Fire proofing joist hanger?

[AegisFPE]

I have 3 story R-2, V-A building with a NFPA 13R system, 2006 IBC

Given V-A, structural frame requires protection. And with 3 stories, subject beam may be supporting more than 2 floors, or 1 floor and 1 roof.

Therefore, per IBC 714.2.1, individual protection of the beam may be required, which would prohibit embedments or enclosures with the beam per 714.3.

The solution may not be as straightforward as over-spraying the connecting joists or relying on the ceiling membrane! Consider involving a Fire Protection Engineer to address an alternative method for determining fire resistance.

 

[brudgers]

The manufacturer of the product is basically saying "this isn't right, but we'll do it anyway if the building official says we can." That is clearly problematic. If you need help understanding why, just ask. No need to get nasty about it.

You have more than adequately demonstrated why you find it problematic.

 

[Mark K]

Maybe I am dense but I do not understand why the manufacturer of the product saying it isnt right causes an unsurmountable problem.

I would first ask him to state why he believes it isnt right. What is the applicable code provision that is being violated? Then I would determine whether I agreed that there is a code issue and take the appropriate response. In either case he is not allowed to hold things up. From a code point of view the manufacturer's sign off is irrelevant.

If the manufacturer refuses to perform the work as required by the construction documents it is the Owner's responsibility to resolve it.

 

[mmmarvel]

MMM As a RDP myself and a CBO I am sometimes appalled at the length of my plan review comments list requesting clarification or inclusion of means methods.I word it that way cause non-compliace sounds so negative. So leaving it up to the DRP cause they have a stamp and signature is not a winner for me.

I agree as I can recall several times where either in plan review we had to call the engineer or (a bit worse) out in the field make a call, basically to say ... "With all due respect, this really/probably isn't going to work." Then he'd review it or (if it was in the field and he was a stand up guy) he'd come out and look at it and we'd move on. I've always thought that a part of my job was to help catch things that 'slipped' the eye of the 'professional'. At the end of the day, it's his name and his stamp on the plans, if we ensure that the structure is built exactly per his plans, the onus falls on him. Oh, and we would record in the record the date and time of the discussions and what the engineers response was.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[permitguy]

Maybe I am dense but I do not understand why the manufacturer of the product saying it isnt right causes an unsurmountable problem.

Have you looked at the applicable special inspection provisions? Have you ever looked at an ES report? What about any number of sections throughout the I-Codes stating that products be intalled in accordance with their listing and instructions?

If it isn't prescriptive, you have a responsibility to determine its acceptability. How can you say that something is acceptable when the manufacturer is saying it isn't? Don't misunderstand me - you can do whatever you want as the AHJ. You can also be held responsible when the defecation hits the rotary oscillator. Sorry, I don't adhere to the "give in if it will cost them money" philosophy. I'm not forcing them to build anything, I'm just here to make sure they build it to the minimum code requirements.

 

[mtlogcabin]

2006 IBC

714.2.4 Attachments to structural members.

The edges of lugs, brackets, rivets and bolt heads attached to structural members shall be permitted to extend to within 1 inch (25 mm) of the surface of the fire protection.

The Manufacuters rep provided this section that he was given from another AHJ in a different state that require the joist hangers to be covered.

I read that section as allowing a minimum 1 inch amount of coverage on those structural connections in lieu of what the minimum amount required by the listing. I do not see how this could be used to require a joist hanger to be fire proofed

BTW the beams in question are interior primary structural members supporting one floor only connected to the columns supporting muiltiple floors and no roof loads. As AegisFPE pointed out individual protection is required for the beams and columns.

 

[FredK]

Here's where I'd go for info:

Contacting UL

UL provides assistance to users of fire resistance assemblies and products, which includes clarification of the published information.

UL also provides a service to investigate modifications to the fire resistance assemblies when requested by the design submitter. Requests for clarification should describe the change and include drawings, if necessary.

Requests for clarifications or investigations can be made by contacting UL at:

Phone: +1 877-ULHELPS (+1 877-854-3577)

Fax: +1 847-574-4017

E-mail: archservices@us.ul.com

UL's website: www.ul.com

 

[mtlogcabin]

Did that 1st been playing phone tag on the call back.

 

[Mark K]

Permitguy

I agree that cost is not a factor unless possibly you want to invoke Section IBC Section 104.10. I also agree that the focus should be on code compliance.

The code does not require compliance with ES reports. They have no more legal standing than an engineering report signed by a licensed engineer. They are only advisory. In any case I have not seen an ES report that required sign off by the manufacturer.

