View Full Version : About the value of fireproofing wood frame construction
I would like to discuss the value of adding a fireproof material into wood frame construction asemblies.
One of the problems I see with building with wood studs and wood joists is the use of plywood for the floor material which is also a combustible material. If there is ever a fire the whole structure is affected and difficult to repair without tearing the whole thing down and rebuilding.
If a floor board material that is not combustible and is actually fireproof is used this would make the problem of house fires much less devastating and allow more time for fires to be extinguished before much structural damage is caused, permitting isolated structural repairs.
Any thoughts on this from architects and designers?
hmm..
I don't know about non-flammable components making a timber structure more able to survive a fire- there are 2 houses within a few blocks of where I live that were completely destroyed by fires- although the walls were brick the damage caused by the roof collapsing damaged most of the walls.
Let's assume I'm wrong (pretty safe assumption most of the time) and we can use fireproof materials,and that they will help- is there a specific material you had in mind for flooring?
Last note is that most fire safety codes are life-protection codes and not asset-protection codes- the requirements for code-compliance are geared towards giving people enough time to evacuate a building, and also on preventing spread to adjacent properties.
i believe that adding fire proof flooring wouldnt help much - as fires tend to move upwards - hence they would be affecting the walls and roof far more than the floors. And as Peter said- the damge comes from the collapsing roof. Think the only way to ensure the strutural stabilty is to construct the entire building from fire proof materials - but even so - most materials are merely fire resistant rather than "proof"
If the material was used as the floor board, ceiling board and the roof sheathing as well as the partition walls would this not help significantly reduce property damage and give people more time to escape?
It mostl ikely would - but then you might as well just not build in timber - my opinion - might not count for much :)
It really depends on the fireproof materials used- how heavy it is,how much it costs and what technologies are needed to attach it.
I have a new material developed that installs like plywood with screws or nails and also like drywall than can be taped and refinished much the same way the usual materials are used. You can refer to my profile homepage and email for more information. Cost would not much outside of what similar materials are worth and would not change the over costs to build a conventional wood frame quality building.
well then in that case then why not - if it doesnt blow your budget then definately - the longer the it takes for the damage to happen, the more time you have to extinguish the fire before any major failure happens - save in the long run :)
These are my thoughts exactly. Even though codes do not required wood frame construction to be built with fireproof material elements where possible magnesiacore allows the added benefit of retarding fires in wood frame structures. Even if costs work out to be slightly higher in areas due to extra shipping costs, its worth the investment. As you said building codes are not concerned with loss of property, but owners should be interested in this kind of benefit.
Andrew B
08-07-2006, 21:40
I agree with all. But keep in mind that the intention of most fire safety codes are not necessarily to avoid structural damage, but to ensure that people can get out in a reasonable time frame.
This looks a lot like an "involved salesman" advertising campaign. If it's the case you're doing a great job!!
Welcome to the forum!
I agree with all. But keep in mind that the intention of most fire safety codes are not necessarily to avoid structural damage, but to ensure that people can get out in a reasonable time frame.
This is the case in most jurisdictions. But the architect needs to comply with codes as the minimum baseline but there is no reason why clients would not go with something more to get results that also protect their investment in the structure and belongings that can be considered irreplaceable.
Some thing like this can be a great selling feature to add to an Architect's design work when suggesting materials.
BrianMyers
09-07-2006, 00:56
This looks a lot like an "involved salesman" advertising campaign. If it's the case you're doing a great job!!
You were thinking that too? :cheers:
takesh h
09-07-2006, 02:50
tonyafc, that just doesn't work here.
We will modify your profile a bit later, but we won't suspend your membership at this point.
So far you left only a negative impression on us, but still has a chance to redeem your blunder. Good luck.
i don't think it's such a big deal... sounds like tonyafc is an architectural product designer/developer and just asking for comments on his idea/product.
i don't think he is doing any hardcore advertising moves, just asking for opinions, which is all fair and square for this forum i think.
arrestme
09-07-2006, 11:08
Wood constructions are often more fire-resistant than f.ex steel constructions. A wood beam will in most cases keep its bearing properties longer than a steel beam.
