View Full Version : Floor Drain T rating

Dr. J
February 22nd, 2010, 20:23
What have you guys seen to meet the requirements of 2006 IBC 712.4 for floor drains and floor sinks in a fire rated concrete floor?

In retro work (or where missed in a new pour), a fairly large core drill needs to be made, then the drain is inserted into the hole. Even if this were pookied in with red goop, this leaves a lot of exposed metal that is not anywhere close to being equivalent to the minimum 5" of concrete needed for the rating. Even in a new pour, where the drain body is cast into the floor, a large floor drain or a floor sink will create a pretty big area of non-concrete.

I don't think this meets any of the exceptions listed in 712.4.1.1, and therefore must meet either 712. or 712. I doubt floor drains and sinks are included in the fire resistance rating tests of the assembly, so 712.1.1.1 is out, and I have not been able to find a T rated ASTM E 814 fire stopping system to meet 712. All the T ratings are for full pipe penetrations, not drains, and usually require insulation. Plenty of F ratings - no T.

The intent of a T rating is to limit the radiant heat from the fire-side from auto-igniting materials on the non-fire side. Just putting some red pooky around a metal floor drain/sink body does not address the radiant issue.

I will continue to look for a T rating, but it made me wonder why did this just now come up in a project - I have seen the bottom of metal floor drains/sinks in a lot of buildings.

February 22nd, 2010, 21:01
Couldn't find much for metal either.
For plastic pipe: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebse ... 6E666666-- (http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/mediawebserver?66666UuZjcFSLXTt4XTtNXTtEVuQEcuZgVs 6EVs6E666666--)

http://www.proventsystems.com/wp-conten ... images.pdf (http://www.proventsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/proset_t-rite_rev_lighter_images.pdf)

Intumescent material expands to seal penetration; I don't believe it matters if it's a drain/sink, or through penetration. Give 3M or Provent a call.

Plans Approver
February 22nd, 2010, 23:38
I think a little more information is required. What is the test number? Is this a floor-ceiling assembly? Then the penetration of the concrete floor might be a membrane penetration, but, still needs to meet 712. or 712. Is the slab part of the assembly or is the deck spray fireproofed?

From the commentary for 712.
Meeting the T-rating requirement can be very challenging for penetrants that are metallic and therefore conduct heat. A through-penetration firestop system for such penetrants would not typically meet the T-rating requirement simply by sealing the penetrant within the floor. Additional insulation or covering of the through penetrant is typically required above and below the floor to prevent heat transmission via the penetrant. Listings for through-penetration firestop systems will indicate the T rating obtained for any specific system.

The only T-rating at least 1 hour is at UL, F-A-2156 and its for 2 hour:


There are others for 1/4 and 3/4 hour.

BTW: I can't find 712.1.1.1 in my code.

February 23rd, 2010, 09:08
Take a look at these and see if it meets the need!
http://www.hilti.com/holcom/page/module ... deId=-9679 (http://www.hilti.com/holcom/page/module/product/prca_catnavigation.jsf?lang=en&nodeId=-9679)

Coug Dad
February 23rd, 2010, 09:27
If it is a metal floor drain assembly then IBC (2006) Section 712.4.1.1, Exception 1 should apply. A T rating would not be required.

Dr. J
February 23rd, 2010, 16:30
Thanks for the responses.

Texasbo - I did see several plastic pipe systems, but we avoid plastic, except for UG sometimes. Obviously an issue in plenum return buildings. One option there would be CI up to and including the p-trap, then a section of plastic up to the drain body that can be squeezed off by the intumescent firestopping. I'll bet there are a few AHJs that would freak out about 4" of platic in a plenum.

PA - The "assembly" is just the generic concrete floor slab with no ceiling in Table 720.1 (3). Section 720 states Where materials that change the capacity for heat dissipation are incorporated into a fire-resistance-rated assembly, fire test results or other substantiating data shall be made available to the building official to show that the required fire-resistance-rating time period is not reduced. Would you consider a 12" square chunk of cast iron to change the capacity for heat dissipation?

RJJ - Hilti's site was down when I tried your link, but I checked there before. No T rating specifically for a cast iron floor drain/sink.

CD - That is what I would hope works, and by default is what is being done. Is that the way you read it? The thing in my mind that may disqualify the exception is that it talks about pipes, tubes, and vents. These items are assumed to continue well beyond the penetration, whereas a floor drain/sink stops at the upper surface of the slab.

