Thanks for update on changes to the 13-2007 and the clarification of issues with respect to terminology.
-- David de Vries, P.E., CSP Firetech Engineering Incorporated [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- Original message -------------- From: Roland Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You are crossing the wires on flame spread and limited combustible. > IT is amusing that NFPA 13 has an interesting and illogical > application of the terms in the 02 edition. For a concealed > COMBUSTIBLE space, rigid material with a Class A flames spread OR > lumber that has been treated with a fire retardant (which typically > creates a Class A flame spread does it not?) allows omission of > sprinklers. Limited combustible enters the discussion when we start > talking about exterior roofs and canopies. Keep in mind that exterior > canopies is just addressing protection BENEATH them. This is where > you encounter the requirement for limited combustible construction in > order to omit protection from BENEATH the canopy. > > The 07 edition has finally acknowledges separation and protection of > the concealed spaces makes a difference. It also as incorporated the > allowance for fire retardant treated lumber to omit protection so the > oddity in how the two characteristics are treated in prior editions > has been addressed. > > Roland > > > > On Jan 12, 2007, at 7:47 AM, David de Vries/Firetech wrote: > > > Todd: > > > > That appears to be UL, not ULC. > > > > Whether this product, or any other product listed in that category > > would turn a ceiling or concealed space that is otherwise > > combustible into a non-combustible or limited combustible ceiling > > or space is problematic. The test applied by UL is the one for > > Surface Burning Characteristics, UL 723. It does not necessarily > > correlate to the flammability of the material. For example, gypsum > > board with typical paper face might have a flame spread index of 10 > > or 15, just like a wood product treated with one of these fire > > retardants. The difference is that the core material of the gyp > > board is non-combustible, whereas the wood product is combustible. > > Once the surface protection is gone, you're back to a combustible > > concealed space, or combustible ceiling. > > > > -- > > David de Vries, P.E., CSP > > Firetech Engineering Incorporated > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > From: Todd Williams - work > > > >> Bill, > >> > >> Is this UL or UL Canada listed? > >> > >> At 09:23 AM 1/12/2007, you wrote: > >>> This product has a UL listing. I'm not endorsing one way or the > >>> other but I > >>> think the intent of NFPA 13 would be to accept products like this > >>> when > >>> applied properly as Roland indicates. > >>> > >>> http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/template/LISEXT/1FRAME/ > >>> showpage.html?name > >>> =BMQX.R19565&ccnshorttitle=Coatings,+Fire > >>> +Retardant&objid=1078153113&cfgid=1 > >>> 073741824&version=versionless&parent_id=1073984654&sequence=1 > >>> > >>> Bill Brooks > >>> Pittsburgh, PA > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Roland > >>> Huggins > >>> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 1:13 PM > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: Wood Coating > >>> > >>> > >>> AS we all know, 13 allows fire retardant wood to be used as defined > >>> by NFPA 703. The last time I looked (was nit recently but a year or > >>> 3), NFPA 703 addresses both pressure treated wood (as required by > >>> the > >>> building code to qualify as treated) AND surface applied (ie field > >>> painted). > >>> > >>> IMHO, bad approach. > >>> > >>> Roland > >>> > >>> On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Todd Williams - work wrote: > >>> > >>>> I had a architect ask me about using this in a combustible church > >>>> attic. I was skeptical and did a little investigating. The tests > >>>> that produced the results had a minimum film thickness in order to > >>>> work properly. How do you verify the minimum thickness in a field > >>>> application? My guess is that the tests shown (by UL Canada only) > >>>> were not done on assembled structures, but on individual pieces of > >>>> material that were coated under near ideal conditions. What would > >>>> happen in a structure coated after assembly? Why is there no UL - > >>>> United States or FM tests? Too many questions for me; I'd walk > >>>> away. (So did the architect referenced above) > >>>> > >>>> Todd > >>>> > >>>> At 04:15 PM 1/10/2007, you wrote: > >>>>> Has anyone seen this product? > >>>>> It touts that it replaces sprinklers in combustible concealed > >>>>> spaces, > >>>>> under NFPA-13. > >>>>> If you have seen it, pros and cons? > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.eaglecoatings.net/content/safecoatlatex.htm > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. > >>>>> 2006 Inductee into "The Players Hall of Fame" > >>>>> at The Great Games of Business > >>>>> Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. "Best Places to Work" > >>>>> Rated #1 in 2006 > >>>>> Large Business Category > >>>>> by Orlando Business Journal > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >>>> > >>>> Todd G. Williams, PE > >>>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting > >>>> Stonington, Connecticut > >>>> 860-535-2080 > >>>> www.fpdc.com > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >> > >> Todd G. Williams, PE > >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting > >> Stonington, Connecticut > >> 860-535-2080 > >> www.fpdc.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
