• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

"Fire Retardant Treated Wood"

E

EricWatkins

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2015
Messages
31
Location
Decatur Il
I'm looking at the IBC 2009 603.1 Exception 10 where it mentions the allowance of "fire-retardant-treated-wood". So this building I'm looking at is a construction type II b which is noncombustible construction but allows the above exception that I listed. My big question is, can the contractor use a product like "FireFree 88" to treat the wood, in this case, for a wooden header supporting a dividing-type accordion door, instead of constructing the the header (and supports) out of listed fire-retardant lumber? I hope this make sense as I'm telling it. The header is already there and the contractor would like to not take it down. Of course, that isn't my main concern but I also don't want to cause unneeded reconstruction. Opinions? Thoughts? References? All or any of it will be much appreciated. Thanks!

Eric
 
@ = = + = = @

Exception # 10 appears to be for Finished flooring.

From the `09 IBC, Section 603.1, Exception # 10:

" 10. Finish flooring installed in accordance with Section 805".



@ = = + = = @
 
Lumber treated at the factory is treated on all exposed surfaces and the surfaces are typically incised to allow deeper penetration of the retardant into the wood fiber.

Not sure field applied finish would provide the same level of protection.
 
Field treating doesn't comply, here is the definition:

2303.2 Fire-retardant-treated wood. Fire-retardant -treated

wood is any wood product which, when impregnated with

chemicals by a pressure process or other means during manufacture,

shall have, when tested in accordance with ASTM E

84 or UL 723, a listed flame spread index of 25 or 1ess and

show no evidence of significant progressive combustion

when the test is continued for an additional 20-minute period.

Additionally, the flame front shall not progress more than

10 1/2 feet (3200 mm) beyond the centerline of the burners at

any time during the test.

Section continues with more information on processes, testing, and labelling
 
Whoops, there it is! Haha, perfect. Wow, this place is 2 for 2 in two days. Thanks so much guys. I'm a mechanical inspector but trying to take on more responsibility and learn more of all of the codes. Thanks :)
 
EricWatkins said:
Whoops, there it is! Haha, perfect. Wow, this place is 2 for 2 in two days. Thanks so much guys. I'm a mechanical inspector but trying to take on more responsibility and learn more of all of the codes. Thanks :)
Click to expand...
You to can become a contributing member to help support the forum and the VAST knowledge its members have

http://www.thebuildingcodeforum.com/forum/payments.php

Plus the entertainment factor is worth the price of admission
 
~ & ~ & ~



O.K., so I'm still beating on this dead horse.

He may have a little bit of life still left in him.

Instead of applying some type of fire retardant

to the "already installed header", ...can the

prescriptive methods of Ch. 7, Section 721 -

Calculated Fire Resistance, be used to cover the

header with some type of material to meet the

fire resistance ?

Anyone...

Please provide the calculations, or code section(s)

as to why not..........Thanks !



~ $ ~ $ ~
 
north star said:
~ & ~ & ~

O.K., so I'm still beating on this dead horse.

He may have a little bit of life still left in him.

Instead of applying some type of fire retardant

to the "already installed header", ...can the

prescriptive methods of Ch. 7, Section 721 -

Calculated Fire Resistance, be used to cover the

header with some type of material to meet the

fire resistance ?

Anyone...

Please provide the calculations, or code section(s)

as to why not..........Thanks !



~ $ ~ $ ~
Click to expand...
603???

Or convince the ahj to use it as an alternative method
 
Greetings,

I've tested some of the field treated stuff. It looked like you could grill steaks with it. I wouldn't consider it after what I saw.

BS
 
@ ~ @ ~ @



Thanks cda ! :cool:

From the `09 IBC, ...possibly Section 603, Exception # 21:

21. Sprayed fire-resistant materials and intumescent and mastic

fire-resistant coatings, determined on the basis of fire

resistance tests in accordance with Section 703.2 and installed

in accordance with Sections 1704.12 and 1704.13, respectively.

