"G-40 equivalent" / "G40e"...

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

Author Message Scott Mize Senior Member Username: scott_mize_ccs_csi Post Number: 70 Registered: 02-2009 Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 05:18 pm:    Has anyone encountered this? http://tinyurl.com/mwvvx2a Obviously, Marino-Ware has "a dog in [this] fight", but this is something for which I'll nonetheless be on the lookout... ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 537 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 06:07 pm:    I just received the flyer from M-W. Pretty sad if this is happening. I haven't heard of it but I guess we need to put our CA folks on alert. G40e? How sad is this? Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 588 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 06:37 pm:    Regardless of M-W's involvement, it sounds like another attempt to slip an inferior product by us diligent spec writers! I have alerted our people in our CA offices, and some friends in other firms to "be on the look out" for this stuff. Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 398 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, June 18, 2013 - 06:53 pm:    How many LEED accredited youngsters just starting in CA will automatically assume that the "e" in G40e means this must be the better product because it must be good for the environment? Perhaps Diet G-40 is more accurate. Hooman Aryan (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 09:32 am:    I agree with the above on notifying CA, but I also revised our office spec section. I am just surprised that I have not heard anything from Clark Dietrich or other major steel stud manufacturers. Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 117 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 02:07 pm:    Clark Dietrich, as well as most other manufactures of steel framing, offers all three types of coatings: hot-dipd glavanized (G40, G60), and equivalent coatings G40E and CP60, for example. If you want galvanized coatings, simply specify the coating to be "ASTM A653/A653M, G40, hot-dip galvanized." anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 02:45 pm:    What's the big deal about this anyway? If the protective coating does what it is supposed to do (protect the steel from corrosion while exposed on the job site, prior to the building being dried-in), what difference does is make whether it's zinc or something else? spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 05:42 pm:    I believe anon may bring up a valid point (even if his point was made jokingly. can not gauge sarcasm online). There are a lot of various steel stud installation details and locations within a typical structure (office building for instance). We would routinely specify different gauges, etc. for the various areas. The studs at the curtain wall are often different than the interior studs separating two typical offices. Is it possible that you could utilize "Diet G-40" for some of the studs that are less likely to be exposed to potential fenestration leaks, condensation issues, etc. My gut reaction is to use G40,hot dip for everything and specifically exclude G40e as an option but maybe it does have it's place as long as it's place is clearly defined. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 598 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 06:07 pm:    I think the original purpose of this thread has gotten lost in the shuffle. The issue wasn't over G60 or G40. It was the fact that the steel stud material was coming from China, and that the referenced G40e was not even an ASTM Standard coating system. Also, Ken's CA reference wasn't to Contruction Administration but to our California office. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 575 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, August 05, 2013 - 09:01 pm:    Conspectus has a good info page about standard zinc coatings - http://www.conspectusinc.com/downloads/Documents/Conspectus%20Tech%20Tips%20C1010%20Zinc%20Coatings%20and%20Metal%20Studs%20rev10.12.30.pdf. To anon: Why should my client pay the same amount for an unknown quantity (G40e) instead of a known level of protection (G40). G40 has been an industry standard for interior framing for years. Keep in mind that framing does not appear miraculously on-site, transported to a nice, dry environment. It tends to sit around bundled up outside getting damp or wet. I know what to expect from a G40 coating that meets ASTM standards. I have no idea what to expect from a coating that is being passed off as something 'just as good as G40'. Once there is an equivalent ASTM standard for G40e, I'll take a look at it. Right now, it has taken up way more of my time than I'm comfortable with. anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 01:52 pm:    To Ken: Your client wouldn't be paying for G40 in getting G40e, your client would be paying less for G40e which would in all likelihood be a perfectly acceptable level of protection for 99% of all the steel studs in the building. And maybe the reputation of our profession would be helped just a little bit in recognizing that it's not always about "i've done it this way for 30 years, blah, blah, blah..." in today's world, and more about providing good service to our clients. Do you really think that a little bit of oxidation on steel studs installed in the interior of a building is some sort of major issue? It is not. