| Author |
Message |
Jeffrey Leemhuis, AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: jrlbarch
Post Number: 23
Registered: 07-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 01:43 pm: |    |
We have been asked to approve substitution of this product in lieu of Grace Monokote on a project. Has there been any more information that has surfaced pro or con about this material? |
Nathan Woods, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: nwoods
Post Number: 336
Registered: 08-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 02:28 pm: | |
My reccommendation is to make sure you have cementious material instead of gypsum based material (assuming you origionally spec'd cementitious). That is where contractors often try to save money, and it's part of the reason why the WTC towers collasped. Gypsum based is not as durable over the lifespan of the building. |
Richard Howard, AIA CSI CCS SCIP LEED-AP
Senior Member
Username: rick_howard
Post Number: 237
Registered: 07-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 02:41 pm: | |
The two products cost almost exactly the same bag for bag. Any savings on a project comes as a result of reduced thickness and/or density applied (providing less protection than specified and payed for), elimination of manufacturer-recommended substrate binders or topcoats, or cleanup of overspray.
You may end up with Blaze-shield even if you reject it as unsuitable. Some SFRM installers I have dealt with will put in whatever they want regardless of specification requirements or architect approvals. The installation might be complete before you even have the submittal in hand or you might even find Cafco delivered to the jobsite in Monokote bags. The industry if full of charlatans. Beware. |
Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS
Senior Member
Username: rlmat
Post Number: 384
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 11:10 am: | |
We were able to successfully block Cafco Blaze-Shield II on the project I was referring to in my original post.
It took a letter from an "uninterested" 3rd party who was not providing material to the project.
That was 4 years ago - I too had thought the product had gone away
We are fortunate that with DSA projects, we can usually get the Project Inspector to watch what is being installed to make sure there isn't an "switch" |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA
Senior Member
Username: geverding
Post Number: 529
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 12:25 pm: | |
Don't forget that SFRM requires a Special Inspection "based on the fire-resistance design in the approved construction documents" [from the 2003 code I have at hand]. I like to think that when I specify "cementitious SFRM; sprayed fiber materials not permitted" that the approved construction documents eliminate Blaze-Shield II, and that the Owner's qualified special inspector would also be looking for illegal substitutions.
George A. Everding AIA CSI CCS CCCA
Cannon Design - St. Louis, MO |
Jay Steck (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 04:57 pm: | |
I'd like to start by saying that I am the Product Manager for Isolatek International. In reading this thread that dates back to 2006 there have been only a couple of accurate statements made. First Isolatek does in fact manufacture both CAFCO 300 (wet-mix) and BLAZE-SHIELD II (dry-mix). Second, both products are similar in price and we as a manufacturer do not have a preference of promoting one over the other. Both of these products are classified by UL as Spray-Applied Fire Resistive Materials (SFRMs) as well as by AIA Masterspec.
BLAZE-SHIELD II like any other product must be installed per manufacturers’ application instructions. When installed properly it will meet or exceed the physical performance values of competing materials. Since this thread has focused only on commercial-density materials, i.e. CAFCO 300 and Grace’s MK-6 it should be noted that BLAZE-SHIELD II is Portland cement based. It has been inaccurately stated in a previous post that the term “cementitious” refers to SFRMs that contain cement. CAFCO 300 and MK-6 are both gypsum plaster based materials (take a look at their MSDS). Due to BLAZE-SHIELD II’s cement base, it has been investigated for exterior exposure at UL. Neither CAFCO 300 nor MK-6 has that approval.
BLAZE-SHIELD II has been used on tens of thousands of projects (millions of bags) and has been proven under fire conditions on such projects as the Meridan Tower in Philadelphia, Forsythe Memorial Hospital in Winston Salem and Torre Parque Central in Caracas, Venezuela. All of these projects exceeded what is considered normal fire conditions; BLAZE-SHIELD II was installed and prevented structural failure, in other words served its purpose.
As far as making a claim that BLAZE-SHIELD II can be found in Monokote bags, that is complete nonsense. Referring to fireproofing applicators as charlatans, that statement should be retracted. There are a few bad apples in every industry but a statement that an industry is full of charlatans is unprofessional at best.
