Does NFPA 13 really allow intumescent paint? I don't think so. Fire retardant treated wood has a Class A (flame spread 25 or less) surface burning characteristic throughout the material, not just on the exposed surface. (i.e if you cut the lumber, the exposed cut surface would also be Class A) The definition in 703 (see below) does not indicate that the fire retardant material is a surface applied material, but impregnated by a pressure process. I see that 703 addresses coatings, but something coated is not a fire retardant treated wood if you look at the definition. A fire retardant coating, even though addressed by 703, used on a material does not make it fire retardant treated wood. NFPA 13 requires a "fire retardant treated wood" and does not explicitly permit fire retardant coated wood per 703.
Having said that, NFPA 13, 8.15.1.2.10 permits a surface burning characteristic to be the basis of not requiring sprinkler protection, but I am not sure how you say that just because it is Class A (flame spread 25 or less), it is not going to "propagate fire in the form in which they are installed". I believe that a Class A material will still propagate fire. Unless there is a NFPA 255 (ASTM E84/UL823)) listing that would show compliance with a material that is class A and would not propagate fire.... I would not accept it's use in a concealed space in lieu of sprinkler protection. NFPA 13 states the following: NFPA 13, 8.15.1.2.10 Concealed spaces where rigid materials are used and the exposed surfaces have a flame spread index of 25 or less, and the materials have been demonstrated not to propagate fire when tested in accordance with NFPA 255, Standard Method of Test of Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials, extended for an additional 20 minutes in the form in which they are installed, shall not require sprinkler protection. NFPA 13, 8.15.1.2.11 Concealed spaces in which the exposed materials are constructed entirely of fire-retardant treated wood as defined by NFPA 703, Standard for Fire Retardant-Treated Wood and Fire-Retardant Coatings for Building Materials, shall not require sprinkler protection. NFPA 703, 3.3.2 Fire Retardant-Treated Wood. A wood product impregnated with chemical by a pressure process or other means during manufacture, which is tested in accordance with NFPA 255, ASTM E 84, or UL 723, has a listed flame spread of 25 or less, and shows no evidence of significant progressive combustion when the test is continued for an additional 20-minute period; nor does the flame front progress more than 10.5 ft (3.2 m) beyond the centerline of the burners at any time during the test. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:24 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: INTUMESCENT PAINT We need to ensure that we are view this issue with the correct lens. Granted we don't like intumescent paint for a number of reasons AND I think the committee was too casual in addressing this issue BUT NFPA 13 is the document that drives the decision NOT the building code. The BC requires fire retardant lumber to be the pressure treated type. That applies to applications where the BC is requiring treated lumber. IN this case, the BC allowed regular timber and since it doesn't have additional criteria about it in chap 9 on sprinkler systems, the BC is done. So we go to NFPA 13 to protect the space. It says sprinkler protection (the preferred and best option) OR you can use treated lumber as per NFPA 703. Guess what boys and girls, NFPA 703 addresses both pressure treated and COATED applications. As such, coated fire retardant treatment can be used (as much as I hated typing that but read on). Some notes to those involved with it's use. NFPA 703 has restrictions on the type of coating when used in a high humidity location. IT also says it must be MAINTAINED to retain the effectiveness of the treatment under the service conditions (which would be for he life of the building). Does anyone have any experience with it to 'splain what that entails??? As an AHJ, I'd require something in writing from the owner showing they are aware of this issue and stating it will be done. Roland On Feb 8, 2007, at 6:03 AM, Vince Sabolik wrote: > >> Thank you forum ... > > ... for the enlightenment and code references regarding use of > intumescent paint in > lieu of attic sprinklers. Somebody 'in authority' actually made > this decision. > > I wonder if it costs more for a 'faux' finish? > > > Vince > > > > > > Vince Sabolik > Christi Fire Protection, Inc. > 11351 Pearl Road > Strongsville, Ohio 44136 > > T 440 572-7730 F 440 572-7719 Email: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