Thanks Swank-e,
I have been advancing the development of this new material for several months now. We are at the stage where we have ceritification and testing completed for non-structural uses so it can be used inside and outside of buildings.
We are now working to develop the product further into other areas such as a structural plywood alternative for wood frame and steel frame construction and I am looking for feedback from professionals who would need to specificy the material for their projects.
When drywall was invented in 1952 it launched a revolution in more economical building methods over the laborious lath and plaster systems used before then. It took years before enough people knew about it and lath and plastering was still going on till the 1960's, 70's and 80's in the USA. In many parts of the world drywall is just now starting to be used for the first time more than 50 years later.
I am not advertising something over anything else, but here to hopefully discuss a new product alternative with the design professionals to work with them to advance something to consider that is in their client's interest.
Hopefully people here will not consider this advertising.
nicholas
09-07-2006, 16:51
material development could be very interesting...
still use hard plaster though if it is viable...it has some benifits
imasayer
10-07-2006, 16:57
Thanks Swank-e,
I have been advancing the development of this new material for several months now. We are at the stage where we have ceritification and testing completed for non-structural uses so it can be used inside and outside of buildings.
We are now working to develop the product further into other areas such as a structural plywood alternative for wood frame and steel frame construction and I am looking for feedback from professionals who would need to specificy the material for their projects.
When drywall was invented in 1952 it launched a revolution in more economical building methods over the laborious lath and plaster systems used before then. It took years before enough people knew about it and lath and plastering was still going on till the 1960's, 70's and 80's in the USA. In many parts of the world drywall is just now starting to be used for the first time more than 50 years later.
I am not advertising something over anything else, but here to hopefully discuss a new product alternative with the design professionals to work with them to advance something to consider that is in their client's interest.
Hopefully people here will not consider this advertising.
Gypsum board is a fire resistant material. How is this product really going to improve on this? More fire resistant? If you want a fire resistant assembly you have to seal holes. This means such things as can lights and duct openings are out. Those kind of areas are where you get the most spread from fire. You can make a sheathing material as fire resistant as you like but if you have holes in it, it is no better than regular gyp board. In other words it it not a matter of making a new product, but rather a new way of making the buildings systems work within the house to make it more fire resistant.
If you could develope a material that could replace two layers of gypsusm in a 2hr rated assembly, then you might be on to something.
The concept for suggesting the plywood floors of a wood frame assembly could benefit from using a fireproof material is that is creates a mix of combustible and non-combustible materials that may result in saving structures.
The building codes are only concerned with loss of life and giving people enough time to get out. If designing into the wood structure are fire-break elements structural damage can be isolated and reduced.
Further if this can be achived without much increased costs, it would be worth using it.
Drywall is not naturally fire resistant because of the use of paper facing and a week structure in the gypsum. Firecoded drywall has additives and chemicals used to retard fire but it is not naturally fireproof and breaks down easily at reletively low temperatures.
imasayer
10-07-2006, 17:38
The concept for suggesting the plywood floors of a wood frame assembly could benefit from using a fireproof material is that is creates a mix of combustible and non-combustible materials that may result in saving structures.
The building codes are only concerned with loss of life and giving people enough time to get out. If designing into the wood structure are fire-break elements structural damage can be isolated and reduced.
Further if this can be achived without much increased costs, it would be worth using it.
Drywall is not naturally fire resistant because of the use of paper facing and a week structure in the gypsum. Firecoded drywall has additives and chemicals used to retard fire but it is not naturally fireproof and breaks down easily at reletively low temperatures.
Is this a response to my comments? I don't think you really answered my questions. The question is, how do you deal with penetrations?
Is this a structural product? In other words, can it reaplace plywood/osb in a floor assembly?
tony, have you done any full-scale fire tests of installations using your material?
I don't think it's unreasonable for us to ask for more information about the actual fire performance of this product,given that this seems to be it's only advantage over timber.
We have published our fire test results on-line on our website. We are looking to do more as the demand for different uses develops.
The fire test photos on the site are certainly interesting. The reason I asked about INSTALLATIONS and not the product itself is the same reason imasayer asked- what about the various fixing points, holes for services etc. that need to be cut?
