PEX penetrations through 1 hr wall - California - help

[redeyedfly]

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]

Group:::

Where is the rated assembly in all this??

None indicated on the approved plans???

 

[e hilton]

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]

Hilti does not have a tested UL system that matches your conditions. Please use this link to request an Engineering Judgement:

 

[jakesktm]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[mark handler]

This is a Floor Ceiling, still looking for wall

 

[mark handler]

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1302803O/3m-fire-protection-products-specifiers-guide.pdf

I do not have the time to search through all the judgments but search this doc for "pex" there are over 100 judgment's, call them (1-888-364-3577)

 

[redeyedfly]

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1302803O/3m-fire-protection-products-specifiers-guide.pdf

I do not have the time to search through all the judgements but search this doc for "pex" there are over 100 judgment's, call them (1-888-364-3577)

You don't have to search for judgments, the manufacturer will provide them. Also EJs must be project specific. So even if you found one you would need another issued for your project.

 

[north star]

# ~ # ~ #

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.




This is only one solution.

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

# ~ # ~ #