fire stopping

[JT3ID]

When the IBC (in this case NYC BC version) building construction type allows 0hr, unrated horizontal assembly for floor construction (IIIB for example), floor penetrations must still be filled per 713.4.2, which allows for 'approved material' to resist the free passage of flame or smoke if the penetration is a single floor (connects 2 stories), and allows for noncombustible penetrating items to penetrate up to 3 stories if the penetrations are filled with an 'approved noncombustible material' or with a tested firestop system.

I have been searching without any luck for a 'tested firestop system' that achieved some rating proving 'resistance to the passage of flame (some F rating, say 1hr) or the products of combustion (smoke barrier compliant L rating)' that was tested with a 0hr wood framed floor (2x10's with 3/4" subfloor and 3/4" wood finish floor, no GWB on bottom of joists. All of the tested penetration systems seem to require the GWB on the bottom of joists which is part of a common 1hr floor system. The unrated situation without GWB maybe rare because the floor is 'unrated', why would one test it... well to prove compliance with 713.4.2. I was hoping to find a UL system to hand to the contractor and inspector for clarity.

Does such a tested system exist, providing a tested listing for compliance with 713.4.2? (Ideal for contractor's confidence)

Or is the point of this part of the code that it need not be a fully tested system - the use of a fire stopping product that has been 'tested and classified for use' as part of a similar system (UL L501 for example, with GWB on bottom of joists and 1hr rating) would be compliant with in this case where there is no stated time value required, and the overall system must simply 'resist the free passage of flame and the products of combustion'?

IE would you be compliant with 713.4.2 if you use 3/4" thick Hilti FS One Sealant or FS One Max Intumescent Sealant (1hr F and compliant L ratings achievable) at the penetration of the wood floor, but there was no GWB at bottom of joists and thus no second seal. The idea being a detail similar to UL XHEZ.F-C-1059 or UL XHEZ.F-5088 but without the GWB for a 1hr overall assembly and tested 1hr F and L ratings.

Seems other 'approved' materials would work as well but the typical firestopping product seems the quickest way to confidence of an 'approved' material for installer and inspector.

Thoughts?

Below is the NYC BC version of the IBC where this project occurs.

713.4.2
Nonfire-resistance-rated assemblies.
Penetrations of nonfire-resistance-rated floor or floor/ceiling assemblies or the ceiling membrane of a nonfire-resistance-rated roof/ceiling assembly shall meet the requirements of Section 708 or shall comply with Sections 713.4.2.1through 713.4.2.2

713.4.2.1
Noncombustible penetrating items.
Noncombustible penetrating items that connect not more than three stories are permitted provided that the annular space is filled with an approved noncombustible material or with a fill, void or cavity material that is tested and classified for use in through-penetration firestop systems.

713.4.2.2
Penetrating items.
Penetrating items that connect not more than two stories are permitted provided that the annular space is filled with an approved material to resist the free passage of flame and the products of combustion.

 

[cda]

Welcome

 

[cda]

Interesting first question

I am thinking the cheapest easiest fire stop method, that would work on an one hour assembly,,, Would be the way to go.

Can call hili and see what they suggest to use

 

[cda]

“”” Commentary “”””. Says “ fire block “”

 

[ICE]

The word "approved" refers to the AHJ. The AHJ is the only entity that can approve anything. A listed fireblock material could be approved. If there is an architect, it is the architect's duty to specify the fireblock material. At least that's the way I call it.

In this case that might be you. Not all fireblock material is appropriate for all conditions. It depends on expansion and contraction of the wood---pipe--conduit etc. Then there's duty cycles to consider. That has all been figured out for you by the manufacturers of fireblock material.

Our code specifies what and where is considered a fireblock. Such as wall plates and probably what you are dealing with. Then we have this bit of code:
718.2.1.4 Fireblocking integrity. The integrity of fireblocks shall be maintained.

There is probably a similar thread, or six, on this topic.

 

[JT3ID]

Thanks for each of these, helpful.

The reference to fire blocking (in lieu of fire stopping) in the commentary is helpful and there is a portion of the NYC BC in 718 that defines the fire blocking for the 713.4.2 must be a product tested and listed for this scenario.

So I return to my original question, in quite a bit of search I cannot find a test assembly that matches this exact scenario (no gwb on bottom of joists).

Then since this is a zero hour floor and no specific hourly F or L rating called in the code, how long must it ‘maintain its integrity’,so far remains vague... no product does so forever, which is where hourly rating systems come from.

