3, GPS-2 That meets or exceeds the following requirements..." ...and then I'll list 3-4 important ASTM test results that a minimum of 3 products from different manufacturers meet. IF it's an unusual situation and only one manufacturer really fits the bill, I'll suggest to the client that test results NOT be listed - just the MPI qualifiers, the product type/brand and "no known equal" (or "in accordance with test data on file", which is obtuse enough to preclude requests for the information). I've never had a situation where a justifiably proprietary spec has not been acceptable. If the backup data is there it's not real smart to sacrifice quality just to include other products. NOTE: There's a VERY important reason for NOT publishing the ASTM test results in a one-product, proprietary spec - shocking as it may seem, there are manufacturers out there who will simply re-do their data sheets (or make up a new one and change a product name/number) and simply clone the test results. An engineer at an unnamed public agency and I busted someone by adding a bogus, totally irrelevant (and impossible) test result to a spec and sure enough - a submittal came in matching it word-for-word. To get back on track - 25 years ago a paint spec was usually created out of an office master that used one (or less often, 3 manufacturer'(s') products as standards for each type. Those decisions were made on trust, relationships, personal experience, whatever was added to the last job's spec...and the contractor (actually the sub) often encountered obsolete products, illegal VOC levels, products not available within 500 miles of the jobsite (personal note - MOST national brands were not available during the 1970's in southern California except through mom & pop hardware stores; regional brands ruled the industry) etc. The work MPI has done is making my job easier. It's actually easier for "non-paint" people as well, but has a learning curve. I think I said this before, but if I'm not quite "closing" my statements and things are not crystal-clear it's because I'm not comfortable going too far with who to contact for help - I'm using this forum to try to "give back" to people who helped me tremendously through the years, not to hawk services - and that's hopefully the last comment I will make on that subject (it's a fine line and I'd rather be TOO conservative than risk complaints).