ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 390 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,928
Likes: 34
G
Member
Florida is revisiting this as I said upthread. They have changed the wording of the code for plate penetrations fron "draftstopping" to 'fireblocking" which will eliminate foam in wood construction.
This is still not the same as "firestopping".
I can see that this will be another year of trying to decide what 67 counties and 500 cities will consider appropriate. They seem to be as interested in smoke as they are fire. I suppose red caulk will always work but it is probably more than you need.


Greg Fretwell
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 100
J
JJM Offline
Member
You've got to admit, the whole idea of "fire rated" cauking in wood frame construction is pretty silly... especially in view of all the other combustible materials like insulation, carpeting, drapes, furniture, etc.

Using fire stopping on wood frame construction is kind of like putting a steering wheel lock on Rolls Royce and parking in the South Bronx... a lot of good it'll do.

If we're truly serious about fire safety and protection, we'd stop using wood framing and construction altoghether. If I were to build a new home for myself from scratch, I'd go steel and concrete.

At minimum, the newer fire resistant paint and wood treatments should be applied with all new construction. By the way, anybody have any opinions on these treatments?

Joe

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,928
Likes: 34
G
Member
That is why they say "fire blocking". It just blocks the rapid spread of fire products (smoke) and delays the actual spread of the fire so you have time to get out. If the wall cavity is really fairly well sealed the fire might choke itself out before it ever really gets loose. It is not really that easy to light the side of a 2x4. If you have foam in there the foam itself may be the biggest accelerant for the fire. It certainly will not help the smoke problem.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 3
Cat Servant
Member
As I understand it, fire behaves in ways that sometimes seem to be the opposite of "what common sense would tell you."

In actual fire tests, wood framed walls perform identically as walls with light steel framing. Indeed, contrary to popular expectations, the wood members don't burn, so much as slowly char away.

This all changes if there is active airflow across the wood. That's why draft stops and fire blocks are so critical. Again, testing showed the old practice of blocking every 4 ft was no more effective than blocking every 8 ft, so the requirement was dropped. We now 'block' only at each floor level.

It is correct to note that the vast amount of fuel is in the contents, rather than the building itself.

It is also quite correct that we need to know more than just the electrical code!

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
Are any jurisdictions still on the UBC?
California recently made the switch to the International Code. I thought we were the last to do so.
(The need to know Codes other than the NEC is the reason that this forum area is here)

Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 272
L
Member
[quote=JJM]At minimum, the newer fire resistant paint and wood treatments should be applied with all new construction. By the way, anybody have any opinions on these treatments?[quote/]

Out here at Sequoyah Nuclear, the carpenters apply a chemical to all wood used inside the plant. The chemical makes the wood fire resistant. Not sure for how long, but it turns the wood blue. It also weakens the wood also... not sure on the specifics though. Any one else heard of this?

Last edited by Luketrician; 04/10/07 01:34 AM. Reason: still figuring out the new ubb codes...no luck

Luke Clarke
Electrical Planner for TVA.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 3
Cat Servant
Member
Luke, I am not familiar with the exact product / method you describe, but....

It sounds like a bromate (bromine salt) solution is applied. I don't see how it would 'weaken' the wood, but it might make the surface softer.

Any treatment applied to wood, to make it "fire resistant", has only been evaluated to reduce the surface flammability of the wood. That is, the ability of a flame to catch on the face of the wood, then spread along the surface. There is absolutely no reason to think that the wood will, ultimately, burn any differently than "normal" wood.

AFAIK, all 'fire' and 'rot' treatments applied to wood are based upon some sort of salt (though not necessarily table salt!). Keep this in mind, especially in moist areas; those same salts will corrode metal just as well.

Last edited by renosteinke; 04/10/07 12:54 PM.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,928
Likes: 34
G
Member
Reno you bring up a good point about corrosion. I assume you guys know if you are shooting fasteners or attaching galvanized boxes to the new PT lumber it will rust off your nails, screws and straps. This stuff is tough on anything steel, galvanized or not. The green fasteners are OK but stainless is better. They originally said double hot dipped galvanized will work but I am hearing, "not so much", from my lumber supplier.

Last edited by gfretwell; 04/10/07 10:26 PM.

Greg Fretwell
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5