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, we have been over-specifying when requiring G40 protection and that clients have been needlessly spending more money for this? I see rust on interior structural steel members on job sites all the time. No prob. There is no requirement for primer on structural steel. I specify screws with either galvanized coatings or proprietary corrosion resistant coatings all the time. Never had a problem with the coatings. Again, I ask, what is the big deal? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 578 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 05:55 pm:    Sounds like you have a dog in this fight. My dog is to protect my clients and, again, I'm going to stay with what I know until I know what the other option actually provides. If this option is so good, why isn't there an industry standard for it? I'm usually among the first to try new technologies. I just like to know what I'm using before I buy into it. I'm an open book in what I say and what I do. Why stay anonymous? Who do you work for? Alan Mays, AIA Senior Member Username: amays Post Number: 133 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 06:25 pm:    @anon: I think you are missing Ken's point here. He is fine with the other material if it has a test. We can let you be the first to test it out without the ASTM. You might want to talk with your insurance carrier before proceeding as you might be paying for it out of your pocket. You may also need to review all the codes to be sure that you are not in violation of building codes. I remember when certain Chinese bolts began to fail because they did not meet US specifications. As far as your comment about the 30 years experience, well as any risk taker will discover, when you fail, it will cost you. Those tests and standards are there for a reason, HSW. All you imply that you want to do is provide your client an untested method that saves him some initial cost. The cost of replacement later may be a lot more than he expected, since he did not expect to have it fail in the first place. You also state that you feel that "just maybe, we have been over-specifying when requiring G40 protection..." Interesting statement when mold and mildrew is one large problem in the construction industry today. That means that water is present. That is why the specifications usually require this. That was the 30 years experience that has shown it. Finally, check out the case in court with the shopping mall in Canada. The collapse killed people. The roof leaked and the structure rusted. The client tried a coating that never worked from day one. The architect was dragged into the case 25 years after the fact. The cost of that defense and the lawyers he had to get costs money. That is why these tests exist and why we always want to be safe about it. HSW is where the buck stops. Dave Metzger Senior Member Username: davemetzger Post Number: 467 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 06:35 pm:    Anon: A little surface rust on rolled structural steel members is much different than rust on sheet steel studs, which are a fraction of the thickness of rolled members. Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 06:22 pm:    Why does it matter who I work for? My points are just as valid as anyone else that is allowed to post (thank you, Colin) on this forum. I don't have a dog in this fight. I am learning about this for this first time. I am a specifier for a large firm. I did a little more research and found out that BEFORE galvanized coatings on steel studs were standard, red oxide paint was used - on cold formed steel studs. Paint. No issues with corrosion protection. Ever. The reason paint went away was due to more and more restrictions on VOCs. Enter galvanizing. The ASTM standards that govern protective coatings on steel studs allow multiple types of coatings. Not limited to only G40 or G60 zinc. The standards allow G40e as long as it meets the minimum performance established in the standard. One manufacturer I spoke with that provides this type of coating, Clark Dietrich, has lab testing showing their G40e coating far outperforms a G40 coating when subjected to salt spray. It's better than G40. The G40e coating from Clark Dietrich is actually TWO coatings - a proprietary coating OVER a galvanized coating - the latter deposited over the base metal at the mill. In some cases the G40e is less costly than G40 - so not only will you get better corrosion resistance, but at a cheaper price. I think my clients will appreciate that I know what I am talking about when it comes to this, and that I am not blindly going along with the manufacturer that doesn't like (because it cannot provide) a superior, less costly G40e coating. I also think that my clients will appreciate that I am not stubbornly adherent to some antiquated way of doing something just because it's always been done that way. In this case, that would mean sticking with red oxide paint over plain steel studs. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 202 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 08:05 am:    Anon: I tend to stay out of dog fights since they usually solve nothing and take time away from other things I want to do. That said, in your post of “August 06, 2013 - 06:22 pm” made some statements that are incorrect” • “No issues with corrosion protection. Ever.”. I have vivid memories of badly rusted painted studs on several projects I have worked on since I started in 74. Corrosion was definitely an issue. • “The reason paint went away was due to more and more restrictions on VOCs.” While VOCs might have been an issue, the fact that galvanization works even if the coating is scratched was (and is) more of an issue. Even screws in painted studs create potential corrosion sites much more readily than screws in galvanized studs. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 579 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 08:45 am:    Clark Dietrich has been a player for a long time and knows the drill. If this new coating is, in fact, as good or better than G40, that's great. They're a big enough player and are involved in ASTM. If they want to change the industry, it's incumbent on them to prove their case. That means giving the industry a standard that we can use. I'm not going to give them a competitive advantage just because they say so. I'm not from Missouri, but they still need to show me. It sounds like you've researched this a lot more than I have. Is this coating self-healing like other zinc coatings? Again, you might not care about rusted studs, but as others have already noted, fastener failures and other problems are just that, problems. Why should I make my life more difficult, and increase my potential liability, on the promise to save my clients a small fraction of a percent of the cost of the project which they may or may not see? anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 12:36 pm:    My comments were specific to what this thread is about - INTERIOR non-structural metal stud framing, and all of my comments are accurate; no corrosion issues, no rusted/failed screws, etc. I have not addressed EXTERIOR enclosure cold-formed load-bearing metal stud framing. That is a different topic, with a different set of issues. I would not specify G40 or G40e for exterior enclosure cold-formed metal framing - my minimum for this is CP60 - which is in the standard. I say again - G40e is addressed in the ASTM standards. Clark Dietrich has nothing to prove, they comply with the specified standards. it is Marino/Ware that is unnecessarily stirring the pot on this, in my opinion, because they can't compete. I am sure that they had their say in the Standards development as well, and that any objections they raised were ultimately dismissed by the committee members. That's how the consensus process works. The advice to specifiers from Marino/Ware to exclude any and all Standard-acceptable coatings except galvanized will most certainly cause you trouble at some point, because you will have to come up with some sort of justification why. There is none. Michael Kerner (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, August 09, 2013 - 10:10 am:    I wanted to weigh in on this issue. I am the Code Development Manager for ClarkDietrich, a Fellow of ASTM, and I am currently the Chairman of ASTM Committee C11 (which has jurisdiction over ASTM C645) and Vice Chairman of Committee A05 (which has jurisdiction over A1003, which covers the metallic coated sheet steel specified in C645). I think it is important to separate the facts from the innuendo. The issue of whether “EQ” coating are permissible is a veiled attempt by some to confuse specifiers and users into believing that only one particular coating type meets the specification requirements. Let’s look at what the code requires and then you decide. The IBC specifies in Chapter 25, Table 2506.2, that nonstructural studs should meet the requirements of ASTM C645. This is the code requirement that all manufacturers must conform to. This has been the code requirement since the I-codes were written and possibly before then. ASTM C645, paragraph 4.2 has specific requirements for the coating used on the studs. It specifically states “Members shall have a protective coating conforming to Specification A653/A653M – G 40 minimum or shall have a protective coating with an equivalent corrosion resistance.” How do we know the coatings provide “equivalent corrosion resistance”? The coatings used are typically tested side-by-side against a known sample of G40, using the ASTM B117 testing procedure. Test results prove that equivalent coatings outlast the corrosion protection of the G40 coating. The SFIA, the largest steel stud industry association, representing the vast majority of all of the tonnage used in the manufacture of cold-formed steel framing with an all-inclusive membership of manufacturers, distributors, contractors, and engineers, in its Code Compliance Certification Program recognizes “EQ” coatings and has incorporated them into their compliance program. Manufacturer members of the SFIA using “EQ” coatings are subject to random unannounced inspections and have products chosen and tested using the B117 procedure to make sure they meet the program requirements. SFIA’s Code Compliance Certification Program IS THE ONLY ONE ENDORSED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF WALLS AND CEILINGS (AWCI). Our “EQ” coated products meet or exceed the minimum IBC Code standards as set forth by ASTM specifications and the Code Compliance Certification Program of the SFIA. We have hundreds of thousands of hours of testing to prove the coatings meet the requirements and we are third party audited, tested, and certified. “ANON” is correct in his posted statements. If you take the time to look at the requirements you will see that your clients are not getting less and paying more. They are in fact getting a Code Compliant coating that is superior to a G40 coating. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 582 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 01:02 pm:    Thanks Michael. Looking at C645 I don't see a G40e designation. Please explain where the performance criteria for that is located. Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 03:12 pm:    See paragraph 4.2 for the requirement in ASTM C645 for protective coating which reads: "Members shall have a protective coating conforming to Specification A 653 - G 40 minimum or shall have a protective coating with an equivalent corrosion resistance. ASTM A 653 establishes minimum prescriptive criteria for metallic coatings as well as a reference to ASTM A924 for additional requirements. Neither of these standards establishes a performance criteria for corrosion resistance. ASTM A 924 states the following in Paragraph 5 - Materials and Manufacture: "Hot-dip metallic coatings are used to provide corrosion protection to steel sheets. Hot-dip metallic coatings are available in six different types.... Each coating type is available in various coating weights which provide varying degrees of corrosion protection and the consumer should consult the individual producers for applicability to the intended application...." So, if ClarkDietrich has taken it upon themselves to independently test their protective coating against any/all of the metallic coatings described in the above referenced ASTM standards, using a test method/ASTM standard that it feels is the most appropriate, and those test results show that its protective coating exceeds that of an equivalent metallic coating, what is there to be concerned about? Is it that you don't think ASTM B117 is the right test? If not, do you have some other test method that you want to see? What is that test? Aren't you just flogging a dead horse at this point? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 583 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 04:14 pm:    Paranoid much? I'm trying to understand the information you are presenting. Are you always this nasty? You are the one who referred to G40e as "diet G40" implying that it wasn't as good as G40. Then you get huffy, claiming it's better. All I'm saying is that I can't find a reference to a designation called G40e and would like to see the standard that defines what it is. I understand what hot-dipped galvanizing is on various steel surfaces. I understand galvalume, galvaneale, and other options. I do not understand what G40e is. What is the process? Is it a form of galvanizing defined by ASTM? If so, what is the actual designation? It's not a trick question. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 601 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 04:24 pm:    My solution: Don't specify or allow G-40e until an independent 3rd party (Recognized Testing Agency), not the stud manufacturers, puts out a definitive statement. It's that simple. David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 14 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, August 20, 2013 - 04:35 pm:    Anon: I have to say something after reading all of the posts and your responses. It is clear that you have done your homework and have an informed opinion on this. Mr. Kerner provides some well-written affirmation that you should thank him for. But I have to say your informed opinion is obscured by your obvious irritation at the resulting dialogue. People like Ken Hercenberg, Dave Metzger, Scott Mize, Ann Whitacre, and others have been making specification writing a real profession for many years and for the benefit of all of us. They are critical thinkers who are immune to mere marketing claims and unsolicited endorsements. They have seen lots of apparently good things turn sour and are thus reluctant to suspend their skepticism and give a manufacturer the benefit of the doubt, especially if it eliminates the possibility of competition. Your exasperation at their scrutiny really shows, as if to say "Everyone quit asking questions and accept what I am saying." Rather than flogging dead horses, the posters above are really swatting flies. Don't take it personally. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 616 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2013 - 06:49 pm:    I just received an e-mail from the Certified Steel Stud Association re: the G40e issue.[info@certifiedsteelstud.ccsend.com] ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 605 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, September 27, 2013 - 09:40 am:    I got that too. Link provided: http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001QzeNFZxFsrY5DyXBpV2DpE9nvI4MqPc6UNDdOnbWlThA0xgtCWTNNs7O1dBje8yrI8umq_1LO1GO6e3JnrOlV_ey6sG7SYZfAKSRoF76kZER_RWC2stozObzSGvB8DLXt90nJmYreUftVt7Vu0MRuLpuQrm0wi1vhZ6FxwMj4YSSJtPcNwdbCld-0DtquEO6p4qh_K6g9YNJbiC_mPdjOA== It seems like a turf war is going on and that different manufacturers are creating "Associations" who are making up their own standards. Several have been around for many years and are ones I'm familiar with such as SSMA. We now seem to have an alphabet soup of steel stud associations. To me, the most telling statement in the document that was sent is this "ICC-ES does not recognize G40e as a substitute for G40 in any code evaluation report." Frankly, this sort of BS sucks precious time away from real work and puts us in the uncomfortable position of redefining what is really needed. There seem to be two separate issues. First, is the EQ product truly equivalent? It doesn't sound like it and no one seems interested in providing definitive testing to show that it does. Second, is the level of protection currently being specified needed? I don't know. We have no control as to how long product is stored outside either in storage yards or on jobsites. We have no way to control how long installed product is left exposed before being closed in. With the apparent increase in pollutants and corrosives in our atmosphere, my kneejerk reaction is to err on the side of caution and stick with the known quantity. Changing ASTM Standards and obtaining ICC-ES approvals would be a huge step towards changing my mind. Until those happen, this needs to go away. Michael C. Kerner, FASTM, CSI, CDT (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, September 