This (http://www.zurn.com/operations/specdrain/pages/TechnicalInformation/Receptors/Sani-Flor%20Pg%2005.pdf) is an example of the installation I am talking about.

Coug Dad
February 23rd, 2010, 16:41
Dr. J (Strangelove?)

That is the way I read it. If it is all metal then only the annular space needs to be filled.

Plans Approver
February 23rd, 2010, 21:00
I'm still confused or a little dense here. If this is just a generic concrete floor slab, how does it get or require a fire-resistance rating? Construction type IA, IB, IIA, IIIA, VA, separated uses, or something else that requires a fire-resistance rating?

Coug Dad
February 23rd, 2010, 21:03
Rated concrete floor.

Plans Approver
February 23rd, 2010, 23:03
I wasn't confused, I was dense. Dr.J wrote : "generic concrete floor slab with no ceiling in Table 720.1(3)" Duh!!!

Dr.J also quoted 720: "Where materials that change the capacity for heat dissipation are incorporated into a fire-resistance-rated assembly, fire test results or other substantiating data shall be made available to the building official to show that the required fire-resistance-rating time period is not reduced."

The change in heat dissipation is referring to items are that incorporated into the entire assembly that may reduce its hourly rating, specifically insulation. This is consistent with UL's Guide Info at the front of the fire assembly book No.18 Insulation under III. FLOOR-CEILINGS AND ROOF-CEILINGS.

The metal parts will not reduce the heat loss (dissipation) in a way that reduces the hourly rating. I agree w/ Coug fill the annular space and its good to go per Section 712.4.1.1, Exception 1.

February 24th, 2010, 18:05
Dr.J take a look at this site!

http://www.prosetsystems.com/Brochures/ ... Letter.pdf (http://www.prosetsystems.com/Brochures/T-Rite%20Drain%20Brochure%20Letter.pdf)

Dr. J
February 24th, 2010, 20:38
RJJ - I saw that as well. Would you freak out about a piece of plastic in a plenum ceiliing? More to the point, do you feel that detail is required by the IBC? Have you required it?

I think most AHJs either take Plans Approver's view (I gotta like that handle - good attitude) or have just ignored the issue.

February 25th, 2010, 07:54
Dr J: speaking for myself, I would not allow the plastic in a plenum. We have allowed plastic in plenums only when wrapped with a material with appropriate FS and SD rating (and then only when the plastic doesn't penetrate a rated floor, as the wrap would affect the ability for the intumescent material to quickly seal the penetration).

However, I agree with you, Coug Dad,Plans Approver, and others that it appears your metal penetration meets 712.4.1.1 exception 1.

February 25th, 2010, 08:45
Dr.J I agree With others on no plastic in plenums, unless protected! I have not ignored it either.

You raise an excellent point in regards to T rating and heat transfer.

I assume this is a multi floor building? How many floor drains are to be installed? Is this a kitchen area?
Your detail shows stainless steel floor sink. Are you running cast or pvc for the drains?
It appears from the OP that this is something that was missed and now trying to find a solution. Is that correct? Is the space you are dealing with below the floor a plenum?

Dr. J
February 25th, 2010, 10:22
RJJ - I am asking about a specific project, a multistory university laboratory in a Type IA building with multiple floor drains and sinks for various indirect wastes, but also just about every project I have ever worked on. The reason it came up is some smarty pants architect who took it upon himself to read the code (gotta keep that from happening somehow). It started when we suggested a system of inserts to be cast into the floor slab to provide a support system for all the crap that needs to be supported from deck. Mr. Pencil indicated that would reduce the concrete depth needed for fire rating, then someone (not me) asked "what about drains". It is still in design, and we can ask the AHJ what their take is, but I am trying to get a feel from this community first. This specific job does not happen to be a plenum return building, so the plastic answer is a possibility.

I was expanding this to all the other projects I have ever worked on, including kitchens. I am sure just about every multistory building with rated floors has drains that penetrate the slab. The above grade waste is almost always cast iron. The stainless steel drain is just a generic detail that illustrated the fact that a large floor sink completely penetrates the floor slab - the drain is usually cast iron.

I understand that a 4" length of plastic in a ceiling plenum is will cause everyone to suffer a horrible death according to code, so if I were to use that approach I would have to protect it.