If these are failure points, then the fire safety argument is weakened.
But, it does look like an interesting product as an alternative option.
The material handles very much like drywall for cutting, fixing and refinishing. South Africa and other similar climates should also benefit for its resistance to other elements and things wood has problems dealing with.
I would like to discuss South Africa and its problems with wood that can benefit from magnesiacore. Please drop me an email and we can discuss things more directly.
please answer imasayer's question
How does this product compare to plywood ?
ie Thickness /Bending /Tension /sheet size / metric?? colour / finishes / costs etc etc etc etc etc
Andrew B
11-07-2006, 02:37
Also, what sort of wall assembly was used to garner the one hour rating you website claims?
The rating was achived using 12mm (1/2") board, one layer on each size of 3.5" steel studs as per the assembly noted; taped and refinished as drywall normally is. The assembly passed one hour fire rating but the important note was that the joint compound failed and the board remained true. We believe we can achive the same rating using thinner material and can get higher results with better taping compound and/or using two layers with stagered jointing. We know we can pass the standard assemblies from the tests done.
The assembly at penetrations and such are engineering and design issues. We make and develop the material, can verify/ certify material properties; but the assembllies and how best to use it is up to the designers and contractors that will work with the material.
The rating was achived using 12mm (1/2") board, one layer on each size of 3.5" steel studs as per the assembly noted; taped and refinished as drywall normally is. The assembly passed one hour fire rating but the important note was that the joint compound failed and the board remained true. We believe we can achive the same rating using thinner material and can get higher results with better taping compound and/or using two layers with stagered jointing. We know we can pass the standard assemblies from the tests done.
The assembly at penetrations and such are engineering and design issues. We make and develop the material, can verify/ certify material properties; but the assembllies and how best to use it is up to the designers and contractors that will work with the material.
Mate I'd suggest these questions are very relvant to the success and use of the product, the answer 'It's up to you!' I don't see cutting it! Recommendations are a GOOD thing!
Regarding your post in general I believe structural failure is often an issue where collaspe may endanger other structures. And in regard to timber in this use and failure in regards to flooring use I believe the most obvious way to avoid failure v time might be to increase structural timber sizes to provide a greater sacraficial layer. Much the way large span timber portals out perform steel to this regard!
Andrew B
11-07-2006, 14:06
The rating was achived using 12mm (1/2") board, one layer on each size of 3.5" steel studs as per the assembly noted; taped and refinished as drywall normally is. The assembly passed one hour fire rating but the important note was that the joint compound failed and the board remained true. We believe we can achive the same rating using thinner material and can get higher results with better taping compound and/or using two layers with stagered jointing. We know we can pass the standard assemblies from the tests done.
The assembly at penetrations and such are engineering and design issues. We make and develop the material, can verify/ certify material properties; but the assembllies and how best to use it is up to the designers and contractors that will work with the material.
2 Layers of 5/8" "Type X" Gyp board will give you a one hour rating, you same as you have stated the magnesiaboard will. I am not convinced at all.
The assembly at penetrations and such are engineering and design issues. We make and develop the material, can verify/ certify material properties; but the assembllies and how best to use it is up to the designers and contractors that will work with the material.
Unless you can offer a solution to fixings/holes and detailing,your product has no fire-resistance benefits over plywood or gypsum board.
It's of no comfort to me that when the structure of my house has burnt down the cladding can be re-used.
The solution offered by magnesiacore is to add a significant non-combustible element to the traditional wood frame construction. Plywood and drywall are combustible materials and are a large part of the assembly. Using wood studs and joists and magnesiacore for plywood and wallboard should be a great benefit especially if the costs are not out of range of the usual products.
Tonyafc
I appreciate your original question and think that you are correct to think that the current slate of one hour rated assembles is insufficient as the main means of fire containment to insure prolonged use of a building which experiences an internal combustion of any sort.
But at the same time you really have not sufficiently answered the question of what makes your product a better fireproofing alternative within a one hour rated assembly. A basic one hour fire rated assembly is fairly simplistic and frankly to me just enough for human safety as a primary concern. Rather if you wanted to save your building as well as its contents, one hour rated assemblies is insufficient for my peace of mind.