28, 2013 - 11:23 am:    Ken: You are correct - Too much innuendo and “opinion”. The facts are: The requirements for coatings for nonstructural studs are in IBC 2012 in Chapter 25 - Table 2506.2 which specifically references ASTM C645 for all the nonstructural studs. ASTM C645 states: “Members shall have a protective coating conforming to Specification A653/A653M – G 40 minimum or shall have a protective coating with an equivalent corrosion resistance. We have extensive test data to confirm our EQ out performs Hot Dipped G40, it is verified by a third party ISO 17020 Inspection Company and approved to be in compliance with the IBC in IAPMO ER 0189. If anybody wants to see actual test documentation please email me at Michael.Kerner@ClarkDietrich.com. We have nothing to hide and therefore do not post anonymously. We have been using equivalent coatings successfully for 25 years. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 609 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, September 30, 2013 - 12:55 pm:    Thanks Michael. I appreciate the clarification and enjoyed talking with you. As we discussed, I've been specifying ClarkDietrich in its many variations for years and usually have a high comfort level in doing so. I would like to see the testing docs and will send you an email. Looking at IAPMO ER 0189 - http://www.iapmoes.org/Documents/ER_0189.pdf, I see that the requirement of G40 or equivalent is identified as part of the criteria for passing so I suppose that achieving a passing 'grade' qualifies the product; what I'd like to see somewhere is a clear, definitive statement from the testing agency that states that the EQ/G40e coating has been evaluated against the G40 criteria and has been found to be equivalent to the Code-based requirement. Sort of what we are used to seeing when assessing substitution requests. Is that available in the information you will be sending by email? I hope that one day all of the steel stud manufacturers can unite in a single association with consensus on this issue (whatever that ends up needing to be). It will sure make our lives a lot easier. Michael C. Kerner, FASTM, CSI, CDT (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, October 14, 2013 - 02:22 pm:    For those interested, there is a free webinar presented by the SFIA tomorrow from 2p -3p EST. The link below is to register and it also provides more information about the topic of the webinar. https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/859922496 Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 630 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, October 15, 2013 - 06:53 pm:    I did listen to the webinar this morning. It was interesting and served to clarify a few things. It basically equates to applying a metallic coating to an already metallic coated material called "automotive excess electrogalvanized". The metal stud manufacturers have latched onto it because they can provide a less expensive product with apparently better corrosion resistance than plain G40 hot-dipped galvanize. It still probably warrants further research. Jim Tooke (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, October 18, 2013 - 12:57 pm:    I have been on the sales end of this business for many years. Not a PE but a sales and marketing person. Too much cheating in this business has gone on without any recourse. The guy that can cheat the best is the guy that can make the most money. Seems common to the installatiion companies too. The company that misses part of the job is low bid and gets the job then cuts corners during all of the job to try and make it up. Crazy but seems to be true. The Steel Framing business needs quality to come back. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 627 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, October 18, 2013 - 04:06 pm:    Okay, so I looked at the test data that CD sent and then looked up the product info for the coatings they listed. Not sure why no one just said that they put a zinc-chromate/acrylic coating over an A40 mill coating. This discussion could have been over months ago. Hey, Clark-Dietrich, who should I bill my time to? I looked up TecCoat (one coating supplier) and ChemGuard by EcoGreen (another coating supplier). No useful information readily available from TecCoat but ChemGuard appears to be a zinc chromate coil coating with an acrylic additive or topcoat. Not sure how anything with chromate can be called 'green' but sure, this combination should be effective for interior conditions where self-healing properties of a heavier zinc coating aren't typically needed. Bottom line, the steel appears to receive an A40 galvannealed zinc coating from the mill and then receives a coil coating from either TecCoat (claims to be chromate-free) or Eco-Green ("Green" chromate? Really?) CD uses a coater called Chemcoaters to do their coil coating. I'm not a big chromate fan or a big acrylic fan but this type of product should be good for 10+ years and, since it's buried inside a wall, probably a whole lot more. It's not like I'm going to care what it looks like (aesthetics) as long the stud continues to perform. I'm still specifying G40 and will deal with this as a substitution. Get the Code folks to specifically okay its use and I'll change my spec. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 836 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2014 - 01:11 pm:    So does this constitute adequate proof of meeting Code requirements? http://www.archtest.net/certification/Download.aspx?DocID=346&CN=cnCodeCompliance Seems to me that ATI has confirmed that G40eq meets Code requirements but I'm curious as to how others interpret this. James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 153 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 09:26 am:    Ken, your reviving this thread is timely. We have a lunch-n-learn on this topic scheduled in our office next Wednesday (Nov. 5). I'll review the links on this thread and report back if I learn anything useful that has not already been mentioned. Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1908 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 10:46 am:    Looking forward to your update, James. Thanks, in advance, for sharing. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 691 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 12:44 pm:    ATI has not confirmed that G40eq meets the code requirements rather they have rendered an opinion that it provides equivalent performance to what you specified. Do you understand the basis for their opinion. These evaluation reports do not have any formal status with respect to the building code. If is my opinion that these reports are engineering or architectural reports and as such should be sealed and stamped by a registered engineer or architect. If the substitution does not comply with the provisions in the building code then you will need to obtain the approval from the building official. The California Attorney General has issued an opinion that such approvals have to be specific to the individual project. Ultimately the architect or engineer will be responsible for the adequacy of the substitution. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1602 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 04:36 pm:    It is true that final acceptance is up to the building official, as it states right in the ER. However, many jurisdictions will accept them, even if California's AG feels they should not be. ERs are not intended to be professional opinions of a professional engineer or architect, they are supposed to be something else less costly and complicated. Architect's issue a professional "opinion" about the code every time they stamp a set of drawings, which certifies that the plans meet code. Anyway, a couple of things to note about the ER itself. One is that the ER is for "Properties" of "structural performance" and "fire resistance." Corrosion resistance, which arguably could be considered an element of structural performance, is not mentioned. However, the ER states that evidence submitted to them included test results for ASTM C645 demonstrating corrosion resistance equivalent to G40. I don't have a copy of that, but isn't that what this discussion is all about? Whether they meet the equivalent corrosion resistance? Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 692 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - 09:47 pm:    Where does the code specifically require corrosion protection for metal studs? Is that requirement specified in terms of ASTM C645? If not then how do you show that it is equivalent to G40. Forget for a moment that ATI has issued an evaluation report and treat this as a substitution. Would you find the product acceptable? Agree that design professionals render opinions regarding code compliance. In doing so it is assumed that they have investigated the issues and have a basis for their opinion. In this context if there is a problem the design professional, not the issuer of the evaluation report, is responsible for their opinion. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1270 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 02:25 am:    IBC Tables 2506.2 and 2507.2 (2012 IBC) refer to ASTM C 645. ASTM C 645, Paragraph 4.2, states, "Members shall have a protective coating conforming to Specification A 653/A 653M - G 40 minimum or shall have a protective coating with an equivalent corrosion resistance." The problem is that neither ASTM C 645 or A 653/A 653M have any performance requirements for corrosion resistance. Apparently, the minimum corrosion resistance is presumed based on complying with the prescriptive chemical, physical, and mechanical requirements. Thus, to determine corrosion resistance performance, a stud complying with ASTM C 645 would need to be tested per a standard like ASTM B 117, Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus, to establish a baseline to which other "equivalent" coatings can be compared. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 837 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 09:57 am:    Agreed, but do we need to require that the 'equivalent' coating be recognized by a service such as ICC-ES Evaluation Report? Is the ATI CCRR-0207 equivalent to an ICC-ES Evaluation Report in this instance? Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1271 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 11:16 am:    In my personal opinion, maybe. In Section 6.5 of the ATI-ES they state that supporting evidence was provided in the form of "reports of testing and evaluation of G40EQ coatings to verify equivalent corrosion resistance to G40 coated specimens per the requirements of ASTM C645." So, apparently there is something that documents that performance. If corrosion of metal studs is a real possibility within the area, I would ask for that supporting evidence. Otherwise, building officials may accept the report "as is." Since ICC-ESRs are very well-received by building officials, I wonder why they didn't go to them? It could be cost; however, ClarkDietrich is not a struggling small business. Just curious... Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1604 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 12:39 pm:    I wouldn't use G40 in any sort of damp environment anyway, so I would be completely comfortable with a G40 equivalent in such locations. I'd want to see the tests, however. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 694 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 02:01 pm:    You do not need to require that the product be recognized by ICC-ES or ATI. Such recognition does not provide any special status under the code. If your desire is to convince the building official to go along with your decision evaluation reports have been found useful since many building officials will accept such products without thinking. Some building officials have been known to improperly insist on evaluation reports from specific agencies. The manufacturers of products hire evaluation services such as ICC-ES and ATI to produce reports in hopes that you will delegate responsibility for the decision to the evaluation service. If you were to ask the evaluation service for the test data that they based their report on I believe you will be told that it is proprietary and not available. The product manufactures hire evaluation services in order so as not to make test data available to design professionals and their competitors. One manufacturer has said that he likes evaluation reports because when designers insist on them it eliminates competition from manufacturers that do not have them because their customers typically require these reports. Think restraint of trade. From a liability perspective the existence of an evaluation report does not relieve the architect or engineer of the responsibility to independently make the decision as to the appropriate use of the product. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 838 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 02:35 pm:    Mark, to an extent that is true but I am able to hold manufacturers responsible when they make specific claims pertaining to my projects. If they misrepresent, I can go after them. I do rely on these reports. In this case, ClarkDietrich is happy to share the tests with anyone who asks for them. I don't consider myself qualified to determine if this equivalent coating is in keeping with Code so I want to be able to go in with a piece of paper from a trusted testing service that says "Yes, this does comply with Code." The reports are typically signed by Professional Engineers who take this very seriously. If they screw up and I get blamed, I'm dragging them into court with me. This report is, in my mind, sufficiently vague regarding the coating so I am looking for others to weigh in. I can make a case for saying that ATI has evaluated the coating and that it is equivalent however they essentially say that they did not test the coating. They only reviewed the information that CD gave them and are basing their statements on that information. I'd like to know that someone, somewhere, has done a Code-recognized, side-by-side test to determine the equivalency of this coating. It's become a pain in my side and I'm considering telling my designers to eliminate all metal studs from our projects and go back to masonry and sticks. Not the same Anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 12:41 pm:    Good discussion and an enlightening thread so far. If I'm understanding correctly, the question at this point is whether or not the G40EQ coating offers equivalent corrosion resistance as a G40 coating.The hangup is that while manufacturers and the CCRR say it is equivalent, there is no standard test or protocol to determine the equivalency of the coating. For while ASTM C 645 allows for an equivalent coating, it never defines how the equivalency is measured and determined. So really any manufacturer could develop their own procedure to test the equivalency and say it meets the requirements of ASTM C 645. At that point it is just open to interpretation, whether or not there is a CCRR, or an ICC-ES report, or just someone looking at some pictures and saying, "Yep! looks good to me." Is that a fair summary? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1605 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 05:30 pm:    It is true that ATI did not test the product for corrosion, at least as represented in the ER. (They may actually have been the testing agency that did the ASTM C645 test, but we don't know.) However, the process of preparing an ER does not actually include any testing, as far as I know. They are merely a review of data provided to them by a manufacturer, along with a judgement as to whether the data provided is sufficient evidence to determine that the product meets the intent of the code. Ronald L. Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1272 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2014 - 09:03 pm:    John, you're correct. ATI-ES and ICC-ES do not perform any testing, although ATI does have a testing element within their company. I know that ICC-ES does not do any testing at all. Evaluations are just that--an evaluation. They look at the data and evidence provided and make a judgment. Ron Geren, FCSI, AIA, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 802 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, November 03, 2014 - 11:02 am:    Interesting conversation. I understand the attempt to determine if the equivalent coatings are truly equivalent, but I wonder if the same diligence is exercised for all products. Granted, this is a new product, but do we show the same concern for products we inherited from our predecessors? Or do we simply accept what already exists? I know that when I began writing specifications I accepted the existing masters pretty much as they were written, and began investigating only as I encountered unknown products. Soon