February 25th, 2010, 15:21
Now I have a much better understanding of what the issue is and the scope of the problem.

I am not hung up on the 4" pipe in a plenum, or as least as much as others. The code at times tries to be all things, at all times and be on target with a correct approach to all issues. For the most part we can approach design and construction problems with our feet planted on the code text. Sometimes we need to work out side of the box. Now if you had a major amount of pipe and floor sinks, traps,stack etc, I believe the issue becomes moved from little or no significance, to one that needs total addressing.

You have reduced my first concern by stating Type1A and four stories. This takes away the fear of a number of levels above that need protection.
I can't speak for others here, but I first approach a review of a building base on use,construction type, size and height and look at the overall time to empty the occupants. Once I am comfortable that this has been accomplished conservatively, I have a much easier time dealing with the rest.

This is a great question and I am not sure there is something off the shelf to fix the problem. Back to the core issue for a moment. If the concern is that the rating of the floor is compromised I would suggest boxing the pan and core area set the sink as need and re pour the floor in those areas. I am sure cost is a factor. However, as design could include a premade pan that could be retrofitted and poured. Just a thought!

Gene Boecker
February 25th, 2010, 15:56
Some of that may have been fixed in the 2009 text. Check out the new exception to 713. (712 became 713).

Can you use it as an example of what smart people there are in the future??? :lol:

February 25th, 2010, 16:06
Gene: I have gotten that far on the 09 codes. Still hung up on the total re do of the wind bracing in the irc. :lol: It appears they through the baby out with the bath water. I suppose all the homes built in the last 30 years are just going to blow away with the winds of Global warming.

I was in the hearings and didn't pick up the crap that changed. Of course the hearings are like watching paint dry!

Gene Boecker
February 25th, 2010, 16:18
I was in the hearings and didn't pick up the crap that changed. Of course the hearings are like watching paint dry!
Ah, come on!
Those subtle shades changing hue - amazing and beautiful - drying paint can be wonderful! ;)

Now if you had compared it to a root canal you'd have something! :lol:

March 25th, 2011, 10:35
I am also have major issues with the T rating on my project. My architect is not accepting the firestopping as installed by my MEP contractors. I have been trying to validate the exception in the code 712.4.1.1 #1, however the exception states "annular space is protected with materials that prevent the passage of flame and hot gases sufficient to ignite cotton waste when subjected to ASTM E 119 time temperature fire conditions....". My problem is that Hilti, 3M or other major companies only have or will provide documentation that their assemblies are tested in accordance to ASTM E 884 not ASTM E119. Myself and everyone else on my project have ever seen a T rating enforced or used on a project (including the ARCHITECT!!).

History of project - only issue is with floor penetrations, architect has designated all floors 2 hr rated F &T (he buried the T rating in back of the code report), concrete floors / structure, very large scale project so ALOT of penetrations through the slab, renovation and expansion of existing structure (which is now fully sprinkled), all penetrations in question are metallic and not within a wall cavity, the project classification is I-B, multi story

Have any of you guys run into this problem on projects or have a better understanding of the T rating as required by code? Non of my MEP contractors have had to meet a T rating (ie use additional insulation around penetrations to keep temp rise) so it let me to believe that the exception was meet, but now we are trying to close the loop with the documentation...

March 25th, 2011, 14:24
Try this one,


north star
March 25th, 2011, 14:37
& & & &

What if you applied [ i.e. - sprayed on ] this "new" ceramic type,
2 hr. fire rated, paint to the plastic traps, ...similar to what is
applied to structural steel elements?

http://www.natfire.com/proddetail.php?prod=DC333 (http://www.natfire.com/proddetail.php?prod=DC333)

The BO could approve its use as an alternative method....Just a thought...

Not sure this product would / could address the " T " issue though! :o

>>>>>>>>> Welcome " jhperez " to The Building Codes Forum! <<<<<<<

& & & &

March 25th, 2011, 16:32
I found the UL assembly to obtain the T rating, but has anyone used or seen this application used in a project? My thoughts were since most people have never seen this used or been required to meet a T rating for all of the pipe penetrations in a building that it was common practice to use exception #1 for code 712.4.1.1. The exception is for metallic pipes up to 6" in diameter, which would include almost all MEP penetrations within a building that are not within a wall cavity.