# Fire proofing joist hanger?



## mtlogcabin (May 9, 2011)

I have 3 story R-2, V-A building with a NFPA 13R system, 2006 IBC

There are some steel columns and beams the I-joist floor system will be hanging from using top flange hangers. The contractor was informed by the fire spray applied fire proofing contractor that the I-Joist hangers need to be fire proofed also since they are steel. The GC is asking if this is required now. Never heard of having to do this.


----------



## Architect1281 (May 9, 2011)

thinking outloud without benefit of code article.

5A construction requires rated floor / ceiling assembly of 1 hour

rated construction assemblies require SUPPORT to match assembly supported,

hanger supporting assembly should be inside a listed assembly (listing support method as hangers)


----------



## brudgers (May 9, 2011)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> thinking outloud without benefit of code article.5A construction requires rated floor / ceiling assembly of 1 hour
> 
> rated construction assemblies require SUPPORT to match assembly supported,
> 
> hanger supporting assembly should be inside a listed assembly (listing support method as hangers)


 I could be wrong, but for some reason I doubt that typical hangers are part of any spray fireproofing listing.


----------



## Builder Bob (May 10, 2011)

The joist hangers are the supporting member for the joists - can the joist hangers be removed and the joist remain supporting the load(s) they are carrying? Some form of protection should be used -

No problem if covered by gypsum board - but open bays could be an issue.

JMHO


----------



## Frank (May 10, 2011)

Think about it-- the hangers are supporting I-Joists

The bare steel hanger's fire resistance is several times that of the I-Joist it is supporting About 20 minutes vs 5 minutes

The gypsum board protecting the I joists will provide adequate protection for the hangers.

Spray on fireproofing would not be effective on sheetmetal joist hangers as these systems depend on the mass of the steel as a heat sink--hence the minimum member size in each listing.

The gypsum board provides its own heat sink.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 10, 2011)

> The bare steel hanger's fire resistance is several times that of the I-Joist it is supporting About 20 minutes vs 5 minutes


That is what The GC and I where thinking. the I-Joist would fail before the hangers.

All of this is in a 1-hour fire rated floor ceiling assembly, nothing is exposed


----------



## fatboy (May 10, 2011)

"All of this is in a 1-hour fire rated floor ceiling assembly"

Bingo, does the listed 1-hour assembly show the condition? If it's part  of the assembly then.........

Sounds to me like the spray applied contractor is looking for a few more bucks, pay for the summer vacation, ya know?


----------



## Builder Bob (May 10, 2011)

If a one hour assembly, then the joist hangers in the bays would be protected by the gypsum board of the listing agency........... done


----------



## mmmarvel (May 10, 2011)

The only question I have is - Is the building a designed building by an engineer?  If so you're answer is easy - what does the engineer require and what will he affix his stamp to.  If it's not an engineered building then this isn't the answer you were looking for.


----------



## brudgers (May 10, 2011)

mmmarvel said:
			
		

> The only question I have is - Is the building a designed building by an engineer?  If so you're answer is easy - what does the engineer require and what will he affix his stamp to.  If it's not an engineered building then this isn't the answer you were looking for.


Plan review by Braille.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 10, 2011)

It is an engineered building.  The problem lies with the monocoat manufacturer will not sign off on the fire proofing of the beam if the joist hangers are not covered unless the AHJ says it is ok. If this was a heavy timber wood beam in lieu of steel the question never would have come up. BTW steel package fabrication is complete and will ship next week so it is to late to change. All the listed assemblies I have looked at never show a floor connection to a beam or wall. They all bear on top of the supporting construction


----------



## steveray (May 10, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Plan review by Braille.


Says the seeing eye dog...


----------



## Mark K (May 10, 2011)

The building official still needs to check the building for compliance even if an engineer designed the building.

This points out one of the problems with the concept that if the item is not in the fire test assembly that it cannot be used.  If you were strict in enforcing this interpretation I expect that you could come to the opinion that no wood building would comply.  We would then find that all manufacturers of joist hangers would have to perform fire tests with there products used in all of the assemblies.  We would probably need a different series of fire tests for different styles of hangers for each manufacturer.  This would make UL rich and increase the cost of construction.