Isolatek has maintained its position as the industry leader by providing quality service, products and the only full line of fireproofing materials. We offer the most experienced technical sales team in the industry as well as a fully staffed technical department. If anyone, anywhere, at anytime, has an issue with our products or services, you need only to call our toll free number and speak to one of our representatives. I hope the information provided addresses everyone’s concerns, if not we are always available to address them. I can be contacted directly at (800) 631-9600 ext. 229. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 11:29 am: | |
I have been specifying Cafco products, mostly Blazeshield II, for my entire (short) specifications wirting career - close to 15 years now. I am a registered architect and a CCS. I have heard many of the comments posted above, many times, made by many old cranky specifiers. Because I can read, and often do, and because I know how to use a telephone and speak with product manufacturers, which I often do, I have found none of the negative statements above to be true of Cafco Blazeshield II. Not one. Nada. Zip. And I have never had a negative experience on any project on which Cafco Blazeshield II was used. The projects I work on range from the $20 million to over a billion in construction cost.
I do not work for Cafco, and have no reason to promote their products over any other. I routinely specify competitor's SFRM products right alongside one another - gypsum-based and cement-based, and let the market dictate what is ultimately used.
Shame on the commenters for bashing an outstanding product and manufacturer without providing even the barest of supporting factual evidence. |
Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI
Senior Member
Username: dwhurttgam
Post Number: 60
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 10:15 am: | |
Looking it up in the Web and reviewing the MasterSpec Evaluations, I found the following:
Blaze-Shield II:
Category: Spray - Applied Fire Resistive Materials(SFRMs)
Today’s fast paced construction schedules demand higher in-place physical performance characteristics. BLAZE-SHIELD II is a commercial density (15 pcf/240 kg/m3), compositely reinforced portland cement based SFRM designed to endure construction abuse as well as exposure to extreme weather conditions (UL investigated for exterior use). High recycled content, superior durability, no pre-mixing and reduced labor costs to install make BLAZE-SHIELD II the most cost effective SFRM in the world.
Monokote® MK-6®:
Proven in-place performance on interior structural steel makes it the most widely used fireproofing in the world. MK-6® is a low cost, gypsum based cementitious spray-applied fireproofing designed for easy, fast application to steel and concrete substrates. Available in two different formulations, Monokote affords greater flexibility for both small and large projects. Density 15 pcf / 240 kg/m3.
Also found, a bit to my surprise, that Blaze-Shield II had a higher compressive strength and a slightly higher bond strength. Both test at "0" for air erosion.
On paper appear quite comparable. |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 404
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 03:00 pm: | |
Those evaluations sound like they came directly from the manufacturers' PR departments. |
Phil Kabza
Senior Member
Username: phil_kabza
Post Number: 440
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 08, 2010 - 10:44 pm: | |
Dale: Your posting suggests the above two paragraphs you quote appear in MasterSpec Evaluations. They do not. I'm not sure where you found them. Could you clarify? |
Dale Hurttgam, NCARB, AIA,LEED AP, CSI
Senior Member
Username: dwhurttgam
Post Number: 61
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 04:45 pm: | |
I must admit that I should have checked a bit more before responding. In reviewing what we have specified in the past - we have consistently included Monokote MK-6 and when we have have listed Cafco products, the Cafco 300 was specified as opposed to the Blaze-Shield II product when using Cafco products as a comparitive product to MK-6. The reference to reviewing the "Master Spec Evaluiations" which should have been spelled out more specifically was with respect to a comparative properties table that they have for various spray applied fire proofing materials. In that Table the Density, Compressive Strength, Hardness and Air Erosion Resistance of Monokote MK-6, Cafco Blaze Shield II and Cafco 300 are all very similar in value. The balance of the excerpts are from manufacturer info (I did not double check - but the densities listed may have come from the Master Spec evaluations). |
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg
Post Number: 53
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 - 07:48 pm: | |
This just never ends does it. At a previous firm, our President and CEO received a very nasty letter from Isolotek's attorney because I had a note in our spec master telling our architects that under no circumstance were they to accept 'dry mix' fireproofing on our projects. I cited various health concerns which used to be documented online. Unfortunately, I can no longer find those postings. I'll keep looking.
