# ul# for steel Wbeam / steel tube / metal stud assembly???



## syarn (Apr 21, 2010)

3 story, 68,000 sf, type IIb, apartment (residential R-2), nfp13r.

8" conc plank supported by W steel beams , steel tubes and steel cross braces.

code analysis determined that the steel beams, steel tubes & cross braces need to be "individually" protected because bldg higher than 2 stories per section 714 IBC 2006.

design called for steel tube columns & braces to be protected with spray fireproofing ul x771.

the horizontal assembly floor is ul j957 which could include spray fireproofing supporting floor beams.  drawings had beams wrapped with 2 layers of type X gyp bd per gypsum association GA-610-02.

contractor started attaching metal stud track directly to the bottom flange of floor supporting beams, sides of tube columns and sides of cross bracing BEFORE spray fireproofing and NOT using the typical "clips" to set off the metal stud track runners...

is there a ul or some kind of recognized testing certification that allows the metal studs to be spray fireproofed along with the structural steel to achieve the rating and the individual protection required?

been looking at joint ul number HW-D-1082....

is there a ul if the beams, columns and braces are wrapped in type X drywall than the columns and braces are enclosed inside U465 walls?

see jpeg at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/tJiNqjV2rd_E5x82npQlEA?feat=directlink


----------



## syarn (May 10, 2010)

update

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B8MIb4l-3dteYTU2YTFmZjktOWZkZi00YjdhLTgwYWMtMmI1MWU5ZDhkMWU0&hl=en

this link is to a letter submitted by the contractor.

does this type of UL letter provide the "validation" for the 1 hour fire rating coupled with the UL design numbers where these materials meet?

concerns:  letter is dated 2003, references a specific project (not the one in question) and does NOT include the X771 & J957 ul designs;  also the word "steel channel" in the letter - not clear if this is referencing metal stud or an actual C-section...


----------



## Gene Boecker (May 10, 2010)

stay tuned. . . .

UL is beta testing a new search engine for their tested assemblies. It should be launched in the next few months.

Check in at http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/perspectives/regulator/fireandbuilding/ to see if it's posted yet.


----------



## syarn (May 11, 2010)

ok

thanks

how would I use this?

the issue is the contractor seems to be building & joining materials together without accounting for the standard UL designs submitted or originally documented.

as per the OP the contractor is proceeding with the work without using the standard "clips" to set the light gauge metal studs away from the structural steel to allow for spray fireproofing to encapsulate the structural steel OR per the original drawings the contractor should wait until the interior is "dried in" and than wrap the structural steel beams with the type X gwb.

THAN proceed with the metal stud framing at the structural steel....


----------



## Mule (May 11, 2010)

syarn, I see by your profile you're an architect. Are you the architect of record for the project? If so, don't you have the authority to accept or reject the project?


----------



## syarn (May 11, 2010)

yes I am the architect of record working as an employee for a design firm that is an incorporation.

others in the firm on the team are involved processing certificates of payment and attending job site meetings which of course I supervise.

the firm has identified in the meeting minutes copied to the client soon after the field condition was observed that the means and methods for this part of the project appeared to deviate from achieving the UL designs in the drawings and/or submittals...


----------



## Mule (May 11, 2010)

syarn said:
			
		

> also the word "steel channel" in the letter - not clear if this is referencing metal stud or an actual C-section...


Steel channel, aluminum channel.....if it's covered by fire resistant material to meet the code what difference is it if it's steel or aluminum channel? You still have the beam protected with fire resitive material IF sprayed on! I don't see how they are going to wrap the beam in Type X the way the configuration is in the picture.

If you are not comfortable with it, reject it! What does the building official say?

Me personally...as a building official would say..."Not built according to plans. Tear it out and redo it or get the architect to resubmit what is being constructed and that what is being constructed is to code."


----------



## Gene Boecker (May 11, 2010)

We discussed this issue last week at the UL Fire Council meeting.

If the design isn't as it is shown in the UL Directory, it is not a listed system.  If there are any modifictainos that decrease the thickness of the fire proofing, there is a clear reduction in the insulative properties of the steel protection.  None of the engineers at UL will consider writing a letter telling anyone that the system meets the listing.  Further, they may even note that a reduction in protection is likely.

If it's not listed, it doesn't meet 703.2.  Unless there are alternate methods employed (703.3) to show that the rating is still provided, the design isn't to code.  That's not to sy taht it won't provide the protection necessary.  It just means that there's no way to know that.  And if you don't know what the hourly rating is, it could be zero.

Tell them to come up with a concept that maintains the UL listing or else find another place to play games with people's safety.


----------



## syarn (May 12, 2010)

thanks all

gene agree; not looking for letter from UL saying it meets J957 or X771;

the letter referenced in my 5/10/10 post submitted by the fire protection vendor is from UL and does say "...hourly ratings for column designs....or beam designs...will be maintained if the following conditions are met..." seems good to me for "validating" that a UL design is maintained with modifications;  just had concerns with some of the details of the letter mentioned in my 5/10/10 post.

did send some emails to UL people (including the 2 people who signed the posted letter matter of fact) with no response yet.

mule has good point about the spray coverage thickness regardless of material type & size....

will suggest the team check with the building official as well...the field members in the office on the team have not commented on bldg inspector feed back.

the HUD inspector is definitely at the bi-weekly meetings....hmm...the local township inspector does not seem to attend the job meetings.


----------