Given that the I-joists have such a low fire rating without the ceiling and the reality that the joist hangersprobably have as good or better rating than the I-joists I suggest they can be used without being listed in the assembly.

I believe that this approach is supported by experience.  There are a lot of fires in wood buildings and if the joist hangers were the weak link in the system I would expect that this would have been identified as a problem.

It is my belief that if we applied a strict literal interpretation to the code we could legally stop all construction.


----------



## permitguy (May 10, 2011)

> The problem lies with the monocoat manufacturer will not sign off on the fire proofing of the beam if the joist hangers are not covered unless the AHJ says it is ok.


That's bull-puckey.  The word of the AHJ won't make their product perform any differently.  If they are concerned about the performance of their product, they should simply say that the hangers need to be sprayed.

My first inclination is to agree with the others and say that if concealed within the rated assembly, then no problem; however, I won't do that if the fireproofing folks are going to put the potential for failure on me.  No way.


----------



## brudgers (May 10, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> however, I won't do that if the fireproofing folks are going to put the potential for failure on me.  No way.


Thanks for reminding us all of two important sections of the code: The one which says "The AHJ shall limit his liability regardless of what the code requires," and of course the one which says "Subcontractors shall determine the applicability of all code provisions."


----------



## Mark K (May 10, 2011)

Where in the code does it require that the firproofing contractor sign off on the installation?  There is a requirement for special inspection of the fireproofing by a special inspector hired by the Owner.  The nature of the special inspections called for by the IBC do not address the composition of the assembly.

Ignore the contractor and ask the Owner to provide the required special inspections.


----------



## fatboy (May 10, 2011)

If it's a listed, tested assembly, and it complies wth the listing, a special inspection is not necessary.


----------



## Mark K (May 10, 2011)

Fatboy

IBC Section 1704.12 requires special inspection even if it is part of a listed assembly.


----------



## Architect1281 (May 10, 2011)

Bruggers I agree that is why I mentioned enclosed within an approved assembly > as a listed / tested support method

I too know of no spay method on a hanger that legitimizes it as rated.

Maybe some of that Magic Intumescent Paint everyone touts these days. (doubtful too)

If it is listed as a portion of something like UL 528 or 529 assembly perhaps .

The same would be true if not on steel but onto a face or top hanger to a Glulam or LVL assembly within a rated assembly.


----------



## fatboy (May 10, 2011)

Don't have my IBC at home with me. You are saying that I HAVE to require special inspections for a listed, rated assembly? Could you please post that section requires that? Because we've been screwing it up for years in this jurisdiction, and there's going to be some PO'd designer/contractor/owners when/if I were to start requiring it.


----------



## Architect1281 (May 10, 2011)

mmmarvel said:
			
		

> The only question I have is - Is the building a designed building by an engineer?  If so you're answer is easy - what does the engineer require and what will he affix his stamp to.  If it's not an engineered building then this isn't the answer you were looking for.


MMM As a RDP myself and a CBO I am sometimes appalled at the length of my plan review comments list requesting clarification or inclusion of means methods.

I word it that way cause non-compliace sounds so negative. So leaving it up to the DRP cause they have a stamp and signature is not a winner for me.


----------



## texasbo (May 10, 2011)

Couple of observations. MTLC, you have to have special inspections for spray applied fireproofing even if it is a listed assembly. How do you know the fireproofing was applied in compliance with the listing? There are some "outs" that allow you to waive special inspections, but I'd be careful using them.

More to the subject: I would think that the fireproofing contractor is not requiring the fireproofing of the hangers for their protection (since they are protected by gyp. bd.), but is requiring them to be fireproofed because they are hung from the beam, and to not apply fireproofing to them would leave the beam unprotected. Can it be proven that the gyp. bd. envelope provides adequate protection for the beam? If so, why is ANY spray applied fireproofing required?


----------



## permitguy (May 10, 2011)

Exactly. . . . .


----------



## permitguy (May 10, 2011)

> Thanks for reminding us all of two important sections of the code: The one which says "The AHJ shall limit his liability regardless of what the code requires," and of course the one which says "Subcontractors shall determine the applicability of all code provisions."


