I have been silent on this issue so far but you finally got my curiosity to the point that I looked it up.
"Unless there is a NFPA 255 (ASTM E84/UL823)) listing that would show compliance with a material that is class A and would not propagate fire.... I would not accept it's use in a concealed space in lieu of sprinkler protection. NFPA 13 states the following: NFPA 13, 8.15.1.2.10 Concealed spaces where rigid materials are used and the exposed surfaces have a flame spread index of 25 or less, and the materials have been demonstrated not to propagate fire when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, extended for an additional 20 minutes in the form in which they are installed, shall not require sprinkler protection." See the excerpt from NFPA 703 addressing this issue below: 5.1* Application. These requirements shall apply to fire-retardant coatings such as paints and other surface coatings used to reduce certain burning characteristics of building materials. 5.2 General. 5.2.1* Fire-retardant coatings shall remain stable and adhere to the material under all atmospheric conditions to which the material is exposed. 5.2.2 A fire-retardant coating shall not be used for unprotected outdoor installations unless labeled for such installations. 5.2.3 The classification of fire-retardant coatings shall apply only when the coating is applied at the rates of coverage and to the applicable substrate, building material, or species of wood indicated on the test report when the coating is applied in accordance with the manufacturer's directions supplied with the container. 5.2.4 Fire-retardant coatings shall be applied in accordance with the manufacturer's direction. 5.2.5 The application shall be certified by the applicator as being in conformance with the manufacturer's direction for application. 5.2.6 A fire-retardant coating shall not be overcoated with any material unless both the fire-retardant coating and the overcoat have been tested as a system and are found to meet the requirements of a fire-retardant coating. 5.3 Tests. 5.3.1* Fire-retardant coatings shall be tested by NFPA 255, ASTM E 84, or UL 723. 5.3.2 Where fire-retardant coatings are to be subjected to sustained humidity of 80 percent or more or exposure to the weather, certification by a testing laboratory shall be required to indicate that there is no increase in listed classification when subjected to the "Standard Rain Test" described in ASTM D 2898. 5.4 Maintenance of Protection. Fire-retardant coatings shall possess the desired degree of permanency and shall be maintained to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditions encountered in actual use. 5.5 Identification. Each container of fire-retardant coating material shall be labeled to indicate conformance with the preceding requirements and shall include the manufacturer's instructions for application. I googled Intumescent paint and the first site that came up clearly stated the rating and the compliance with NFPA 255. Although not a proponent of this material it is in the book. Greg Living Water Fire Protection, LLC 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 Fax: 850-937-1852 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Larrimer, Peter A Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:44 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: INTUMESCENT PAINT Does NFPA 13 really allow intumescent paint? I don't think so. Fire retardant treated wood has a Class A (flame spread 25 or less) surface burning characteristic throughout the material, not just on the exposed surface. (i.e if you cut the lumber, the exposed cut surface would also be Class A) The definition in 703 (see below) does not indicate that the fire retardant material is a surface applied material, but impregnated by a pressure process. I see that 703 addresses coatings, but something coated is not a fire retardant treated wood if you look at the definition. A fire retardant coating, even though addressed by 703, used on a material does not make it fire retardant treated wood. NFPA 13 requires a "fire retardant treated wood" and does not explicitly permit fire retardant coated wood per 703. Having said that, NFPA 13, 8.15.1.2.10 permits a surface burning characteristic to be the basis of not requiring sprinkler protection, but I am not sure how you say that just because it is Class A (flame spread 25 or less), it is not going to "propagate fire in the form in which they are installed". I believe that a Class A material will still propagate fire. Unless there is a NFPA 255 (ASTM E84/UL823)) listing that would show compliance with a material that is class A and would not propagate fire.... I would not accept it's use in a concealed space in lieu of sprinkler protection. NFPA 13 states the following: NFPA 13, 8.15.1.2.10 Concealed spaces where rigid materials are used and the exposed surfaces have a flame spread index of 25 or less, and the materials have been demonstrated not to propagate fire when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, extended for an additional 20 minutes in the form in which they are installed, shall not require sprinkler protection. NFPA 13, 8.15.1.2.11 Concealed spaces in which the exposed materials are constructed entirely of fire-retardant treated wood as defined by NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant-Treated Wood and Fire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials, shall not require sprinkler protection. NFPA 703, 3.3.2 Fire Retardant-Treated Wood. A wood product impregnated with chemical by a pressure process or other means during manufacture, which is tested in accordance with NFPA 255, ASTM E 84, or UL 723, has a listed flame spread of 25 or less, and shows no evidence of significant progressive combustion when the test is continued for an additional 20-minute period; nor does the flame front progress more than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) beyond the centerline of the burners at any time during the test. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: INTUMESCENT PAINT We need to ensure that we are view this issue with the correct lens. Granted we don't like intumescent paint for a number of reasons AND I think the committee was too casual in addressing this issue BUT NFPA 13 is the document that drives the decision NOT the building code. The BC requires fire retardant lumber to be the pressure treated type. That applies to applications where the BC is requiring treated lumber. IN this case, the BC allowed regular timber and since it doesn't have additional criteria about it in chap 9 on sprinkler systems, the BC is done. So we go to NFPA 13 to protect the space. It says sprinkler protection (the preferred and best option) OR you can use treated lumber as per NFPA 703. Guess what boys and girls, NFPA 703 addresses both pressure treated and COATED applications. As such, coated fire retardant treatment can be used (as much as I hated typing that but read on). Some notes to those involved with it's use. NFPA 703 has restrictions on the type of coating when used in a high humidity location. IT also says it must be MAINTAINED to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditions (which would be for he life of the building). Does anyone have any experience with it to 'splain what that entails??? As an AHJ, I'd require something in writing from the owner showing they are aware of this issue and stating it will be done. Roland On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Vince Sabolik wrote: > >> Thank you forum ... > > ... for the enlightenment and code references regarding use of > intumescent paint in > lieu of attic sprinklers. Somebody 'in authority' actually made > this decision. > > I wonder if it costs more for a 'faux' finish? > > > Vince > > > > > > Vince Sabolik > Christi Fire Protection, Inc. > 11351 Pearl Road > Strongsville, Ohio 44136 > > T 440 572-7730 F 440 572-7719 Email: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
