• 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

PEX penetrations through 1 hr wall - California - help

redeyedfly

Registered User
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
99
Location
Minneapolis, MN
I will have to completely disconnect the plumbing and figure out how to run it through sheetrock.
I think your inspector is correct. You are penetrating a rated floor assembly (which also probably doesn't meet the IIC requirements). The penetration needs to be firestopped. In commercial construction they "prerock" the areas where there are penetrations during rough-in. Install enough gyp to make all your penetrations and firestop, then when you rock the rest of the room, you butt up to the prerocked area and tape the joint.

Approved plans form the city are no defense against code violations found later during construction. Also, firestopping is rarely submitted for permit. The contractor is responsible for getting all the penetration firestop designed and providing the inspector with the listed systems at the field inspection.

This inspector sounds like he's just doing his job.
 

jakesktm

Registered User
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
10
Location
California
That is a work of art,,, How could some one say disturb that???

The holes not not four times as big as you need them. The wood fit is pretty.

It is not an approved 1-hour assembly. As others have suggested, placing it higher between the studs to allow 5/8" GypX to be attached to the joists "could" be acceptable, although we are still stuck with 18 individual penetrations. I guess I was thinking by assembling multiple penetrations onto one block it would reduce the overall penetration to one or two blocks that could be seamed. However it is now apparent that it isn't that simple. There has to be an approved assembly, either by a UL or ASTM approved product on the market or UL approved assembly. Haven't found one yet.
 

redeyedfly

Registered User
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
99
Location
Minneapolis, MN
It is not an approved 1-hour assembly. As others have suggested, placing it higher between the studs to allow 5/8" GypX to be attached to the joists "could" be acceptable, although we are still stuck with 18 individual penetrations. I guess I was thinking by assembling multiple penetrations onto one block it would reduce the overall penetration to one or two blocks that could be seamed. However it is now apparent that it isn't that simple. There has to be an approved assembly, either by a UL or ASTM approved product on the market or UL approved assembly. Haven't found one yet.
Call Hilti, they'll get you a system and the documentation in a day or two.

https://www.hilti.com/c/CLS_FIRESTOP_PROTECTION_7131/CLS_FIRESTOP_BLOCKS_PLUGS_CUSHIONS_7131/r5253
 

jakesktm

Registered User
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
10
Location
California
I think your inspector is correct. You are penetrating a rated floor assembly (which also probably doesn't meet the IIC requirements). The penetration needs to be firestopped. In commercial construction they "prerock" the areas where there are penetrations during rough-in. Install enough gyp to make all your penetrations and firestop, then when you rock the rest of the room, you butt up to the prerocked area and tape the joint.

Approved plans form the city are no defense against code violations found later during construction. Also, firestopping is rarely submitted for permit. The contractor is responsible for getting all the penetration firestop designed and providing the inspector with the listed systems at the field inspection.

This inspector sounds like he's just doing his job.
I don't disagree here. The frustration I think the inspector, myself and the homeowner is having is the subjectivity as to what constitutes an adequate solution. We have discussed placing the manifold into a fire rated pull box flush mounted in the wall and running the plumbing through the top plates. We have discussed intumescent fire caulk. We have discussed gypx rock, etc. It will depend on what the homeowner and the inspector arrive at because I'm not eating this work when plans did not include a proper fire assembly :/
 

redeyedfly

Registered User
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
99
Location
Minneapolis, MN
It is typically the GC's responsibility to provide all the necessary firestopping; pipe penetrations are never on the plans w/ firestopping. Inspector's don't provide solutions as a rule, they just tell you if they will accept your solution or not.

Call Hilti. This is not a difficult situation, pex pipes penetrate FRR assemblies every day.

The gyp doesn't need to attach to the joists. In fact, your assembly should probably have resilient channels to meet sound reqs. You have a membrane penetration, the membrane is the gyp. Now that you penetrated it you need to firestop it.
 

cda

Sawhorse 123
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
19,908
Location
Basement
Group:::

Where is the rated assembly in all this??