The manufacturer of the product is basically saying "this isn't right, but we'll do it anyway if the building official says we can."  That is clearly problematic.  If you need help understanding why, just ask.  No need to get nasty about it.


----------



## AegisFPE (May 10, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I have 3 story R-2, V-A building with a NFPA 13R system, 2006 IBC


Given V-A, structural frame requires protection. And with 3 stories, subject beam may be supporting more than 2 floors, or 1 floor and 1 roof.

Therefore, per IBC 714.2.1, individual protection of the beam may be required, which would prohibit embedments or enclosures with the beam per 714.3.

The solution may not be as straightforward as over-spraying the connecting joists or relying on the ceiling membrane!  Consider involving a Fire Protection Engineer to address an alternative method for determining fire resistance.


----------



## brudgers (May 10, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> The manufacturer of the product is basically saying "this isn't right, but we'll do it anyway if the building official says we can."  That is clearly problematic.  If you need help understanding why, just ask.  No need to get nasty about it.


You have more than adequately demonstrated why you find it problematic.


----------



## Mark K (May 10, 2011)

Maybe I am dense but I do not understand why the manufacturer of the product saying it isnt right causes an unsurmountable problem.

I would first ask him to state why he believes it isnt right.  What is the applicable code provision that is being violated?  Then I would determine whether I agreed that there is a code issue and take the appropriate response.  In either case he is not allowed to hold things up.  From a code point of view the manufacturer's sign off is irrelevant.

If the manufacturer refuses to perform the work as required by the construction documents it is the Owner's responsibility to resolve it.


----------



## mmmarvel (May 11, 2011)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> MMM As a RDP myself and a CBO I am sometimes appalled at the length of my plan review comments list requesting clarification or inclusion of means methods.I word it that way cause non-compliace sounds so negative. So leaving it up to the DRP cause they have a stamp and signature is not a winner for me.


I agree as I can recall several times where either in plan review we had to call the engineer or (a bit worse) out in the field make a call, basically to say ... "With all due respect, this really/probably isn't going to work."  Then he'd review it or (if it was in the field and he was a stand up guy) he'd come out and look at it and we'd move on.  I've always thought that a part of my job was to help catch things that 'slipped' the eye of the 'professional'.  At the end of the day, it's his name and his stamp on the plans, if we ensure that the structure is built exactly per his plans, the onus falls on him.  Oh, and we would record in the record the date and time of the discussions and what the engineers response was.

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## permitguy (May 11, 2011)

> Maybe I am dense but I do not understand why the manufacturer of the product saying it isnt right causes an unsurmountable problem.


Have you looked at the applicable special inspection provisions?  Have you ever looked at an ES report?  What about any number of sections throughout the I-Codes stating that products be intalled in accordance with their listing and instructions?

If it isn't prescriptive, you have a responsibility to determine its acceptability.  How can you say that something is acceptable when the manufacturer is saying it isn't?  Don't misunderstand me - you can do whatever you want as the AHJ.  You can also be held responsible when the defecation hits the rotary oscillator.  Sorry, I don't adhere to the "give in if it will cost them money" philosophy.  I'm not forcing them to build anything, I'm just here to make sure they build it to the _minimum _code requirements.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 11, 2011)

2006 IBC

714.2.4 Attachments to structural members.

The edges of lugs, brackets, rivets and bolt heads attached to structural members shall be permitted to extend to within 1 inch (25 mm) of the surface of the fire protection.

The Manufacuters rep provided this section that he was given from another AHJ in a different state that require the joist hangers to be covered.

I read that section as allowing a minimum 1 inch amount of coverage on those structural connections in lieu of what the minimum amount required by the listing. I do not see how this could be used to require a joist hanger to be fire proofed

BTW the beams in question are interior primary structural members supporting one floor only connected to the columns supporting muiltiple floors and no roof loads. As AegisFPE pointed out individual protection is required for the beams and columns.


----------



## FredK (May 11, 2011)

Here's where I'd go for info:

Contacting UL

UL provides assistance to users of fire resistance assemblies and products, which includes clarification of the published information.

UL also provides a service to investigate modifications to the fire resistance assemblies when requested by the design submitter. Requests for clarification should describe the change and include drawings, if necessary.

