Non Type X 5/8 inch gyp board

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

Author Message ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 124 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, December 30, 2011 - 10:08 am:    I'm just curious as to what people on this forum think. I've been in a LinkedIn discussion - http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=706547&type=member&item=84494165&qid=0d3ef09f-6a35-45b2-a0f2-675778d93f7a&trk=group_most_popular-0-b-ttl&goback=%2Egmp_706547 about this topic and I've raised what I think is a valid concern. I'd appreciate hearing what everyone else thinks about this. Am I off base? Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 980 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, December 30, 2011 - 11:59 am:    I posted my response in the LinkedIn discussion. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, December 30, 2011 - 03:19 pm:    can you give us the gist of the discussion? I am unable to access the link provided. I am not signed up for LinkedIn. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 126 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2012 - 09:57 am:    Essentially, I'm concerned about the new USG Ultralite product being used in the wrong location. In large part due to USG's influence years ago, all 5/8 inch gyp board was Type X. Architects responded by only using 5/8 inch board on many commercial and institutional projects, eliminating confusion and aiding in enforcement. Now with USG's Ultralite panel, 5/8 inch boards are again available in non-Type X. My contention is that these boards should have a very noticeable facer color that can be easily seen from across the job site. Once painted, there is no way to know whether a rated wall was built with the right board. I believe USG should at least make it as easy as possible to identify when the wrong board is used in the wrong application. As Architects, we don't inspect until Substantial Completion, too late to catch this type of mistake, so what do we do? Do we need to advise our clients to hire independent inspection agencies to make sure the right board is used? What are our responsiblities and liabilities when specifying this product on projects with rated and non-rated partitions? Innovation is a great thing, but responsibility is key. Very interested in hearing what others have to say about this. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 314 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2012 - 01:08 pm:    This brings to mind a substitution request we received a few years ago where the Contractor proposed to replace the many interior metal stud gauges we included on the drawings tailored to each specific condition and instead use the heaviest gauge, 16 gauge, used throughout. We thought we were trying to be frugal and save money, but the contractor explained that with one gauge throughout, he had just saved the cost of a senior job supervisor's salary. I would be very worried having two almost identical gypsum board products on a project with such different fire resistive characteristics. They might be visually identical after you strip off the paper tape that holds two panels face to face for shipping. And think of all the detail work where the installer just needs a small piece to finish a space and grabs the first one they see. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 437 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2012 - 01:50 pm:    If you intend to perform inspections suggest that they be systematic and performed as the work progresses. Because of professional liability implications many engineers and I assume architects will visit the site to observe the work but do not perform inspections. Once you decide inspections are necessary you need to ask if you require inspections of the type of gyp board what else is critical. This can be a delecate balance of the risk of a defect against the cost of inspections. Where do you stop? Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 472 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2012 - 02:45 pm:    When I first started in this business, the firm I worked for used to send people out to the jobsite full time to observe the work. Things like this got caught because they were there every day walking the Site. Owner's today don't want to pay for that anymore, so we as Architects or Engineers, are relegated to a few site visits for the duration of the Project and can't possibly catch everyting. The Owners may not need to hire an "inspector" per se, but should have someone on-site to observe and report to the Architect things that don't look right. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2012 - 02:58 pm:    I am unable to find the USG Ultralight gypsum board panel in anything other than 1/2 inch thickness. What am I missing? I have been told that 5/8 inch gypsum board, by its very nature, automatically classifies it as Type X - that being the minimum thickness required to meet the fire resistant standard for "Type X." Gypsum is gypsum, and it acts the way it does no matter what label might be attached to it - so, if you have 5/8 inch thick gypsum board, it IS Type X. Period. without any special sauce added to the product... Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 981 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2012 - 03:33 pm:    I just don't understand the fuss about a different gypsum panel type of the same thickness. What about other factors relevant to fire-resistive construction that may not be determined by just by looking at it from a distance, such as metal stud thickness, fastener type and spacing, joint protection, through-penetrations, etc.? What about submittals? Are we really that distrusting of contractors to install something contrary to what was submitted? Besides, is it really that difficult to spend a few extra minutes to walk over to where they are installing gypsum board to take a look at the panels to see if the correct ones are being used? Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 127 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, January 04, 2012 - 05:47 pm:    Here's an interesting development - http://www.usg.com/sheetrock-ultralight-gypsum-panels-firecode-x.html. Apparently while this thread was developing, USG released a lightweight Type X panel. They do still have the 30 minute version available - http://www.usg.com/sheetrock-ultralight-gypsum-panels-firecode-30.html and that still adds confusion, now with questionable benefit. OK, so we'll still need to keep an eye out to make sure that none of the 30 minute board shows up on jobsites instead of the Type X board but at least we can make sure that only one type of board is provided. I'd still be happier with a different color facer on the 30 minute board to make it easy to tell when it's being used. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1350 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 09:09 am:    I agree with Ron. Designers can't and shouldn't have to inspect (or observe) every little thing on a construction site. In addition, there seems to be an assumption that every contractor is trying to cheat the owner at every turn. This simply isn't so. Sure, we all have a few horror stories about corners being cut, but they stand out among the other tens of thousands of construction hours which are done properly. The fact is the vast majority of contractors build what the documents show, and introduction of this product does not change that. Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI Senior Member Username: dwhurttgam Post Number: 94 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 10:24 am:    With respect to the comment that "gypsum is gypsum", if you go to the USG website, it is noted that enhancers are added to the gypsum to make it either Firecode C or "X" type - it is not just the same gypsum as in the basic panels. Also the website shows 3 ultralight products - the std. which is 1/2" thick, an Ultralight Firedode 30 product which indicates specifically that it should not be used where Type "X" is required, but is acceptable for certain fire rated wall assemblies and an Ultralight Firecode "X" panel. Just for info. This adds a little to the mix. We have typically specified all 5/8" gypboard - the ultralight may be a good product for ceiling applications. It will be interesting to see if we begin to receive requests for voluntary substitutions if the reduced weight is significant enough to reduce installation costs. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1229 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 12:30 pm:    when I first started working, we typically used both 1/2 inch and 5/8 inch type X on projects -- and designated where each of them went. There was enough of a cost difference between the two panels that the owners got some cost savings from this tactic. then -- about 10 years later, labor costs had increased enough that we had the same result as above -- the supervisory/stocking/checking costs FAR outweighed the cost differential of the two boards and we shifted to 5/8" type X throughout. On a few former clients in Seattle, the owners made a decision to use only 1/2 inch board throughout, because their projects were non-rated and by switching to the 1/2 inch board, there still was a substantial cost savings. So, the lesson here is: do not mix boards unless there is a very good reason. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 128 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 02:08 pm:    Having worked as a gyp board installer in college back in the days before the change to all 5/8 inch board being Type X, I can tell you that no one on the jobsite knew or cared which boards went where. You grabbed whatever was closest and worked as fast as possible. We were paid by the board. To my knowledge, this has only gotten worse. Now you're telling me that I can grab a lighter board that is not compliant and as an installer I'm supposed to care whether or not it's Type X? Not going to happen unless someone is there to force me to. I do not advocate Architects being forced to INSPECT as I've noted several times above. Some poor soul however will need to protect the Owner which means the Owner will need to pay someone to make sure the installers are installing the right board. The CM/GC folks don't go out on the jobsite unless the Architect is dragging them around so I know they're not going to enforce this. The non-Type X board has a stencil that says something like 'Non Type X' on it. Without a distinct facer color that stands out, no one is going to check every board to make sure it doesn't have a stencil on it. Again, who will be liable when people die? Who has to tell the victims families if there is a fire and wrong board was installed? I'm as 'green' as anyone I know, but I don't think it's worth it to be able to claim to be sustainable, or to make a few extra bucks, and end up killing people. I'm not opposed to innovation. I typically like innovation. I'm not adverse to trying new products and I applauded USG when they came out with the 1/2 inch thick Ultralight panels. I like that they have a 5/8 inch Type X panel. I don't like that they have a non-type X 5/8 inch thick panel and believe that the least they should do is put a distinctive facer on it so I can tell from across the room when the wrong board is put in the wrong place. Apply the cost to marketing and tell everyone to look out for the XYZ color board to see the new lighweight panels. Just don't put it on the Type X panels. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 315 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 02:12 pm:    We have sometimes incredibly over zealous state inspectors on California hospital projects and we once learned that even all Type X 5/8-inch board is not the same. Like many architects, and as required for said hospital jobs, we reference wall assemblies by UL assembly numbers on the Drawings. What we learned was that where some manufacturer's Type X board was approved for both vertical and horizontal installation, other manufacturers had cut a corner and only had there board approved for vertical application. Our over zealous state inspector had a cheshire cat grin when this was pointed out in the field. It would take a couple hours which I do not intend to spend to cross check all the UL assemblies to see if this is still true in 2012, and you should be able to get an engineering judgement issued, but our specs will continue to say, "in strict conformance with assemblies shown on the drawings, including orientation of gypsum board panels". ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 129 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 02:42 pm:    To my understanding, only USG has successfully tested horizontal installation of Type X board in fire-rated conditions. I don't know if that includes their Ultralight Type X panels. Others have apparently tried and failed. I'm going to have to start charging USG for my time on this. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 317 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, January 05, 2012 - 02:59 pm:    Ken, I guilty of not being clear, concise and correct. What I meant was the actual orientation of the board on a vertical framed wall, with long side or short side parallel to the floor. In the fine print of the UL assembly some manufacturers board products are approved for "vertical or horizontal" application and others, with everything else the same only are approved for "vertical application".