Multiple Gypsum Board manufacturers o...

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

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 966 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - 07:54 pm:    We are already seeing shortages of gypsum board on projects here in Florida. One client has asked that we revise the specifications to allow multiple manufacturers. Does anyone have a concern regarding this? Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 390 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, March 13, 2013 - 08:25 pm:    I got into trouble on a hospital project in California with very aggressive code enforcement by the AHJ. Bear in mind this was 10 or so years ago. In short, not all gypsum board manufacturers had gone to the trouble of obtaining UL Design listings for fire rated gypsum board assemblies with the gypsum board oriented with the long side of the board placed both horizontal and vertical. Not all UL assemblies included the option, some would only include the vertical orientation. The installer in this case put it up either way based on most efficient use of materials and time. We had to pull down a couple hundred feet of corridor where the lower part of the wall was abuse resistant board and they had installed it horizontal to save cutting it into half high pieces. Another issue involving different manufacturers came up just last year (also only applicable to fire rated assemblies). You will be hard pressed to get an Engineering Judgement from anyone when the wall assembly has Brand A on one side and Brand B on the other. This can sneak up on you when one side is a tile assembly. Ron Beard CCS Senior Member Username: rm_beard_ccs Post Number: 404 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 12:39 pm:    Ever since the big law suit down south [Florida ??], I have always specified GWB be of domestic manufacture. "Fast is good, but accurate is better." .............Wyatt Earp Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 967 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 12:46 pm:    Ron, you mean the Chinesee Drywall incident? yes that was a costly one for many, we also have a clause regarding foreign products in our specs, but because there is so much international money funding current projects in South Florida, that concern is minimal, chinese products are overwhelming the market, both due to availability and cost. Forunately for exterior products we have the building code on our side, requiring NOA's (Notice of Acceptance) tested and approvd by the county authorities that limit the introduction of crapo building products, though this is also a hinderance to the use of new and innovative products...in SFL construction its always some problem that makes my job so damn difficult. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 538 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 06:11 pm:    Since most gypsum panel products really are commodity products (and I also try to limit this spec to domestic manufacturers), it makes no sense to me to require that all gyp products be from the same manufacturer. That being said, if I was a building code inspector and saw gypsum panels from 3 different manufacturers on the same fire-rated wall (with a specific UL design number), I would be more than a little nervous about accepting it without at least an engineering judgment from someone. But for straight drywall interior partitions? I wouldn't see a problem mixing them even on the same partition. Of course, there may be a deep dark proprietary difference in the chemical composition of the paper that might result in paint looking different.... Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 543 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 10:09 pm:    If gypsum panel products are a commodity, which I am inclined to believe, then why do the UL designs require that the product be from a specific manufacture? Obviously manufacturers like this approach because it allows them to create barriers for competitors. UL and the testing labs also like this because they get more business. I have seen UL reports for one product where the assembly called for one of the "generic" products in the assembly to be tested by UL. Thus this would put pressure other manufacturers of a generic product to have their product tested by UL. Note the generic product has a generic fire rating listed in the IBC. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 969 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 14, 2013 - 10:15 pm:    Mark, who do you think pays for the UL testing...from my experience its the manufacturer - these manufacturers don't play nice if they pay for it no one else gets to play or use it....and they don't like to share either. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 544 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 04:35 am:    Jerome I don't disagree. My point is that the way the system is set up the market place is distorted. How would you change the building code to allow one type of gypsum board for another in all assemblies based on test results of the respective board products? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 539 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 09:43 am:    The door hardware industry has managed to get their UL-listed products treated as fungible, commodity products. If the product has a UL lable, it can be used in any UL fire-rated door assembly. This is terribly useful and should be a model for other segments of the construction industry; unfortunately, it is not. I do believe there are some non-proprietary gypsum board assemblies that are UL listed. These systems typically use Type X gypboard with some being supported by wood studs and others by metal. You do have to be careful. Paul Sweet (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 12:43 pm:    The Gypsum Association GA-600 Fire Resistance Design Manual notes which assemblies are generic and which are proprietary. UL isn't the only testing agency for fire-resistance. http://www.gypsum.org/products/digital-download/fire-resistance-design-manual-digital-ga-600-12/ I'm still using the 2006 edition, which was the last free one that I know of. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1312 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 06:37 pm:    the only issue I can think of with multiple drywall manufacturers on one job would be how they accepted paint. Every drywall that I know of has slightly different absorption and "show-through" rates when they are coated. The heavy primer materials could probably take care of the problem, but its something I would discuss with the painter. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 970 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, March 15, 2013 - 09:01 pm:    Paul, send me an email at lazarcitec@msn.com, I have something to forward to you.