• 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

Floor Finish

M

Marshal Chris

Silver Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
155
Location
Long Island, NY
Talking about this section here:

804.1 General. Interior floor finish and floor covering materials shall comply with this section.

Exception: Floors and floor coverings of a traditional type, such as wood, vinyl, linoleum or terrazzo, and resilient floor covering materials which are not comprised of fibers.

I have a Chiropractic office which has installed interlocking rubber matting in the area they have physical therapy (gym) equipment. A letter to the builder has advised them they have not tested the material for the flame spread.

My question is do you think this material meets the exception? I take the exception to mean traditional and resilient. I'll bet it's resilient, but I don't think it's traditional.
 
I would not consider the rubber flooring as typical resilient floor coverning materials. The rubber flooring system in a commercial occupancy should be tested and listed.
 
Depends on how you read that section. Does traditional include wood, vinyl, linoleum or terrazzo only? And then includes resilient floor covering materials which are not comprised of fibers as a separate non-traditional category?

We know the traditional group, usually, doesn't include fibers (there are always new materials calling themselves by traditional names).

If the test report doesn't indicate fibers then I would say it's ok. Ask for the report, most manufacturers have them available.
 
The interlocking rubber mas are not traditional flooring. The mats must be tested and must comply with the interior finish requirements if they are a permanent part of the flooring arrangement.

The "out" would be to have the mats as a temporary thing that need to be picked up and set down each time. Then it's a furnishing not a floor finish.
 
Plans Approver - I don't think traditional is limited to those listed, however I do believe the code intends both traditional and resiliant.

Gene, TJ, and CD - Thanks for the input, that's what I was thinking. I don't think these mats can be taken up since the'll have "universal" type gym equipment installed on them.
 
Plans Approver - I don't think traditional is limited to those listed, however I do believe the code intends both traditional and resiliant.
Click to expand...
I was making 2 points - 1. bad code language and 2. get the test report, there are several new resilient flooring materials that do pass NFPA 253 as a Class I and/or II floor finish and can be used by 804.2. and the exception to 804.1 becomes moot. I ask for test reports for all except real traditional flooring such as 3/4"+ wood, concrete, and terrazzo.
 
The manufacturer now states it has been tested and meets the pill test with a critical radiant flux of .1 watts/cm2. I can't find anything on CPSC CFR telling me what the acceptable criteria is. Anyone?
 
You'll find the acceptable criteria in 804.2 and where it can be used in 804.4.1. A .1 w/cm2 is low and can't be used in areas listed 804.4.1. Does it say it was tested per NFPA 253 (code acceptable) or a different test like ASTM D684 (not code acceptable unless approved by BO)?
 
it wast tested to astm e 648-99. I know where to get the requierments of the floor finish. The area in which this material is installed requires compliance with the pill test. I was looking for the acceptance requirements from CPSC on what makes the material pass the pill test. The manufacturer of the material is saying in their letter it complys with the pill test, but that's like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. I'd like to verify that it does meet the pill test. Furthermore, I thought the pill test is for carpeted surfaces, which this is not. So how can this material be compliant with a standard that it's not constructed of the material it's meant for.

I've even tried calling the compliance number for the CPSC, only when propmted to dial the 4 digit extenion number the system tells you to dial, the system then says, "I don't understand" and starts the message again.......
 
Here is a link to from the Carpet and Rug Institute which may help.

http://www.carpet-rug.org/commercial-customers/selecting-the-right-carpet/saftey-considerations/flammability.cfm

There is a pdf for download on that site also.

http://www.carpet-rug.org/technical_bulletins/9903_Carpet_&_Rugs_Flammability_Tests.pdf

edit: You are correct the test is primarily for carpet. But, the last sentence in 804.4.1 says "In all areas floor coverings shall comply with the DOC FF-1 "pill test"." Not just carpet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tried uploading the PDF test report but apparently it exceeds the limit.

Looking at the link you sent, its telling me the acceptance criteria for the pill test is that a burn can not exceed three inches from the edge during and upon completion of the test. The report is indicating to me that all three tests had a burn distance of 101 cm, which equates to just above 40 inches. It would appear to me that this doesn't comply with the pill test. Agreed?
 
Agreed. Sounds screwy for the pill test. The FF-1 pill test requires 7 of 8 samples to pass. The flame in a pill test is allowed to move 3" maximum to within 1" from the edge of the 8" dia. opening in the test plate. The samples and the test plates are 9" x 9".

Critical radiant flux is different. My guess is that the report was either NFPA 253 or ASTM E648. Both use samples about 42" long. Both require 3 samples in the test and are virtually the same.

I would call the test lab and discuss w/ them. They are supposed to be a disinterested third party.
 
It was in fact an ASTM E648, which is telling me it's a class I. Does a class I rated material exceed the pill test? That I don't know and haven't been able to find. There isn't any reference, that I can find, that a class I is equivelent or exceeds pill test and would be acceptable.
 
They are apples and oranges. Pill test was to simulate flaming due to a dropped cigarette on carpet-like materials. Radiant panel tests measure flame spread due to intense high heat on any floor material. There is no equivalency, just bad, unclear code language. Using a carpet test for other materials doesn't make sense. It all goes back to your original post, is resilient flooring without fibers considered a traditional material not subject to testing.

I would accept a passing NFPA 253 test report because it is referenced in the code where ASTM E648 is not. Fewer people smoke, even fewer will smoke during physical therapy or exercise. Granted there could be a random spark from an electical fixure or appliance malfunction (even a random static electricity spark from lycra rubbing lycra). But, you can't regulate against every possibility. The code has put this entirely in your interpretive powers. (Depends on how you read the exception.)

Link to the gov' pill test - http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;rgn=div5;view=text;node=16%3A2.0.1.4.80;idno=16;sid=bd4f00fb3e308f4bee352b65ef34970f;cc=ecfr

link to NFPA 253 if you are a member - http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=253
 
Glad if I was of help. It brought back memories of a day care center I designed several years ago, and without my knowledge, the owner put interlocking rubber mats throughout the indoor play area. The building and fire depts. raised the same flag. The NFPA 253 test report showed Class I, a couple of exits from other rooms passed through this area so it had to be Class I. There were no pill test results. The manufacturer and test lab both called the BO but couldn't convince him. The owner was a smoker so we did our own on-site pill test by taking several extra tiles outside (w/ a fire extinguisher) and having him light several cigarettes and placing them randomly on the pieces and covered each spot with a cardboard box so that wind would not affect our "sophisticated" little test. The cigarettes went out well before it burned half way. The only residue was a black burn scar about an inch or so long. The BO and FO let the installation remain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top