None indicated on the approved plans???
 

e hilton

Bronze Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
1,573
Location
Virginia
That is a work of art,,, How could some one say disturb that???

The holes not not four times as big as you need them. The wood fit is pretty.
The problem that you might not see is that he intentionally set the 2x proud of the joist by 5/8” ... so the the face of that 2x will be flush with the face of the sheetrock. My thought is ... move the 2x back so a piece of gwb can run continuous past it.
 

jakesktm

Registered User
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
10
Location
California
I sent an email to Hilti and they do not have a tested UL system for this application. They didn't even have a solution.

Personally I think it is a matter of opinion at this point as to what the inspector and we agree to.
 

tmurray

Registered User
Joined
Jun 10, 2011
Messages
2,031
Location
NB, Canada
The issue we are all seeing here is that everyone is being reactive instead of proactive.

A proactive owner would have hired qualified consultants to clarify the fire separation requirements in the creation of the plans.

A proactive building official would have ensure that the fire separation requirements were detailed on the plans submitted for plan review.

I do have sympathy for the subtrades in this case, a proactive tradesperson would review the plans to verify the location and impact of any fire separations.

So, where the owner and building official are not proactive, everyone gets screwed.

The building official needs to own some of this issue and look at reasonable solutions that, while not meeting all of the code, meet the intent of the code without causing unreasonable hardship.

We recently had a case up here in Canada where the building official kept asking for things that were not detailed on the plans. Same kind of stuff as here, fire separations, emergency lighting, etc. All of it in the code. The issue is that when it went to court, the court found it was a violation of the reasonable expectation principle to levy additional works not specifically outlined as part of the application against the owner, where those works constitute a major portion of the proposed works. The municipality ended up paying for all of those items that the court would expect that a "reasonable" building official would have asked for plans of up front.
 

redeyedfly

Registered User
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
99
Location
Minneapolis, MN
The issue is that when it went to court, the court found it was a violation of the reasonable expectation principle to levy additional works not specifically outlined as part of the application against the owner, where those works constitute a major portion of the proposed works. The municipality ended up paying for all of those items that the court would expect that a "reasonable" building official would have asked for plans of up front.
Wow! That would never happen in the US.
 

redeyedfly

Registered User
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
99
Location
Minneapolis, MN
I sent an email to Hilti and they do not have a tested UL system for this application. They didn't even have a solution.

Personally I think it is a matter of opinion at this point as to what the inspector and we agree to.

I was looking at pex penetrating a 1hr floor/ceiling assy this morning. Hilti firestop.

The engineering judgment is what you want. You should follow through, you would have had it in your hands by now.
 

redeyedfly

Registered User
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
Messages
99
Location
Minneapolis, MN

north star

Sawhorse
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
4,057
# ~ # ~ #

In looking thru the pages of the 3-M resource provided
by
** Mark Handler **, it appears to be multiple workable

solutions to this "multi-pex piping penetrations" conundrum.
From Pass Thru Devices, to using a fire rated caulking, to

using fire rated putty pads, to fire barrier blocks \ planks,
and more.


I too believe that the Inspector is correct is their
interpretation of the need for fire rated protection of the
pex piping penetrations........Just because the details for
such penetrations were not on the plans, is not his fault.

IMO, ...it is time to contact 3-M or another quality fire
stopping manufacturer and get their input........Their
recommendation for an approved fire stopping system
could be accepted by the AHJ........Provide all of the
documents to the AHJ and request that the recommended

fire stopping system be accepted, and move on......Remove
opinions from this problem and submit proven
documents that support the workability of a recommended
fire stopping system.

The pictured product is from STI.......It is the EZ Path Series
44+ Fire Rated Pathway.



1618073153075.png

This is only one solution.

FWIW, ...the homeowner will need to pay for this "required"
fire stopping.


# ~ # ~ #
 
Top