| Author |
Message |
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 05-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 01:59 pm: |    |
A client asked this question and since I am not an EIFS guy, I barely ever specify EIFS, I am hoping my peers can answer this. Thanks. |
Liz O'Sullivan
Senior Member
Username: liz_osullivan
Post Number: 130
Registered: 10-2011
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 02:11 pm: | |
This might get your client going on the right track: http://www.stocorp.com/index.php/en/20120726716/Architect/what-is-nfpa-285/menu-id-392.html |
Liz O'Sullivan
Senior Member
Username: liz_osullivan
Post Number: 131
Registered: 10-2011
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2014 - 02:13 pm: | |
Or this: http://www.stocorp.com/index.php/en/20120726712/Architect/types-of-fire-tests-in-construction/menu-id-388.html |
Ed Storer
Senior Member
Username: ed_storer
Post Number: 9
Registered: 05-2009
| | Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2014 - 12:32 pm: | |
EIFS is combustible. Flammable means "readily ignited".
Passing NFPA 285 would indicated that the assembly is not "flammable", though it may still be "combustible." |
anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2014 - 02:51 pm: | |
There actually is such a thing - a mineral fiber exterior insulation system, by Sto.
But it is only marketed/sold in Canada, to my knowledge. Maybe you could talk Sto into making this available in the US:
http://www.greenglobes.com/advancedbuildings/_frames/fr_t_building_mineral_wool.htm |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: wpegues
Post Number: 907
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2014 - 04:17 pm: | |
As far as I know, all the major EIFS manufacturers have systems that have passed NFPA 285. But understand that if it has passed it may not have been tested with other combustible materials in the wall assembly.
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate
WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX |
Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 565
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2014 - 10:03 pm: | |
This looks very interesting: http://www.rmax.com/wall-eco-maxci.asp
The blurb:
"The new Diamond-Furr/Ecomax CI design with 2" foam, delivers an R-13 value and will eliminate the need for gypsum sheathing in wall assemblies and batt cavity insulation. It will work with or without the sheathing, it is just an extremely cost effective design without it. RMAX has all the testing done and ready for your submittals. RMAX is offering a 15 year product guarantee for moisture, air barrier and insulation. http://www.rmax.com/wall-eco-maxci.asp The heavy duty foil face also does not require a slip sheet between the lath and the plaster base.
This is a very cost effective way to meet the new energy code R and U values and very Green due to having fewer materials in the wall assembly. Anywhere you would put an EIFS system, you can use this instead and save money" |
J. Peter Jordan
Senior Member
Username: jpjordan
Post Number: 697
Registered: 05-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 07:25 am: | |
One of the issues that I don't see addressed in the RMAX literature is the fact that the aluminum foil facer will function as a vapor retarder. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 723
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2014 - 01:18 pm: | |
That's not their problem, it's ours, and considering the in-to-out configuration it looks like it will cause lots of problems. Oh well. At least it's cheap. |
anon (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 02:05 pm: | |
I also received an unsolicited email about the system Nathan references and when I asked about NFPA 285 testing, was told that it wasn't necessary since the code doesn't require it until 2015. That began a series of email exchanges that went something like this:
"NFPA 285 testing for foam insulation in exterior walls has been a code requirement since at least the 2006 IBC."
"Oh, huh!"
"OH HUH! back at you!"
They have not done this testing. They are confused about the current code requirement. Proceed with caution. |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 727
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 06:26 pm: | |
William brings up a great point. EIFS systems often receive trim pieces and other items made from materials that are flammable and have not been tested, especially not as part of the EIFS system. Even if the EIFS system passes NFPA 285, check your design. Some of those really cool shapes may not actually work. |
Alan Mays, AIA
Senior Member
Username: amays
Post Number: 170
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 - 06:42 pm: | |
Simple solution to getting the information if they have tested it, is to request the test number and information from the testing agency from them. Just tell them that you need to submit it with the building permit drawings. I have had city agencies require this information be on the drawings. |
Louis Medcalf, FCSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: louis_medcalf
Post Number: 28
Registered: 11-2010
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 18, 2014 - 04:10 pm: | |
About 10 years ago, the EIFS on a gambling hell in Tunica County, MS near Memphis where I was working at the time, was ignited by the heat from building illumination lighting. I tried, but was unable to get a copy of the fire report [wonder why]. [BTW, 'gambling hell' is the traditional English term; 'casino' is a euphemistic loan word.]
It is my understanding that UBC 26-9 [now succeeded by NFPA 285] was primarily created to allow EIFS on non-combustible buildings--in my mind a dubious enterprise. Jerry Durham, FCSI used to refer to EIFS as the 'kudzu of construction.' So when you're struggling to document conformance of your exterior wall design for which there is no available NFPA 285 testing, kick your local EIFS rep in the ankle at a chapter meeting. |
4specs.com Home Page