Intumescent Mastic Coatings

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1045 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 08:53 am:    I received this comment from the CA on a project: You have to be more specific in the specs when referencing the intumescent coating for structural steel to indicate that the GC intumescent submittal for the structural frame must provide the mils require to achieve the fire rating require for the Type of Construction indicated in CD’s for exposed columns and plates. Is the CA correct? Isn't millage a quantitative requirement that should be on the drawings? Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 124 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 09:22 am:    I agree w/ that, Jerome. The spec usually includes a provision like "Thickness as required for fire-resistance design indicated, measured according to requirements of fire-resistance design." The fire-resistance design should then be indicated on Dwgs. Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 125 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 09:23 am:    I should add: There is no need to indicate specific thickness on Dwgs or in specs; this is a function of the fire-resistance design. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1183 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 09:49 am:    Thickness is also a function of a steel member's shape and size. If the specification was nonproprietary, each manufacturer may have different required thicknesses for the same type of steel member. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1046 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 10:22 am:    Thanks guys, CA backed off, 4specs saves the day again! Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 713 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 10:45 am:    Ron makes an excellent point. The required thickness can vary from one manufacturer to another, as is the case for many coatings. Expanding on that point, it often happens that increasing the mass of the steel will reduce the required thickness of the coating, resulting in a lower total cost for both steel and intumescent coating. And you may find that small pieces of steel cannot use intumescent coatings. If you specify a thickness, rather than requiring compliance with manufacturer's design, you assume the risk if it doesn't perform as expected. The installer will correctly argue, "I did what was specified." It may appear that specifying a minimum thickness and compliance with the manufacturer's instructions, as is common with metal framing, is a good solution. However, it may be that the coating does not perform as well at a thickness greater than it was designed for. Specifying the number of coats can be counterproductive. If one product performs as well with one coat, as another that requires two coats, specifying two coats unnecessarily increases the cost of the first product. Having said that, specifying two coats of a coating applied at small thickness may be justified, to reduce the likelihood that some areas are missed, or don't get enough coating. Michael Heinsdorf, P.E. Senior Member Username: michael_heinsdorf_pe Post Number: 12 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 11:17 am:    It sounds like the CA's comment was directed at the submittal requirements in Part 1 of the specification. As in where does the specification direct the contractor, in a submittal, to indicate the thickness of the chosen fireproof system? Otherwise, I agree with Ron and Sheldon. 3M's fireproofing website is a good example. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 431 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, February 06, 2014 - 01:12 pm:    As Ron points out, "Thickness is also a function of a steel member's shape and size". So for many projects with lots of steel shapes and sizes, you would be talking about a schedule based on one or more listed fire resistance designs. Schedules telling the Contractor where things go belong on the Drawings, not the specs. Telling the Contractor to conform to listed fire resistance designs belongs in the specs. In any case, one large west coast city we do a lot of work in won't even review 8.5x11 bound spec books, but they do want you to submit fireproofing schedules showing the selected design and the required thicknesses, so they have to be on the Drawings. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 702 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 03:55 pm:    So, how many people out there just copy UL designs and paste them into the drawings? I can't count the number of firms where I've seen that done as standard practice. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 154 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 05:15 pm:    Ken, I have had many AHJs require that you do just that. They would not accept anything else, even when they were informed that they were directing the architect to violate copyright law. Yes, the UL does enforce that, at least they use to. Steven, you are correct. The reason I hear from one AHJ was that they had to microfiche all their plans and specs so to include specs was cost prohibited. I don't know now so much since we are going to the electronic plan checking system and submitting plans electronically with more AHJs. I also think it deals with them having to read through a war and peace novel to get to the information. Let us face the fact that to review both drawings (which has skyrocketed tenfold in sheets) and specs (which has also gotten so thick and many volumes) would take a huge amount of time. Most AHJs have had to downsize or outsource their staff these days and live with tight budgets. Also their backlog press them to do quick scan reviews versus proper reviews. I recently saw city comments back from the reviewer and they were nothing but circled numbers on their review sheet that MAY apply to the project. About half of them did not. It was obvious that he scan reviewed it versus a thorough review of the drawings. Steven, if it the large west coast city (other ones, too) I know, they also typically wanted a door hardware schedule on the drawings, too. We created a very basic one to accommodate them and had the extensive one to match in the spec. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 435 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, February 11, 2014 - 06:02 pm:    Alan, They wanted pieces of spec sections on the drawings for various life safety, fire resistive assembly and structural design pieces that are often, if not always in the specifications. Bits of Quality Assurance, Perforamce Criteria as well as product data. We also issued real, thick as a brick spec books for those activiites that keep the AHJ employed: bidding and construction. But this creates a big headache because now you are putting the exact same words in two different places that you need to coordinate through plan review comments, bidders questions and construction RFI's, Substitutions and miscellaneous impositions of reality. For a moment I considered not saying things twice: If something absolutely had to be on the Drawings to satisfy the city, I would omit it from the spec. Something like: "1.3 - Quality Assurance (As shown on the Drawings)". But I like my specs to much to vandalize them.