• 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

Special Approval

D

duckbill

Bronze Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
51
Location
PA
2009 IBC

2603.9 Special approval.

Foam plastic shall not be required to comply with the requirements of Sections 2603.4 through 2603.7 where specifically approved based on large-scale tests such as, but not limited to, NFPA 286 (with the acceptance criteria of Section 803.2), FM 4880, UL 1040 or UL 1715. Such testing shall be related to the actual end-use configuration and be performed on the finished manufactured foam plastic assembly in the maximum thickness intended for use....

Does the wording in this section, "actual end-use configuration", include the building construction materials?
 
Thank you Steveray. I appreciate your response.

I am looking for more responses for back up. I have a major spray polyurethane foam insulation company that flew in technical advisers to a local board of appeals to testify that the "actual end-use configuration" only means the foam product itself with the intumescent paint covering. They argue the rest of the assembly (building construction materials / substrate) are not intended to be analyzed in the passing of the NFPA 286 test.
 
The spray polyurethane foam insulation company passed an NFPA 286 test with 2x8 and 2x12 wood construction. The intended application is the ceiling of a steel building with steel roof joists that will protrude through the insulation. The test and the intended use are not even close and failed plan review.

The final argument is whether the "actual end-use configuration" includes the building construction materials.
 
duckbill you have a good argument that the test configuration includes "the materials and construction must conform to that which was tested" though prescriptively chapter is about protection of the plastic foam from exposure not the building construction as applicable in other sections.

In playing the devil's advocate it would be permitted with the application of the prescriptive materials attached to metal furring channels while leaving the protrusion of the steel structure exposed?
 
Has ULBeen asked? What about the installation instructions that were part of the listing?

No matter which NRTL evaluated the product, UL should be the one to ask about the Standard requirements.
 
The listing does not allow the product to be used where the installer intends. The installer and design professional say the Special Approval section of IBC 2603.9 overrides the manufacturer with testing that verifies it works.

NFPA 286 (active members) says it cannot alter its standard to show each end use configuration and the corner room test must be constructed to the standard for testing comparisons, in this case a wood room. Their conclusion is the test is only of the insulation and intumescent coating and the room construction is to be ignored.

It is difficult to approve a product when the testing submittals under the Special Approval section are almost polar opposites in the construction world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top