Requests for clarifications or investigations can be made by contacting UL at:

Phone: +1 877-ULHELPS (+1 877-854-3577)

Fax: +1 847-574-4017

E-mail: archservices@us.ul.com

UL's website: www.ul.com


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 11, 2011)

Did that 1st been playing phone tag on the call back.


----------



## Mark K (May 11, 2011)

Permitguy

I agree that cost is not a factor unless possibly you want to invoke Section IBC Section 104.10.  I also agree that the focus should be on code compliance.

The code does not require compliance with ES reports.  They have no more legal standing than an engineering report signed by a licensed engineer.  They are only advisory.  In any case I have not seen an ES report that required sign off by the manufacturer.

I understand the concern when the manufacturer says that his product is not appropriate in a given situation but this does not appear to be the case here.  In addition if the material is addressed in the code and it is used in accordance with the code provisions I suggest that the building official cannot reject its use based on the manufacturer’s concerns.  The Owner and his consultants may make their own decision on how to respond to the manufacturer’s recommendations.  This would be different if the material was being used as an alternate means of compliance (IBC Section 104.11) but I do not believe that it is reasonable to interpret that all sprayed on fire proofing be considered as alternate means of compliance.

I understand the need for the work to comply with the approved listing but I am not aware of anything that gives the manufacturer authority on how to interpret the listing nor of anything in a listing that requires the manufacturer’s sign off.

The references in Chapter 17 to manufacturer’s listing in Chapter 17 are limited to Sections 1704.12.2, 1704.12.3, and 1704.15.  Section 1704.15 deals with special cases which is not relevant here.  The other provisions talk in terms of manufacturer’s instructions related to surface preparation, surface temperature, and ventilation.  The question at hand is what needs to be protected.

I consider the code provisions that require compliance with manufacturer’s instructions to be of questionable legality since these provisions require compliance with requirements that were not formally adopted by the appropriate jurisdiction in violation of the due process requirements.  In addition such provisions could create situations like this where the instructions could usurp the building official’s authority to interpret the code.

I suggest that the building official can make the case that code compliance does not require manufacturer’s sign off thus leaving issues of code interpretation to the building official.


----------



## texasbo (May 11, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> 2006 IBC714.2.4 Attachments to structural members.
> 
> The edges of lugs, brackets, rivets and bolt heads attached to structural members shall be permitted to extend to within 1 inch (25 mm) of the surface of the fire protection.
> 
> ...


If the code doesn't even allow deletion of  fireproofing coverage of a bolt head, how can you consider a beam fully protected if a space the size of a joist hanger (or numerous joist hangers) doesn't have fire protection?


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 11, 2011)

GC,arch and sub agree the point where the hangers come in contact with the beam need coverage to adequately protect the beam. It is the remaining 11 inches below the beam the GC and Arch do not believe individual protection is required for the individual hangers


----------



## permitguy (May 11, 2011)

Mark, this is precisely why I emphasized you can do whatever you like as the AHJ.

Manufacturers and listing agencies alike are asked for "engineering opinions" all the time, especially in the case of fire-resistive products.  In my experience, they tend toward the conservative side for the protection of all involved (physical and liability).  I can't imagine why any buidling official would be willing to accept such an opinion when it comes out in favor of the customer, but would disregard it when it does not.  With inspectors facing trial for criminally negligent homicide, and civil penalties being ordered despite the presence of immunity laws, I'm not sticking my neck out for an argument that a first year law student could refute in a matter of minutes with no knowledge of the code whatsoever.


----------



## texasbo (May 11, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> GC,arch and sub agree the point where the hangers come in contact with the beam need coverage to adequately protect the beam. It is the remaining 11 inches below the beam the GC and Arch do not believe individual protection is required for the individual hangers


If the beam is fully protected, then we're on the same page.


----------



## brudgers (May 11, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> GC,arch and sub agree the point where the hangers come in contact with the beam need coverage to adequately protect the beam. It is the remaining 11 inches below the beam the GC and Arch do not believe individual protection is required for the individual hangers


What is providing the required protection for the hanger?


----------



## brudgers (May 11, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> With inspectors facing trial for criminally negligent homicide, and civil penalties being ordered despite the presence of immunity laws,


 Citation please?


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 11, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> What is providing the required protection for the hanger?