I understand the concern when the manufacturer says that his product is not appropriate in a given situation but this does not appear to be the case here. In addition if the material is addressed in the code and it is used in accordance with the code provisions I suggest that the building official cannot reject its use based on the manufacturer’s concerns. The Owner and his consultants may make their own decision on how to respond to the manufacturer’s recommendations. This would be different if the material was being used as an alternate means of compliance (IBC Section 104.11) but I do not believe that it is reasonable to interpret that all sprayed on fire proofing be considered as alternate means of compliance.

I understand the need for the work to comply with the approved listing but I am not aware of anything that gives the manufacturer authority on how to interpret the listing nor of anything in a listing that requires the manufacturer’s sign off.

The references in Chapter 17 to manufacturer’s listing in Chapter 17 are limited to Sections 1704.12.2, 1704.12.3, and 1704.15. Section 1704.15 deals with special cases which is not relevant here. The other provisions talk in terms of manufacturer’s instructions related to surface preparation, surface temperature, and ventilation. The question at hand is what needs to be protected.

I consider the code provisions that require compliance with manufacturer’s instructions to be of questionable legality since these provisions require compliance with requirements that were not formally adopted by the appropriate jurisdiction in violation of the due process requirements. In addition such provisions could create situations like this where the instructions could usurp the building official’s authority to interpret the code.

I suggest that the building official can make the case that code compliance does not require manufacturer’s sign off thus leaving issues of code interpretation to the building official.

 

[texasbo]

2006 IBC714.2.4 Attachments to structural members.

The edges of lugs, brackets, rivets and bolt heads attached to structural members shall be permitted to extend to within 1 inch (25 mm) of the surface of the fire protection.

The Manufacuters rep provided this section that he was given from another AHJ in a different state that require the joist hangers to be covered.

I read that section as allowing a minimum 1 inch amount of coverage on those structural connections in lieu of what the minimum amount required by the listing. I do not see how this could be used to require a joist hanger to be fire proofed

If the code doesn't even allow deletion of fireproofing coverage of a bolt head, how can you consider a beam fully protected if a space the size of a joist hanger (or numerous joist hangers) doesn't have fire protection?

 

[mtlogcabin]

GC,arch and sub agree the point where the hangers come in contact with the beam need coverage to adequately protect the beam. It is the remaining 11 inches below the beam the GC and Arch do not believe individual protection is required for the individual hangers

 

[permitguy]

Mark, this is precisely why I emphasized you can do whatever you like as the AHJ.

Manufacturers and listing agencies alike are asked for "engineering opinions" all the time, especially in the case of fire-resistive products. In my experience, they tend toward the conservative side for the protection of all involved (physical and liability). I can't imagine why any buidling official would be willing to accept such an opinion when it comes out in favor of the customer, but would disregard it when it does not. With inspectors facing trial for criminally negligent homicide, and civil penalties being ordered despite the presence of immunity laws, I'm not sticking my neck out for an argument that a first year law student could refute in a matter of minutes with no knowledge of the code whatsoever.

 

[texasbo]

GC,arch and sub agree the point where the hangers come in contact with the beam need coverage to adequately protect the beam. It is the remaining 11 inches below the beam the GC and Arch do not believe individual protection is required for the individual hangers

If the beam is fully protected, then we're on the same page.

 

[brudgers]

GC,arch and sub agree the point where the hangers come in contact with the beam need coverage to adequately protect the beam. It is the remaining 11 inches below the beam the GC and Arch do not believe individual protection is required for the individual hangers

What is providing the required protection for the hanger?

 

[brudgers]

With inspectors facing trial for criminally negligent homicide, and civil penalties being ordered despite the presence of immunity laws,

Citation please?

 

[mtlogcabin]

What is providing the required protection for the hanger?

The one hour listed ceiling

 

[permitguy]

Citation please?

Funny, I thought you didn't like people writing citations. Anyway, here you go:

Criminally negligent homicide charges against buidling inspector: http://www.snowmasssun.com/article/20110412/FRONTPAGE/110419996

Town and state paying settlement of $10,000,000 each in Rhode Island (also see next reference): http://www.firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=53306

Rhode Island State law limiting damages to $100,000, except when the damage resulted from a proprietary function (which inspections are not): http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE9/9-31/9-31-3.HTM

 

[Architect1281]

Permit guy key to law was that it is a settlement and not a court awarded decision, in RI the building inspectors are under this one

§ 23-27.3-107.9 Relief from personal responsibility.