@ ~ @ ~ @
 
north star said:
@ ~ @ ~ @

Thanks cda ! :cool:

From the `09 IBC, ...possibly Section 603, Exception # 21:

21. Sprayed fire-resistant materials and intumescent and mastic

fire-resistant coatings, determined on the basis of fire

resistance tests in accordance with Section 703.2 and installed

in accordance with Sections 1704.12 and 1704.13, respectively.

@ ~ @ ~ @
Click to expand...
If someone tried that I would make sure they did every word in those sections
 
# ~ ~ #

In a previous employment position, we had to do this very thing.

Had an existing building, and the owner wanted to add on more

space on one side........The codes called for a 3 hr. separation.

The Fire Chief accepted a [ supposedly ] 3 hr. rated, ceramic

based coating, applied to only 1 side of the wood framing as

an acceptable solution.

The point being, that the OP could [ in theory ] offer an

alternative to having the "currently installed", non-factory

fire retardant treated, wood header correctly [ <----- ? ]

coated with some type of a fire rated coating, or some other

type of acceptable finish, rather than removing the header

and reframing something else [ RE: Section 104.11, `09 IBC ].

Not the optimal solution I know, but an alternative solution

none-the-less...........There is more than one way to "skin this

particular cat"...............Just sayin'... :mrgreen:





# ~ ~ #

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alternative design approved by modification--have gone there a few times for headers and trusses that were speced FRT but got installed regular wood. Document, have appropriate independent inspection and move on
 
Hi all
I am planning to fireproof the wood inside my house, and while searching online, I found fire-retardants, but I'm not yet sure about their effectiveness. I would like to know if anyone here has used them before and can provide some insights or recommendations.
Hugo
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Post #7:
"2303.2 Fire-retardant-treated wood. Fire-retardant -treated wood is any wood product which, when impregnated with chemicals by a pressure process or other means during manufacture, shall have, when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723, a listed flame spread index of 25 or less and show no evidence of significant progressive combustion when the test is continued for an additional 20-minute period. Additionally, the flame front shall not progress more than 10 1/2 feet (3200 mm) beyond the centerline of the burners at any time during the test."

Brush-on products can reduce the flamespread (slow the burning) of wood finish, but will not make structural wood fire resistant.
 
Paul Sweet said:
From Post #7:
"2303.2 Fire-retardant-treated wood. Fire-retardant -treated wood is any wood product which, when impregnated with chemicals by a pressure process or other means during manufacture, shall have, when tested in accordance with ASTM E 84 or UL 723, a listed flame spread index of 25 or less and show no evidence of significant progressive combustion when the test is continued for an additional 20-minute period. Additionally, the flame front shall not progress more than 10 1/2 feet (3200 mm) beyond the centerline of the burners at any time during the test."

Brush-on products can reduce the flamespread (slow the burning) of wood finish, but will not make structural wood fire resistant.
Click to expand...
Awaiting the "intumescent paint" discussion.
I dunno why people try to cut corners. Applying crap in the field doesn't (generally) improve fire-resistance rating.
 
Northstar, I really want to read your excellent responses but the ridiculously small font and a color selection that is difficult to read makes it difficult.
 
So I have a building that has expanded and not requires a 2 hour separation or fire sprinklers. The current separation is a single 5/8 sheetrock wall for a 1 hour rating. They are proposing intumescent paint on the wall to add another 1 hour rating. It looks like 2018 IBC 603.1.21 will allow it. It also looks like 703..3.4 would require a FPE to sign off. Any suggestions?
 
tonto961 said:
So I have a building that has expanded and not requires a 2 hour separation or fire sprinklers. The current separation is a single 5/8 sheetrock wall for a 1 hour rating. They are proposing intumescent paint on the wall to add another 1 hour rating. It looks like 2018 IBC 603.1.21 will allow it. It also looks like 703..3.4 would require a FPE to sign off. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...
Have they provided a reference to a tested assembly that uses such a configuration? UL, GA, or other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top