The one hour listed ceiling


----------



## permitguy (May 11, 2011)

> Citation please?


Funny, I thought you didn't like people writing citations.  Anyway, here you go:

Criminally negligent homicide charges against buidling inspector:  http://www.snowmasssun.com/article/20110412/FRONTPAGE/110419996

Town and state paying settlement of $10,000,000 each in Rhode Island (also see next reference):  http://www.firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=53306

Rhode Island State law limiting damages to $100,000, except when the damage resulted from a proprietary function (which inspections are not):  http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE9/9-31/9-31-3.HTM


----------



## Architect1281 (May 11, 2011)

Permit guy key to law was that it is a settlement and not a court awarded decision, in RI the building inspectors are under this one

*§ 23-27.3-107.9 Relief from personal responsibility.*

The state building commissioner, the members and staff of the building code standards committee and the board of standards and appeals, the building official, officer, or employee charged with the enforcement, administration and/or review of this code, while acting for the state or a municipality, shall not thereby render himself or herself liable personally, and he or she is hereby relieved from all personal liability for any damages that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act required or permitted in the discharge of his or her official duties. Any suit instituted against any of these officers or employees because of an act performed by him or her in the lawful discharge of his or her duties and under the provisions of this code shall be defended by the legal representative of the state in the case of the members and staff of the building code standards committee and the board of standards and appeals, and the building commissioner or his or her agents or by the legal representative of the municipality, in the case of the building official, officer, or employee, until the final determination of the proceedings. In no case shall members and staff of the building code standards committee and the board of standards and appeals, the state building commissioner, building official, or any of their subordinates be liable for costs or damages in any action, suit, or proceeding that may be instituted pursuant to the provisions of this code and the members and staff of the building code standards committee and the board of standards and appeals, the state building commissioner or his or her agents or an officer of the department of building inspection, *acting in good faith and without malice and within the scope of their employment*, is free from liability for acts performed under any of its provisions or by reason of any act or omission in the performance of his or her official duties in connection with this code.

Carried over from English Rule of Law concept of Soverign Immunity (The King nor the Kings Men can do no wrong - unless they try)

Permit guy were you in RI for the JLC show recently?


----------



## brudgers (May 11, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Funny, I thought you didn't like people writing citations.  Anyway, here you go:Criminally negligent homicide charges against buidling inspector:  http://www.snowmasssun.com/article/20110412/FRONTPAGE/110419996
> 
> Town and state paying settlement of $10,000,000 each in Rhode Island (also see next reference):  http://www.firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=53306
> 
> Rhode Island State law limiting damages to $100,000, except when the damage resulted from a proprietary function (which inspections are not):  http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/Statutes/TITLE9/9-31/9-31-3.HTM


1. The people who were indicted should have watched this video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc]

2. Settlements are paid by insurance companies based on exposure not liability.

Neither set of events establishes liability based on official action nor does either create legal precedent.


----------



## permitguy (May 11, 2011)

> Permit guy key to law was that it is a settlement and not a court awarded decision, in RI the building inspectors are under this one


Understood, but a local AHJ and the state could have both been covered by the tort liability act quoted above, yet they chose to settle in spite of that fact.  You _may_ remain free from personal liability in accordance with the section you posted, but you can bet your career will be over if your actions cost your AHJ and state 20 million dollars collectively.



> 1. The people who were indicted should have watched this video:


I've seen that before, and don't disagree with him, but it is unlikely that failure to cooperate in the investigation would have changed the outcome here.  In fact, the sherriff recommended against forwarding this to a grand jury (though it is ultimately not his decision).  If your strategy is to give in on everything and avoid speaking to the investigators if something bad happens, then best of luck to you.  I prefer to avoid the "something bad happening" if I can.



> 2. Settlements are paid by insurance companies based on exposure not liability.


And when the insurance company doesn't pay the settlement amount in its entirety?  Take a closer read.  I doubt whether you call it exposure or liability is any consolation to the citizens who will now pay higher taxes or go without other services because of the actions of an inspector.



> Neither set of events establishes liability based on official action nor does either create legal precedent.