I began questioning What Was Written. The office hollow metal master was a typical (for that time and place) spec based on Trussbilt. After using it for a while, I noticed that it listed several acceptable manufacturers, none of whom produced a door that was assembled the same way as Trussbilt doors. While it's often argued that merely listing a manufacturer as acceptable does not mean its products comply with the specifications, it's not a good practice. After talking with the construction administration staff, I learned that doors and frames from all of the listed manufacturers were being accepted, even though they did not comply with the specifications. Not only that, but Trussbilt rarely bid on the projects. So I changed the specifications. It's common for hardware suppliers to furnish specifications for architects. One supplier's specifications for door closers parroted LCN literature, down to part dimensions. The result, of course, was a sole-source specification. There is nothing inherently wrong with sole-source specs, unless the owner prohibits them. The funny thing about this supplier's specs was that, after essentially specifying in detail an LCN closer, the last paragraph stated in a single sentence that a competitor's aluminum body closer was also approved. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." Mark Twain might have been a specifier. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 839 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, November 03, 2014 - 11:38 am:    Agreed. I don't, by nature, accept as gospel anything from previous lore including things I wrote myself. Things change and, outside of a handful of golden reps, no one is going to tell me when my specs are causing more trouble than not. This topic has become a major pain in my side (not left, right, or front) and perhaps my neck. I wish we had time to dissect every topic this way but I suppose we would get no paying work done. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 803 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Monday, November 03, 2014 - 11:56 am:    Good point about not trusting what you wrote yourself. About twenty years ago I wrote an infection control section for one of my employers. A couple of years ago a client sent an infection control section to me. It seemed familiar, and I soon realized it was the same section I had written long ago; apparently, it had done some traveling. Even though the client's section and mine were the same long ago, the client simply kept using that section while I continually updated my own. It was fun trying to convince the client that their section was out of date. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 701 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Monday, November 03, 2014 - 02:53 pm:    Back to the original post in 2013, I am quoting from CSSA Opinion paper: ICC-ES does not recognize G40e as a substitute for G40 in any code evaluation report. Even SFIA’s own ICC-ES (ESR-2457) report for their G40e is not among them. G40e is a corrosion standard established by a handful of manufacturers based on salt spray tests of 75 hours. G40e is not hot-dipped galvanized (99% Zinc). G40e is a misnomer, because equivalent metallic coatings are listed in Table 1 of ASTM A1003. At this time, acceptable metallic coatings include only the seven nearly pure coatings listed in Table 1. So far, attempts to get necessary support at ASTM in order to add G40e type coatings have failed. Therefore, the claims of coating equivalency, are not substantiated by ASTM, AISI or ICC-ES. So far, equivalency to G40 has been defined by the manufacturers promoting their own G40e coatings. Scott Piper Senior Member Username: spiper Post Number: 14 Registered: 08-2014 Posted on Monday, November 03, 2014 - 03:24 pm:    While the equivalency issue is an important one it still needs to be determined if G40e is not acceptable for some installations (under the right conditions). Even if you believe that G40e is inferior in comparison to G40 (which I believe to be the case) there could still be instances where G40 is above and beyond what is required for some locations. The bigger issue may be to determine where to draw the line. (I make this argument hypocritically since I still require G40 and have not approved G40e as an acceptable substitute.) James Sandoz, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: jsandoz Post Number: 155 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Monday, November 10, 2014 - 08:41 am:    I apologize for my tardiness in making good on my offer to convey what I heard at the lunch-n-learn in my office on Nov. 5th. I was attending the Texas Society of Architects convention last Thurs. - Sat. which kept my schedule pretty full. Basically, Ron Geren's comments on this thread from Oct. 30th pretty much sum up what I was told last week. The G40 eq coatings provide equivalent corrosion protection, yadda, yadda. The presenter showed nice pictures to “prove” the claim. I didn’t put the word prove in quotes to be sarcastic; it is just that I didn’t witness the tests personally. The presenter had more to say about the other physical equivalencies of the G40 eq product than just its resistance to corrosion. This primarily got back to the thinner, dimpled vs. thicker sheet argument of a while back. I did notice on the comparison tables offered the G40 eq product was 50ksi steel vs. 36ksi for the other. Bottom line: I’m staying with regular G40 for light gauge metal framing that has a greater possibility of “seeing” dampness, i.e partitions around shower rooms, commercial kitchens, and ware wash areas. The G40 eq seems fine for all other applications.