In fairness to Isolotek, I've seen some failures from 'wet mix' products as well as theirs. Those failures were a direct result of poor surface prep. I presume that if 'dry mix' products are applied as Phil notes above, there is little reason to believe that they will not protect the steel structure. I still won't use the stuff on my projects.
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing how wonderful the stuff is and, no offense to my local Cafco rep, I no longer return his calls because I just don't have time to waste hearing about this product. To me it looks like 'bird feathers' mixed with cement. I have parrots at home who provide me with all the bird feathers I can ever want. I don't need any in my fireproofing.
Granted, Isolotek does seem to make other good products and I usually include them in my spec. That might change, however, if I have to keep wasting time rejecting substitution requests for products which I take the time to specifically exclude in my specifications. I believe that Isolotek can educate their applicators to respect our specifications. If the anonymous poster wants to use this stuff, that's fine, but it's not for me. I wonder if Isolotek enforces their requirements with their applicators. In other words, does Isolotek require applicators to purchase 'dry mix' fireproofing as a system, including bond coat and sealer/topcoat? They are obviously aware of this thread and it has been no secret that many specifiers and others have been specifying 'wet mix' systems exclusively. It would seem to me that it would help their credibility greatly if they stepped up and policed their applicators a bit more openly. At least then when clients overrule our rejection in favor of a massive credit for a product that supposedly costs the same, I won't feel quite so bad about having it on my project. |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 04:56 pm: | |
Since what Ken describes appears to happen in many markets, one has to wonder if this is part of a strategic plan to drive business to that product. Tactics of the nature I have heard and seen generally backfire by leaving very bad impressions of a firm, and cause people to try to take their business elsewhere. Ironic since Isolotek can compete well with other product types--they don't need to do this. Of course, poor treatment is not exclusive to this firm, or even the building products industry. Yet, it surprises me that this approach still thrives in the dark corners of commerce. Fortunately, I think that wide use of the internet and of product/service review sites helps to shed light on such practices and perhaps will drive firms into the light of day, and to improve their service. |
Paul Gerber
Senior Member
Username: paulgerber
Post Number: 17
Registered: 04-2010
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 09:07 am: | |
Customer service is paramount when the specifier calls the sales rep to ask questions when doing a Project Manual and the specifier needs assistance or advice about the product he is including. What ever happened to the days when the reps came in regularly to make sure everyone was up-to-date.
Another thing that drives me crazy is the "weasal" clauses that are becoming epidemic in manufacturer's literature, shop drawings and product warranties trying to download all responsibility back to the Consultant because we specified their product, or the installing contractor because they installed it. The manufacturer should be the "expert" when it comes to their product. If the product we specify isn't appropriate for the circumstances, tell us. If they don't have an appropriate product, tell us that too! I hate when during construction, the sales rep suddenly raises issues with the product specified and comes looking for an extra, when the issue could have been resolved during the Bid Period!
Don't get me wrong, there are still manufacturer's out there that provide good customer service during the Contract Documents preparation, the Bid Period and that also follow up on site with making sure everything is installed correctly...but they are getting few and far between!!
Ride it like you stole it!!! |
John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP
Senior Member
Username: bunzick
Post Number: 1216
Registered: 03-2002
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 - 01:36 pm: | |
In case I left doubt, our Isotek rep has come in to see me, and he did not try to persuade me to use any other product than what I wanted to use. He also introduced some products in their line, including thermal and ignition barriers for spray-foam. Such substitution pressures I experienced were more on the contractor side. |
(Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 07, 2010 - 08:34 am: | |
Ken,
This is your local technical sales representative that has been trying to contact you. In all our meetings I have never pushed one product over another upon you. Bird feathers was a term used 25 years ago when lower densities prevailed, when you may have first had issues with the CAFCO Blaze Shield. But, I am betting that your bird feathers would not achieve an International Code Council Evaluation Service Report, where almost all the CAFCO products have this report showing IBC compliance.
Please give me the opportunity to meet with you, either in DC or Baltimore, and introduce a few new products you did not know we manufactured.
Jason McKay |
|
4specs.com Home Page