Maybe not for an ostrich.

mtlogcabin - I'm sorry for taking this so far off topic.  I'll knock it off now (unless someone wants to continue in a new thread).  It's not as if we're going to change each others minds, but it's interesting discussion.


----------



## brudgers (May 12, 2011)

permitguy said:
			
		

> Understood, but a local AHJ and the state could have both been covered by the tort liability act quoted above, yet they chose to settle in spite of that fact.  You _may_ remain free from personal liability in accordance with the section you posted, but you can bet your career will be over if your actions cost your AHJ and state 20 million dollars collectively.


I didn't think you could top the "protect the jurisdiction from liability" section of the code.

Really, I didn't.

But then you cited "Protect my career" and I realized I was in the presence of true greatness.


----------



## fatboy (May 12, 2011)

Is it absolutelly necessary to become a total a$$ on most threads? You actually often have valid points, and I sense that you can articulate them, but inevitably you feel the need to attack and insult. What's your problem? Did you always feel the need to kick sand in the box? Chill out sport.......


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 12, 2011)

> mtlogcabin - I'm sorry for taking this so far off topic


That okay I ahve done the same with other post

Spoke with UL late this afternoon. There is no listed fire rated assembly for a steel beam with I-joist hangers attached to the beam supporting a floor. There has been no testing for the fire rating of I-joist hangers. With that said the failure rate of an I-joist when exposed to fire is about 6 minutes. He stated the heat transfer from the hangers to the beam would be minimal. He did recommend covering the hangers where attached to the beam  just as all hangers for other trades are.


----------



## Mark K (May 12, 2011)

There is a difference between what a fire test reports and the informal recommendation from a person who works at UL.  I would suggest that you provide the information you uncovered to the Owner and his architect, and then tell them that there is no code basis for requiring the additional fire proofing.


----------



## brudgers (May 12, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Is it absolutelly necessary to become a total a$$ on most threads? You actually often have valid points, and I sense that you can articulate them, but inevitably you feel the need to attack and insult. What's your problem? Did you always feel the need to kick sand in the box? Chill out sport.......


There are legitimate concerns regarding code enforcement, and there are illegitimate concerns.

If you want to turn a blind eye to the encouragement of unethical behavior in code enforcement, that is your choice.

You will be at least be liked, if not respected for it.


----------



## permitguy (May 12, 2011)

> If you want to turn a blind eye to the encouragement of unethical behavior in code enforcement, that is your choice.


If I thought you knew anything of ethics, I might be insulted by that.

Apparently Milton forgot to teach you about your responsibilities in this business beyond the blue book.  You probably don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm sure you have an insult to throw at me on the matter.


----------



## texasbo (May 12, 2011)

Brudgers said:

"There are legitimate concerns regarding code enforcement, and there are illegitimate concerns.

If you want to turn a blind eye to the encouragement of unethical behavior in code enforcement, that is your choice.

You will be at least be liked, if not respected for it. "

The proper enforcement of codes and therefore protecting my employer from unnecessary lawsuits is a very legitimate concern, and is a concept that even someone with little intelligence could understand.

I am not surprised that you have trouble with it.

I am disturbed, however, that you consistently lobby for code officials to make decisions that are not in the best interest of the protection of the public nor protection from litigation.

The design professionals we work with are universally better than that; I'm glad we only have to deal with you on a chat forum.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 12, 2011)

New twist. I ran this by the a former plans examiner and he pointed out the following.

714.2.1 Individual protection.

Columns, girders, trusses, beams, lintels or other structural members that are required to have a fire-resistance rating and that support more than two floors or one floor and roof, or support a load-bearing wall or a nonload-bearing wall more than two stories high, shall be individually protected on all sides for the full length with materials having the required fire-resistance rating.(Beams support one floor only therefore do not have to be fully encased) Other structural members required to have a fire-resistance rating shall be protected by individual encasement, by a membrane or ceiling protection as specified in Section 711 ( the one-hour floor/ceiling assembly provides the required protection for the beam, hangers and I-joist), or by a combination of both. Columns shall also comply with Section 714.2.2.

So my gut reaction that this was okay has been backed up with the code.

