# APA's Proposed Solution to R501.3



## fatboy (Sep 3, 2014)

What say you you all?

I will hold my opinion back for now...........

View attachment 2445


----------



## steveray (Sep 3, 2014)

I don't know that I have time to care.....the longer we keep sprinklers at bay, the happier I am.....


----------



## High Desert (Sep 3, 2014)

Considering the main causes of home fires are:

- Cooking fires

- Playing with fire/smoking related

- Holiday fires, lights candles, etc.

- fireplaces and woodstoves

- Older homes with substandard electrical wiring and lack of fire blocking

- Arson

The crawl space protection is a bunch of hooey if you ask me.

As for the APA solution, wrapping the I-joist really doesn't do anything unless they wrapped the entire joist.


----------



## TheCommish (Sep 3, 2014)

if it has an ES report or equal, i will approve it, if the contractor want to do all that work


----------



## GBrackins (Sep 3, 2014)

http://www.icc-es.org/Reports/pdf_files/ESR-1405.pdf

see Section 4.3


----------



## Buelligan (Sep 3, 2014)

Interesting, here in West Virginia, the state gives us the option of sprinkler systems or an alternative similar to this. No wrapping of individual members, just the first one. A layer of 1/2" drywall on the floor system in pretty much the same parameters. We feel it still needs a little clarification but it is at least an option to sprinklers. I believe one of the big issues here is the fact that more than half of the state is still well and septic. Very little public water. Plus the fact that only 8 out of the 55 counties actively enforce building code means this will not be utilized in much of the state. Despite the fact that it is state code and required whether or not there is enforcement and inspections.

§87-4-5 Fire Protection of Floors in Residential Buildings –

New One and Two Family Dwellings over one level in height. New One and Two Family Dwellings containing a basement, and One and Two Family Dwellings containing a crawl space containing a fuel burning appliance below the first floor, shall provide a method of fire protection of floors (1) A ½ inch (12.7mm) gypsum wall board membrane, 5/8 inch (16 mm) wood structural panel or equivalent on the underside of the floor framing member; (2) Wood floor assemblies using dimensional lumber or structural composite lumber equal or greater than 2 inch by 10 inch (50.8 mm by 254mm) nominal dimension, or other approved floor assemblies demonstrating equivalent fire performance: or (3) An Automatic Fire Sprinkler System as set forth in section R313.2 of the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code for One and Two Family Dwellings: Provided, That floor assemblies located directly over a space protected by an automatic sprinkler system as set forth in section R313.2 of the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code for One and Two Family Dwellings are exempt from this requirement


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Sep 3, 2014)

At the end of the day how can any of the exceptions provided be expected to be maintained and meet the equivalency of sprinkler protection (with or without proper utilization of a TI camera)?

Wouldn't put past nanny to have monitored fire alarms in the IRC in the near future.


----------



## JBI (Sep 3, 2014)

Actually, I think these changes are long overdue (not that I think all the options in the ESR are practical...).

I have many friends and even more students in the fire service, and I believe these provisions in the Code are more about keeping responders safe in a structure fire than they are about protecting property per se.

While I think that individually wrapped TJI's are impractical, they would certainly keep floors tenable for longer periods of time than 3/8" OSB that is unprotected.


----------



## GBrackins (Sep 3, 2014)

other approved options

http://www.woodbywy.com/trus-joist/flak-jacket/

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files//ESR-1153.pdf


----------



## kyhowey (Sep 3, 2014)

I contacted the APA about the additional dead load applied if you were to finish the basement at a later date.  The I-joist would have drywall sandwiched on both sides and then drywall hung from the bottom.  It would decrease the dead load capacity 3.4 psf on a 12" I-joist spaced 24" oc.  The engineer stated that it would most likely not be a problem unless the I-joist is close to it's max span.  If I had concerns, he stated that I should contact the designer.


----------



## Buelligan (Sep 3, 2014)

JBI said:
			
		

> Actually, I think these changes are long overdue (not that I think all the options in the ESR are practical...). I have many friends and even more students in the fire service, and I believe these provisions in the Code are more about keeping responders safe in a structure fire than they are about protecting property per se.
> 
> While I think that individually wrapped TJI's are impractical, they would certainly keep floors tenable for longer periods of time than 3/8" OSB that is unprotected.


That is exactly the reasoning behind our adoption of this language. The fire fighters wanted sprinklers to be mandatory but compromised if this was included because of the documented injuries from entering structures built with this engineered lumber.


----------



## Rick18071 (Sep 3, 2014)

Here in PA we have the same thing as WV. Nothing about needing to spackle the drywall on the cieling.


----------



## fatboy (Sep 3, 2014)

Had a chance to check out the ES report, looks like it is legit for the gypsum options.

http://www.icc-es.org/Reports/pdf_files/ESR-1405.pdf


----------

