• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

No Burn I Joist Protection

booneglyn said:
I am an Engineer with the Trus Joist division of Weyerhaeuser. Regarding "Membrane Protection" of light-weight framing (this would include I-joists, plated trusses, and light weight steel joists), these provisions for single-family structures are listed in section R501.3 of the 2012 IRC. As noted earlier, Pennsylvania adopted nearly identical language in their own code.Flak Jacket is a Factory Applied protective coating offered by Trus Joist on our TJI joist products. It's available in the markets where this code provision has been adopted.

No Burn is a Field Applied intumescent paint that can be applied to framing members after installation. While some builders may have used this on TJI joists, Weyerhaeuser does not endorse this product.

We have tested and gained approval of the Flak Jacket coating by meeting the requirements of Exception 4 of R501.3. We have followed the ICC-ES AC-14 Acceptance Criteria which requires a loaded assembly fire test using the E119 time-temperature curves. This assembly test has demonstrated that a floor system built with TJI joists with Flak Jacket protection provides equivalent fire endurance to a floor system built with unprotected 2x10 dimension lumber.

Per our evaluation report, web holes that are within the limits of our standard published hole charts are acceptable without further field treatment.

For more information or questions, you can contact our technical support team from our website Weyerhaeuser :: Flak Jacket Fire Protection.
Click to expand...
Very interesting and I hope that you continue to participate in the forum. I hope this is not a hit and run post a link to endorse a product post.

Is Weyerhauser interested in supporting this forum?
 
I have approved the no burn myself for I joist protection. I think it is better than the 1/2 drywall because the pa code doesn't require the dry wall to be spackeled.
 
From experience Flak jacket is better. One question I had for those at the ICC Expo was what is the millage of cover? No Burn works on 12m. I under stand that Flak Jacket is applied by brush in the line. It dose not get applied to the bottom cord.
 
booneglyn said:
I am an Engineer with the Trus Joist division of Weyerhaeuser. Regarding "Membrane Protection" of light-weight framing (this would include I-joists, plated trusses, and light weight steel joists), these provisions for single-family structures are listed in section R501.3 of the 2012 IRC. As noted earlier, Pennsylvania adopted nearly identical language in their own code.Flak Jacket is a Factory Applied protective coating offered by Trus Joist on our TJI joist products. It's available in the markets where this code provision has been adopted.

No Burn is a Field Applied intumescent paint that can be applied to framing members after installation. While some builders may have used this on TJI joists, Weyerhaeuser does not endorse this product.

We have tested and gained approval of the Flak Jacket coating by meeting the requirements of Exception 4 of R501.3. We have followed the ICC-ES AC-14 Acceptance Criteria which requires a loaded assembly fire test using the E119 time-temperature curves. This assembly test has demonstrated that a floor system built with TJI joists with Flak Jacket protection provides equivalent fire endurance to a floor system built with unprotected 2x10 dimension lumber.

Per our evaluation report, web holes that are within the limits of our standard published hole charts are acceptable without further field treatment.

For more information or questions, you can contact our technical support team from our website Weyerhaeuser :: Flak Jacket Fire Protection.
Click to expand...
Welcome welcome welcome

Never heard of flack jacket till now, thanks
 
Heard about, had one contractor use it once. Now they put the sprinklers in. A friend in the lumber business told me the Flak Jacket TJI's are about a buck a lineal foot more, adds up quick.
 
A friend in the lumber business told me the Flak Jacket TJI's are about a buck a lineal foot more, adds up quick.
Click to expand...
Well, depending on series and depth of joist, the price per lineal foot would have to fluctuate. Even at $1 per LF, on a 3000 sq ft house you have approximately 1000 LF of I-joist in the 1st floor frame? So that's $1000 extra for Flak Jacket.
 
And if you go the P2094 protection route, sprinkler heads are about $12, 3/4 pex is about .55/ft, the plumber is working in the basement already, sprinkler heads cover 400 sf............do the math. If your plumber is charging you more the $50 a head, he's screwing you.
 
Just looked at their website and they need to provide more technical data for code officials. I can only find marketing materials and no factual data or test reports or even links to ICC reports.

what is interesting is that when you google "no burn I joist protection" out forum and this thread comes up number 1 above their own site. Maybe they should sponsor part of this forum with a banner............
 
fatboy said:
And if you go the P2094 protection route, sprinkler heads are about $12, 3/4 pex is about .55/ft, the plumber is working in the basement already, sprinkler heads cover 400 sf............do the math. If your plumber is charging you more the $50 a head, he's screwing you.
Click to expand...
Fatboy is spot on but...

I would add that the 50 bucks per head number is the hard cost and then only in an area that has embraced the sprinklers installed in multipurpose applications by the plumbers. When the volume goes up the price goes down.

States and jurisdictions who cling to the commercial and industrial regulations in the planning and execution of fire sprinklers by traditional fire sprinkler companies are doomed to much higher prices and lower availability. Several states that have written restrictive and onerous sprinkler regulations to defeat the code mandates and the end result is far more expensive installations.

I guess their predictions that sprinklers are not a good value have come full circle and become self-fulfilling because the sprinklers are not a good investment in those communities.

Residential fire protection is not free ....We will provide it as a government function or we will require the production builders to mitigate the risk they manufacture in light weight constructed new homes. Personal responsibility by the homeowner is the best way!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top