In Maryland ( US) all new residential construction requires sprinklers ( recessed heads) this is great for both life safety and real estate insurance issues but not for the collector or antiques pack rat.. its a beneficial nightmare. Image your priceless painting or textile soaked with water. Obviously with extra funds more advanced fire suppression systems are available.
Seems to me unless your product were a lot less expensive than the existing well tested standard(s) and easily exceeded the existing performance standard for significantly less funds .. the extra money your product seems to cost would be better served in actual fire suppression rather than marginally less combustible materials.
Are you telling us that my hundred year old barn will survive a hay fire if I use your sheathing product in place of the dry kindling that lets teh light thru everywhere.
Frankly I wish that you had recommended a new fireproofing composite board with an advanced fire resistant sheathing layer... which would also give me a similar high performance ( 1200?C) intumescent elastomer tape for electronic boxes and any other penetrations...better yet if you said your accessory intumescent tapes could fill a flat surface area of four times their width directionally horizontal, then you might have a new product suite that would preform like a super star. Possibly containing and suppressing a fire through containment alone.. Suffocation if you will.
I am imagining that building papers would foam at a set temperature( just below the flash point of a fire) to seal the openings.
Sounds like you offered more like 5 pounds of silica in a ferrite bag:rolleyes:
One of the main uses for Magnesium Oxide is as lining for blast furnaces. So magnesiacore is not going to burn or assist in any combustion.
We offer the material and its up to designer to come up with the best applictations for it. For my money I would rather have something that does not burn or support combustion as the floor board, sheathing and wall board of my home if it does not cost too much more than the usual material and also gets the same job done. Magnesiacore has many more benefits as well and fireproofing is just one more reason to use it.
tony, have you ever heard people say that a chain is onlyas strong as it's weakest link?
the weakest link in a wall assembly is not the sheeting,or even the load bearing timber, but the penetrations through the sheeting, and the fastenings on the structure. If you want to come across as a credible consultant, rather than a hard-sell salesman, what can you offer us in terms of detailing advice for fastening points and service ducts (electrical,AC,etc.) ?
If someone wants to create a fire wall then penetrations are dealt with by fire dampers, fire rated electrical boxes and the other elements normally used to make fire separations that exist, including fire rated caulking and firestoping materials that expand when heated. There is a whole industry around making fire separations, but as always building codes work to create fire escapes to protect life by getting people out within a period of time. They are not concerned with protecting property or salvaging structures. Once a wood frame house fire starts and hits structure the loss of property is significant (if not by the fire directly then by the firefighting water indirectly).
The idea suggested with magnesiacore, is using a material that costs about the same but is also non-combustiable and water resistant for wood frame to reduce the amount of combustible material used. Its not a guarantee that a building will not burn down or that structures and content will be saved, but in can help prevent major fires and/or reduce the amount of damage to the property by reducing what can burn or can be damaged by fire and water.
In the U.S., many of the building codes are begining to require sprinklers even in residential construction- again one could wonder the real intent of the orinances since now we have introduced water damage in to the mix.
The sprinkler system in a conventional wood structure will do more damage than a isolated fire. You would think that insurance companies will be up in arms over that. I would hate to cover the premiums on a sprinklered wood frame house. A common grease fire on a kitchen stove or burnt toast could cause the whole house to be damaged by water from the sprinklers going off.
The sprinkler system in a conventional wood structure will do more damage than a isolated fire. You would think that insurance companies will be up in arms over that. I would hate to cover the premiums on a sprinklered wood frame house. A common grease fire on a kitchen stove or burnt toast could cause the whole house to be damaged by water from the sprinklers going off.
It all depends on the type of sprinkler system installed...they have many systems available that are "zoned" and have better temp controls as to when the system shuts off.
I think the focus should be more on combustible vs non-combustible. Building with combustible materials and then attempting to add something to put the fire out seems counter-productive and more costly. The best alternative to wood framing would be galvanized metal studs and joists. Generally made from recycled steel they go up just as fast.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.