NFPA 285 Specifications

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

Author Message Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 237 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, February 21, 2014 - 03:16 pm:    Dear Esteemed Colleagues, With NFPA 285 requiring fire testing for entire assemblies, and some component manufacturers marketing jointly, has anyone specified the assembly in one section? Some of our envelope consultants try to specify their Division 08 in on Section, and that's a beast, especially when the envelope consultant is only responsible for parts of the envelope. For example, where do you specify Knight Wall Systems? The framing manufacturers want it in Div 05, and the insulation manufacturers want it in Div 07. Would we be better off putting it in Division 13, like a modular classroom assembly? - Jeffrey Wilson CSI CCS Senior Member Username: wilsonconsulting Post Number: 129 Registered: 03-2006 Posted on Friday, February 21, 2014 - 05:20 pm:    The spec on Knight Wall Systems website seems to use a logical approach: A single Div 07 section that includes cladding, supports, and insulation. This is similar to an insulated metal panel system, for which supports are spec'd as an element of the system in Div 07. Knight uses 074800, a made-up number that seems logical in MasterFormat. I think of Div 13 primarily for off-site fabricated assemblies or unitized systems. It seems like a site-constructed assemblage of components making up a wall cladding system belongs in Div 07. Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 366 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Friday, February 21, 2014 - 05:30 pm:    I put Knight in 07-4800 as their website features rainscreens, which is the section I set up for that. I have a separate section for fabricated panels such as Easi-Set, Metal-Crete and other fabricated panels: http://www.4specs.com/s/07/07-4300.html In many ways these are similar to GFRC panels (03-4900) and EIFS shop fabricated into panels (07-2400) Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.200.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Brian Payne, AIA Senior Member Username: brian_payne Post Number: 20 Registered: 01-2014 Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2014 - 08:49 am:    I'm trying to imagine the benefits have having brick, brick ties, insulation, air barrier, flashing, exterior sheathing, metal studs, and interior gypsum, interior paint, and rubber base in the same section.....and I can't. Sarcasm aside, I never quite understood the temptation to spec full assemblies, especially since you could easily have multiple variations. Seems like extra work. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1192 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2014 - 10:00 am:    Section 01 83 00 "Facility Shell Performance" would be a good place for the NFPA 285 requirements, as well as any requirement with which the building shell must comply. I think the MasterFormat facility performance numbers and titles are under-utilized. This section could specify which components are applicable to the assembly and how alternate materials, if permitted, would be approved under the specific conditions of the NFPA 285 tested assembly--these requirements would be more specific than the general requirements in the substitution request section. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 682 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Saturday, February 22, 2014 - 10:38 am:    One of the keys to understanding this is that although "complete" assemblies are tested, they aren't "listed" as assemblies. It is more like doors, frames, and hardware; if the item passes in one assembly it is accepted in others. We specify compliance with the appropriate tests can put Stanley hinges on an Algoma solid core door in a Steelcraft frame with a Corbin lockset, and an LCN closer. As long as all of it is UL labeled, its good to go. As this develops, I think you will see more labeling and certification of individual components with UL 285. You will have to specify compliance of individual components with UL 285 just like you have to do with doors, frames, and hardware. It is not out of the realm of possibility that UL will get into specific assembly testing, but I don't see it going that way. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 239 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2014 - 09:36 am:    Thank you all for your opinions. This is something we were bouncing around the office on Friday, and Mark Kalin suggested I ask you all. I can't remember if this started as a request from a manufacturer or an Architect. - Jeff and Colin, thanks for your input regarding KnightWall. - Brian, we agree with your thoughts too. Sarcasm is my favorite middle name. - Ron, I don't think we've ever done that, but it's an interesting concept. Personally I think we could make better use of specialty Div 01 Sections, but our client Architects and their various consultants are convinced that no one will read it there. They often want us to repeat Div 01 information in the technical sections. - Peter, that's an excellent analogy with doors, frames, and hardware. - ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 716 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2014 - 11:29 am:    Isn't this what the PPD is all about? I would love to have another opportunity to work on a project where I could generate a coherent PPD at SD and actually resurrect the old "Systems and Assemblies" portion of MasterFormat so I could bind it into the final Bid Document. What a great communication tool it would be, especially since it should, by definition, correspond to the Revit family that it would be based on. We could even modify our keynoting system to allow cross-references to both the UniFormat and MasterFormat numbers so the contractor and estimators could institute construction cost controls based on both assembly and work results. Unfortunately I don't see that happening in my lifetime. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 495 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2014 - 12:30 pm:    Ken, I think you're on to a direction in which specifications may evolve as Revit-type systems mature. I see the future of drawings and specifications moving to a more holistic approach, especially if we're thinking of systems rather than sort-of-related component parts. When I was at Perkins & Will, 30-some years ago, one of the specifiers from their Chicago office was a proponent of specifying on the basis of systems, kinda-sorta. I think that exterior components and interior components were grouped in adjoining sections (not according to MasterFormat), though not necessarily in a super-section. I remember this meant some duplication, eg there were separate sections for exterior steel doors and frames, and for interior steel doors and frames. It was an idiosyncratic approach advocated by just this one specifier; never caught on with anyone else at P&W. Will MasterFormat evolve accordingly? Will contracting evolve in a more systems way, ie will we see curtain wall subcontractors responsible for the entire exterior wall, so that there is a single sub responsible for aluminum framing, glass and glazing, stone or terracotta or whatever, air barrier, insulation, sheathing and studs, or masonry backup, firestopping, sealants, etc? Otherwise, we'll have to continue to rely on the general contractor to coordinate the work results of multiple subs to provide walls that comply with the specified performance requirements, whether those requirements are specified in a single Division 01 section or in the "technical" Sections. Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 165 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Monday, February 24, 2014 - 08:21 pm:    Dave and Ken, I think you are heading into the direction that I would like to see specs go to. In a way, it is trashing Masterformat (extreme statement) but goes where the industry heads. Uniformat is a better fit. I like PPDs. Ken has shown me that PPDs can go much further if developed and advance specifications with another option in specifying. With NFPA285, the wall assembly is becoming a wall system instead of individual trades. PPDs play well with BIM and is well suited for it. Finally, they also tend to be done with less paper. There may be a chance that a contractor may read them. It also would allow you to put them on the drawings and be included with the set. They also are great for design/build work. Food for thought... J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 686 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 03:43 pm:    While it is useful to conceive of a building as a relatively small number of assemblies with performance standards that can be explicitly required, the reality for most construction is a field assembly of discrete components with those assembly them frequently from different trades and even skill levels. The debate goes on around the country as to whether waterproofing people or masons should apply weather barriers behind masonry veneers and who should install the continuous insulation that goes with it. The specified assembly simply doesn't address the needs of field personnel in determining which components have to meet what--in many cases. When we have many more assemblies being shop fabricated and delivered to the site as an assembly, then this method of specifying will have more traction. Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: louis_medcalf Post Number: 22 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 - 04:53 pm:    There is also the issue that some manufacturers are starting to provide multi-product building enclosure systems that include work results from more than one MasterFormat category. For example, Firestone will provide a 10-year watertightness warranty for their NFPA 285 tested system of ACM cladding, insulation, and WRB. I have combined UniFormat spec sections with MasterFormat sections for specialty construction for hospitality and entertainment projects.