Tagged With "Fire Resistance Rating"

Comment

Re: Metal Stud Fire Walls

John ·
The following was copied from an article in, Nov/Dec 2013, Commercial Building Products. Passive Fire Protection Safeguards Building; by Gregg Stahl, Clark Dietrich Building Systems Fire-rated-wall requirements "Walls (load bearing or not), floors, and ceilings can serve as fire barriers so long as they have a fire rating. Fire barriers are tested to the requirements of American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). West Conshohocken, PA, E119 (ANSI/UL263) and rated to resist the spread...
Comment

Re: Metal Stud Fire Walls

Ivan J. Humberson, P.E. ·
As a rule of thumb, it is generally accepted that constructing a fire resistant rated assembly with materials that are heavier, or providing the members at a smaller spacing than that specified in the assembly description will meet or exceed the assembly rating. As described, the change from 25-guage to 16-guage studs, spaced at 16 inches on center instead of 24 inches on center would definitely give the assembly more mass. The added mass would then equate to a lower rate of heat transfer,...
Comment

Re: Metal Stud Fire Walls

Slammer ·
A few points: 25 gage studs are typically used for interior non-bearing conditions and generally should be installed with a gap between the end of the studs and the track. Neither the studs or the gypsum board should be fastened to the top track (this is permitted in fire rated walls by the Gypsum Association). This will provide for expansion as well as movement by the surrounding construction such as deflection. This will mitigate some of the expansion. I could not find reliable data on the...
Comment

Re: Metal Stud Fire Walls

Slammer ·
Harmathy's 10th rule states I would expect that a heavier gage stud is more fire resistant.
Comment

Re: Metal Stud Fire Walls

Pinigis ·
check your math. A rise to 1600 degrees creates a 1% thermal expansion in steel.
Comment

Re: Metal Stud Fire Walls

John ·
Hi Pinigis Are you sure the thermal expansion of steel at 1800 degrees is 1%? In the spectrum of size, gauges and spacing of metal studs, the manufacturers have established the lightest configuration that will pass ASTM-E119. They should be required to establish the configuration with the heaviest gauge stud with the shortest stud spacing.
Blog Post

Metal Stud Fire Walls

John ·
Why do we allow a wall to be classified as firewalls when it is significantly different from the tested configuration? Typical, Metal Stud Assembly Description "1-1/4 in. wide by min 3-5/8 in. deep fabricated from min 0.020 in. (25-gauge) thick galv steel, attached to floor and ceiling with fasteners spaced 24 in. OC max." (With 5/8 Type X gypsum wallboard both sides etc.)   At the 1800-degree temperature attained during ASTM-E119, Thermal Expansion causes metal stud to expand 1/4 inch per...
Topic

Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

John O ·
We are proposing to install a "fire barrier" wall that we believe will qualify for at least a 2-hour fire resistance rating. The existing building has a partial wall in place which has 5" steel poles supporting the structure above. It is essentially two of a 2" x 4" wood stud, 24 in. centers, wall, set back-to-back, so there are 4 layers of 5/8" Type X gypsum in total. Studs are staggered 12", and drywall installed vertically so that all seams are supported. The 5" poles are integrated, and...
Reply

Re: Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

rlga_AZ ·
Fire resistance in a wall assembly is a two-way system. Only the membrane facing the fire exposure and its supporting structure are effective in providing fire resistance--the membrane on the opposite side has very little to no affect on the overall fire resistance of an assembly. Therefore, you only have 2 layers of gypsum board, plus the framing, providing fire resistance. With a double framed wall, the insulation only helps the side in which it is installed; thus, you have a...
Reply

Re: Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

John O ·
Thank you for your expertise, time and suggestions. I have seen the WP 3820 generic system you referenced. If only the facing surface helps, I don't know why the 1" gap in the middle is relevant. It would seem the gap could be replaced with anything, or eliminated. Does pretty much any solution with double 5/8" on the exterior qualify as 2hr, but not much else? I don't understand how U360 rates as 2hr. Can you explain that? See the additional attachment. Thanks again.
Reply

Re: Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

John O ·
Based on your comments, I would like to ask for your feedback on an updated version of my original design. See the attached diagram. The gypsum in the center has been moved to the outside layer, and Instead of leaving a 1" inch air gap in the middle, it has an 1/8" Hardboard Tempered Panel (something cheap) there. Something to help constrain bats of insulation. And to divide the two sections of the wall. Is this likely to be approved for a 2hr fire resistance rating? thanks!
Reply

Re: Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

rlga_AZ ·
Only if you can prove it via testing. Otherwise, use a system that is prescriptively approved by the code (UL, GA-600, IBC Table 721.1(2), or the calculated method). However, the calculated method for wood frame construction is limited to 1-hour assemblies. Two layers of 5/8-inch Type X gypsum board will generally provide the 2-hour fire resistance. UL Assembly U360 would probably work if the steel columns did not interrupt the center membrane--they are great thermal conductors, which is not...
Reply

Re: Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

John O ·
Thank you again for the expert feedback. The irony of this situation is that the building code doesn't require a 2-hour rating between occupancies like F-1 and B (our situation). It is NFPA. If NFPA is the source of the requirement, then does the limit of 1-hour calculated assemblies apply? Also, in 703.3 "Alternative methods for determining fire resistance", it offers the approach of "Engineering analysis based on a comparison of building element, component or assemblies designs having...
Reply

Re: Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

John O ·
Hi, we have a meeting with our local building official on Monday AM. We have decided to propose a variant on the WP 3820 that you directed us to. Instead of the 1" gap in the generic design, we are substituting a 3/8" layer of gypsum and no gap. Keeping the mineral insulation in place will be impractical without it. Thanks again for your help.
Reply

Re: Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

rlga_AZ ·
John O., regarding your 9/23/16 10:50 PM post, it depends on who's enforcing the NFPA code or standard (which I assume is the NFPA 101, since you don't mention a specific code or standard). If the building department enforces the IBC (or an adopted version of it), then they'll review the project under that code and only under that code. If they also adopted the NFPA code/standard, then they'll review the project using both codes. If the former situation is true, then they probably will not...
Reply

Re: Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

John O ·
Hi, We had a "preliminary review" chat with the building official yesterday. We did not get into the details of what we are proposing, but got a read on how our proposal would be evaluated. My observations: - They intend to apply IBC critieria only, as you suggested they would. The official seems to be unaware of the differences in NFPA 101 regarding separation ratings for specific occupancies. I don't think he cares. - He will evaluate our proposed design in comparison to other approved...
Reply

Re: Fire Resistance Rating of a proposed design

John O ·
Hi, Sorry for the delay in the postmortem. I'm pleased to say that the design we proposed was accepted for a 2-hour rating. I'm attaching the explanation of the design logic that we submitted with the architectural drawings. In a nutshell, we argued that the only meaningful commonality among all 2-hour rated walls is a double layer of 5/8" type X drywall. All other variants in wall configuration don't seem to be highly relevant. Thanks again.
×
×
×
×
×