Fire Rated Partitions and Steel Columns

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

Author Message Brian Payne, AIA New member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 1 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Tuesday, January 07, 2014 - 01:54 pm:    How has anyone handled the situation where a rated partition intersects through a steel column. I know that the UL rated wall doesn't technically allow for the "widening" of the wall to encapsulate the fireproofed column in a gyp column enclosure, but I have always done this. One suggestion I have been presented with is specifying shaftwall for one side of the partition as it passes the column. Thoughts? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1174 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 11:48 am:    Brian: There are possibly two issues here. The first issue is if the column is required to be protected. If it is, then it must be separately protected and cannot rely on the fire-rated construction of the wall to protect the column. The second issue, which is a concern whether or not the column is required to be protected, is the the method of surrounding the column with construction that meets the required fire-resistance rating. You can use any approved assembly for the wall, obviously, but at the point where the wall intersects the column, the integrity of the selected wall assembly is violated by the intrusion of the column. To overcome this, you need to select another assembly. For this, I would recommend one of the generic chase wall assemblies in GA-600, which are prescriptively approved by the IBC, or a similar assembly in UL's directory. The chase wall will surround the column and the fire-rated wall will infill between the columns. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 683 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 12:51 pm:    Ron, I still run into Building Code officials who don't recognize GA-600 per se. Make sure the official you're dealing with understands that the testing agencies listed in GA-600 typically meet Code requirements for approved testing labs. At least they don't usually try to limit us to UL anymore. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1175 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 01:05 pm:    Ken, unless they specifically modify the IBC to delete GA-600, they cannot reject an assembly in that document if it is one that is marked as "GENERIC." Footnote 'o' of Table 721.1(2) of the 2012 IBC specifically allows the use of GA-600. The edition of GA-600 is dependent on the edition of the IBC that is adopted (See Chapter 35 of the adopted IBC to see which edition of GA-600 is permitted). Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 684 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 01:29 pm:    Thanks Ron. I'll have to thumbtack that to the Code official's forehead next time this comes up. Brian Payne, AIA Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 3 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 01:31 pm:    Ron, In the typical situation that we come across the column would be independently fireproofed if required. The chase wall technique seems to make sense, but I think I would have a hard time convincing the project teams I work with to go through the trouble. Especially since that in Revit the "wall" would really only be half of the chase wall assembly so that you can enclose each individual condition. I guess if we ever got called out on the issue I might change my opinion, but as of today, we have never had any AHJ bring up the issue. Edward J Dueppen, RA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP Intermediate Member Username: edueppen Post Number: 4 Registered: 08-2013 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 01:56 pm:    If the column rating matches or exceeds the wall/partition fire-rating, I have butted the wall to the sides of the column and applied a fire-resistive joint system between them. I have never had anyone object to this, but then again maybe no one reviewing it ever noticed it. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1176 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 02:24 pm:    Ed, that would work if the column is individually protected using a gypsum board fireproofing method or concrete or masonry encasement method. However, it won't work with spray-applied fireproofing. The steel column fireproofing must be continuous on all sides for the full height of the column, including connections. The code isn't clear if the same material must be used for the full height, but I've seen building officials disallow changing materials. On the other hand, I had a building official accept the use of intumescent fireproofing for a portion of a column that was to be covered by a close-fitting column cover where the typical spray-applied fireproofing used everywhere else would have been too thick. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 685 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, January 13, 2014 - 04:17 pm:    Ron, my understanding is that some manufacturers have tested transitions from intu to typical spray applied and actually dictate which has to be applied first, how it is to be prepped to receive the other, etc. I don't remember which ones but I'm pretty sure Carboline was one since they make both. I don't recall ever seeing it in any publications showing tested assemblies (as in UL). Have you come across this? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1177 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - 10:27 am:    Ken, I have not come across this. I'll have to do a little bit of research on this issue when time allows it. Thanks. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com