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