The state building commissioner, the members and staff of the building code standards committee and the board of standards and appeals, the building official, officer, or employee charged with the enforcement, administration and/or review of this code, while acting for the state or a municipality, shall not thereby render himself or herself liable personally, and he or she is hereby relieved from all personal liability for any damages that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act required or permitted in the discharge of his or her official duties. Any suit instituted against any of these officers or employees because of an act performed by him or her in the lawful discharge of his or her duties and under the provisions of this code shall be defended by the legal representative of the state in the case of the members and staff of the building code standards committee and the board of standards and appeals, and the building commissioner or his or her agents or by the legal representative of the municipality, in the case of the building official, officer, or employee, until the final determination of the proceedings. In no case shall members and staff of the building code standards committee and the board of standards and appeals, the state building commissioner, building official, or any of their subordinates be liable for costs or damages in any action, suit, or proceeding that may be instituted pursuant to the provisions of this code and the members and staff of the building code standards committee and the board of standards and appeals, the state building commissioner or his or her agents or an officer of the department of building inspection, acting in good faith and without malice and within the scope of their employment, is free from liability for acts performed under any of its provisions or by reason of any act or omission in the performance of his or her official duties in connection with this code.

Carried over from English Rule of Law concept of Soverign Immunity (The King nor the Kings Men can do no wrong - unless they try)

Permit guy were you in RI for the JLC show recently?

 

[brudgers]

Funny, I thought you didn't like people writing citations. Anyway, here you go:Criminally negligent homicide charges against buidling inspector: http://www.snowmasssun.com/article/20110412/FRONTPAGE/110419996

Town and state paying settlement of $10,000,000 each in Rhode Island (also see next reference): http://www.firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=53306

Rhode Island State law limiting damages to $100,000, except when the damage resulted from a proprietary function (which inspections are not): http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE9/9-31/9-31-3.HTM

1. The people who were indicted should have watched this video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc]

2. Settlements are paid by insurance companies based on exposure not liability.

Neither set of events establishes liability based on official action nor does either create legal precedent.

 

[permitguy]

Permit guy key to law was that it is a settlement and not a court awarded decision, in RI the building inspectors are under this one

Understood, but a local AHJ and the state could have both been covered by the tort liability act quoted above, yet they chose to settle in spite of that fact. You may remain free from personal liability in accordance with the section you posted, but you can bet your career will be over if your actions cost your AHJ and state 20 million dollars collectively.

1. The people who were indicted should have watched this video:

I've seen that before, and don't disagree with him, but it is unlikely that failure to cooperate in the investigation would have changed the outcome here. In fact, the sherriff recommended against forwarding this to a grand jury (though it is ultimately not his decision). If your strategy is to give in on everything and avoid speaking to the investigators if something bad happens, then best of luck to you. I prefer to avoid the "something bad happening" if I can.

2. Settlements are paid by insurance companies based on exposure not liability.

And when the insurance company doesn't pay the settlement amount in its entirety? Take a closer read. I doubt whether you call it exposure or liability is any consolation to the citizens who will now pay higher taxes or go without other services because of the actions of an inspector.

Neither set of events establishes liability based on official action nor does either create legal precedent.

Maybe not for an ostrich.

mtlogcabin - I'm sorry for taking this so far off topic. I'll knock it off now (unless someone wants to continue in a new thread). It's not as if we're going to change each others minds, but it's interesting discussion.

 

[brudgers]

Understood, but a local AHJ and the state could have both been covered by the tort liability act quoted above, yet they chose to settle in spite of that fact. You may remain free from personal liability in accordance with the section you posted, but you can bet your career will be over if your actions cost your AHJ and state 20 million dollars collectively.

I didn't think you could top the "protect the jurisdiction from liability" section of the code.

Really, I didn't.

But then you cited "Protect my career" and I realized I was in the presence of true greatness.

 

[fatboy]

Is it absolutelly necessary to become a total a$$ on most threads? You actually often have valid points, and I sense that you can articulate them, but inevitably you feel the need to attack and insult. What's your problem? Did you always feel the need to kick sand in the box? Chill out sport.......

 

[mtlogcabin]

mtlogcabin - I'm sorry for taking this so far off topic

That okay I ahve done the same with other post

Spoke with UL late this afternoon. There is no listed fire rated assembly for a steel beam with I-joist hangers attached to the beam supporting a floor. There has been no testing for the fire rating of I-joist hangers. With that said the failure rate of an I-joist when exposed to fire is about 6 minutes. He stated the heat transfer from the hangers to the beam would be minimal. He did recommend covering the hangers where attached to the beam just as all hangers for other trades are.

 

[Mark K]

There is a difference between what a fire test reports and the informal recommendation from a person who works at UL. I would suggest that you provide the information you uncovered to the Owner and his architect, and then tell them that there is no code basis for requiring the additional fire proofing.