 Now the delima, brudgers I want your opinion from the design side, Do I tell the Arch the fire proofing of the beam is not required by code or let the original design stand and just answer the original question about the fire proofing of the joist hangers. I like the idea of the extra protection on the beam and going above the code but I also understand the importance of bringing a job in within budget and trying to save cost. Normally I do not question an Arch who specs designs above code minimums but this is a big ticket item.


----------



## brudgers (May 12, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> The proper enforcement of codes and therefore protecting my employer from unnecessary lawsuits


  Proper enforcement of the code *may thereby* protect your employer from lawsuits.

But it does not logically follow that protecting your employer from lawsuits is part of proper code enforcement.

Indeed, considering your employer's exposure to lawsuits *may be  *a breech of a code official's responsibility.

Of course, placing one's career ahead of code enforcement as advocated by some person's in this thread is obviously the next step down the slippery slope of logic twisted by rationalizations of self-interest, i.e. protecting my career protects my employer from lawsuits which protects the public.

However, I am hardly surprised by your position on the matter having become familiar with your "character."


----------



## brudgers (May 12, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Now the delima, brudgers I want your opinion from the design side, Do I tell the Arch the fire proofing of the beam is not required by code or let the original design stand and just answer the original question about the fire proofing of the joist hangers. I like the idea of the extra protection on the beam and going above the code but I also understand the importance of bringing a job in within budget and trying to save cost. Normally I do not question an Arch who specs designs above code minimums but this is a big ticket item.


Since you do not know all the implications of design - i.e. there may be other reasons for protecting the beam, IMO it is not proper to tell the architect "it is not required."

On the other hand, "I'm not sure it is applicable, but have you looked at 714.2?" when discussing the situation directly with the architect (not via the contractor) is appropriate. Let them make the decision.


----------



## Mark K (May 12, 2011)

When the building official tells the Owner or Contractor that something the design professional specified was not needed it can undermine the Owner's opinion of the design professional.  Sure the DP may have inadvertently specified something that was not required but it is possible that he did it intentionally.  I have seen situations where the inspector said something wasn't necessary where the inspector didn't know what he was talking about.


----------



## texasbo (May 12, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> But it does not logically follow that protecting your employer from lawsuits is part of proper code enforcement.


Nobody has said that it does. What was said is that properly enforcing the code helps to avoid lawsuits, and that improper enforcement leads to career loss. Two very intuitive and easy to understand concepts. You're just too ignorant to know the difference.

But then again, strangely enough, you're not in that career anymore anyway. Can't imagine why...

And it's always fun to twist quotes to fit whatever ridiculous point you're trying to make, isn't it?


----------



## Jobsaver (May 12, 2011)

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?4628-Why-can-t-all-forums-...


----------



## fatboy (May 12, 2011)

Yeah, sometimes it don't work out the way you hoped..........some folks have a problem playing nice.


----------



## brudgers (May 12, 2011)

texasbo said:
			
		

> But then again, strangely enough, you're not in that career anymore anyway. Can't imagine why...


I didn't play nice and actually enforced the code.

It was not politically acceptable.

Two Senior Plans Examiner positions were cut to pay for police cars in the wake of the Iraq invasion.

I was the least senior Senior Plans Examiner.


----------



## AegisFPE (May 13, 2011)

> the one-hour floor/ceiling assembly provides the required protection for the beam, hangers and I-joist


The challenge with this supposition, is that the testing of a floor/ceiling assembly is through the entire assembly, not to a member within the assembly.It could be said that the joists are part of the 1-hour assembly, but it is the entire assembly itself that is rated to 1-hour.  Therefore, if the subject beam required to be protected with 1-hour protection were sitting on the floor above the floor/ceiling assembly, then it could be said to be separated from the space below by 1-hour protection.

However, where the member is buried within the interstitial space of the assembly, the only thing separating the structural member is the ceiling membrane, which may not afford the prescribed 1-hour protection.  Further, if not individually protected, then additional scrutiny of the wall membranes and protection of head-of-wall penetrations into the interstitial space of the floor/ceiling assembly could also be considered.


----------



## jannypan (May 16, 2011)

thinking outloud without benefit of code article.

5A construction requires rated floor / ceiling assembly of 1 hour

rated construction assemblies require SUPPORT to match assembly supported,

hanger supporting assembly should be inside a listed assembly (listing support method as hangers)


----------