Calling Hilti I agree, probably fastest path to a product that is specifically tested for this.
.

 

[cda]

From Ices reply

I would say find a fire block material that works for size, type and penetrating material ,,, and that should meet the intent.

I understand you have more liability
But may be overthinking this.

 

[JT3ID]

From Ices reply

I would say find a fire block material that works for size, type and penetrating material ,,, and that should meet the intent.

I understand you have more liability
But may be overthinking this.

Certainly feels overthought, contractor wants listed assembly to show the inspector, thus the search.

 

[cda]

Well

First you do not have a rated assembly

Just a requirement to fire block


You could suggest a few products,,, let the GC submit spec sheets to the inspector

And the inspector can approve or deny.

I see that happen.

Where is RGLA when you need him?

 

[SH225]

“a fill, void or cavity material that is tested and classified for use in through-penetration firestop systems” would typically mean intumescent sealant.

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/3M-Fire-Barrier-Sealant-CP-25WB-/?N=5002385+3293123924&rt=rud

 

[cda]

Should have added above,,, the inspector has to approve a products use,,, so call it out and submit

 

[SH225]

Here’s an example of Hilti certifying that their CP606 (fire caulk) is tested for fill, void or cavity materials.

 

[JT3ID]

Well

First you do not have a rated assembly

Just a requirement to fire block


You could suggest a few products,,, let the GC submit spec sheets to the inspector

And the inspector can approve or deny.

I see that happen.

Where is RGLA when you need him?

Going all the way back into the weeds for the pure joy of it...

NYC BC fireblocking code

717.2.5 Ceiling and floor openings.
Where required by Exception 6 of Section 708.2, Exception 1 of Section 713.4.1.2, or Section 713.4.2, fireblocking of the annular space around vents, pipes, ducts, chimneys and fireplaces at ceiling and floor levels shall be installed with a material specifically tested in the form and manner intended for use to demonstrate its ability to remain in place and resist the free passage of flame and the products of combustion.

713.4.2 is the one that applies at an 'unrated' floor

Thus my read is a product 'specifically tested' in the form and manner intended for use is required, and evidence of a test, by my read, would be a UL or other testing agency. Does not seem to be anyone testing this specific situation and listing their product with UL after calling Hilti and STI. It certainly seems logical they wouldn't do a lot of testing for 0hr floors, or for an ambiguous definition of 'the ability to remain in place and resist the free passage of flame and the products of combustion' for an unknown time period, but it does seem like the code wants such a test. I suppose I have reached the limit of what' specifically tested in the form and manner intended for use' mean. It does not say 'listed' which was the original ask.

But yes, I will need to move on from noodling this into ground and will suggest products/install detail and review with inspector.

 

[JT3ID]

Here’s an example of Hilti certifying that their CP606 (fire caulk) is tested for fill, void or cavity materials.

I continue to appreciate all of these and thank you, to me this suggests compliance with 'through penetration fire-stop systems' not 'fireblocking' requirements and that it works with UL assemblies... which I continue to search for, don't think that wood floor / wood joists / no GWB on bottom of joists with fire caulk has a 'UL listed assembly' for the passage of flame and smoke... but that is precisely what I am searching for. Would love to be wrong about that and find such an assembly.

I'm certain this is all 'close enough' and will just discuss with inspector.

 

[JT3ID]

“a fill, void or cavity material that is tested and classified for use in through-penetration firestop systems” would typically mean intumescent sealant.

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/3M-Fire-Barrier-Sealant-CP-25WB-/?N=5002385+3293123924&rt=rud

Thanks. This is one of many firestopping products I'm certain will be acceptable as a fireblocking product, the bottom line I was hopeful for is the tested assembly that matches specific conditions here.

Thank you all I will need to just go confirm with inspector I think.

 

[ADAguy]

Was use of a intumescent paint considered?

 

[classicT]

Was use of a intumescent paint considered?

NO! What?!

Intumescent paint is an insulating material that delays the temperature rise of its substrate so that it does not combust.

It in no way can be used to seal a joint or penetration against the passage of products of combustion.

 

[my250r11]

Code is minimum. It maybe in most AHJ's that if it meets the requirement for a 1hr then it is above and beyond the minimum requirement of a 0hr and meets the intent. This is MHO and how I would look at it. Others my not feel the same.