Fireguard

[Codegeek]

I'm just curious as to what others think of this product - http://www.shieldindustries.com/fireguarde84preview.htm.

From what I can read, it's been tested to ASTM E-119, ASTM E-84, UL 263 and NFPA 251 - all of which are fire test for building construction and materials. They have several test results provided on their site.

I've been asked to look at it to be used in lieu of SFRM. I've pretty much decided it cannot be used in lieu of SFRM as the code language is very specific in terms of how the structural elements are to be protected, but what about other applications such as a fire barrier, fire partition, etc?

What say all of you?

 

[Coug Dad]

I've used Albi in the past to fire proof steel beams and columns. This looks similar to Albi. You have to be careful to use it exactly per the UL listing. Nice product for when the architect wants expressed steel that needs to have a fire resistive rating. One hour looks like paint. Two hour looks like a light orange peel textured paint.

 

[RLGA]

Intumescent fireproofing is commonly used where structural steel is required to have protection but the steel will be exposed for architectural reasons. The intumescent fireproofing is a thin-coat system that can be colored with a top coat or allowed to be painted as permitted by the tested assembly.

 

[Codegeek]

Then how does the intumescent fireproofing meet the requirements in the IBC which state that the structural elements must be protected? Section 704.2 requires that columns be individually encased. If no encasement, then 704.13 would apply for SFRM. So, I'm not seeing where the code would allow the intumescent "paint" in this case. What am I missing?

 

[Coug Dad]

The coating is the encasement.

 

[RLGA]

The intumescent coating is an encasement just like SFRM. When the temperature reaches a certain level, the coating chars and expands to 500 to 1000 times its original thickness to provide an insulated coating around the structural members.

 

[Codegeek]

Ok, learn something new every day I guess. Thank you both!

 

[conarb]

Ron:

It's my understanding that intumescent coatings have been declared illegal as carcinogens, maybe this is just California, or maybe there are some that are not illegal, do you have any information on this?

 

[Coug Dad]

Again, be careful that they follow all requirements of the UL Listing including cleaning, priming, temperature, and application.

 

[Codegeek]

Again, be careful that they follow all requirements of the UL Listing including cleaning, priming, temperature, and application.

I'm not finding a UL listing number in the literature, which is why I questioned it being an approved material. All I'm seeing is that it has been tested to UL 263 and ASTM E-119. I'm sure the AHJ will want evidence of how it performs, but I'm not finding that, which is why I questioned it in the first place.

 

[RLGA]

I'm not finding a UL listing number in the literature, which is why I questioned it being an approved material. All I'm seeing is that it has been tested to UL 263 and ASTM E-119. I'm sure the AHJ will want evidence of how it performs, but I'm not finding that, which is why I questioned it in the first place.

Remember, the code does not require a UL assembly, just that it has been tested per ASTM E 119 or UL 263. Ask for a copy of the test report. If they won't provide it, reject it. If the report says anywhere that it was a "modified ASTM E 119" or something similar (I actually had that submitted one time), then I would look at it with skepticism.

As to carcinogens, I believe at one time in the past there was material in the mix that were found to be carcinogenic, but many of the current formulations specifically state they are non-abestos-containing and non-carcinogenic materials.

 

[Codegeek]

Ron,

This is what I'm finding on their website - http://www.shieldindustries.com/Assemblies/ST-1.pdf. I'm not seeing any modification notes. This is only one example, but it appears to be compliant.